![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Abdul Jalib,
Someone told me you have a web page of sorts that explains your philosophy of 100% raising/folding. I would like to read it, how do I get to this information. Roy Cooke says nice things about you in a recent Card Player artical. I read your posts I'm becoming a fan.
SPM, ...currently Mayor of Any2card Town...
SPM,
A while ago I critcized a post you made for having some "grammatical" errors. Since then I have read your other posts and it seems I was in error. You are FUNNY, period. Personally, I think you are great for 2+2 and I look forward to reading any future posts. Forget Abdul, when's your website coming out?
"SPM, ...currently Mayor of Any2card Town..." - I laughed for 5 minutes straight.
Dear El Gato,
If you think SPM is funny in text, you should be at a table with him. His wit is razor sharp and so quick that it will have you screeching laughter. I played with him last week and he was in top form. His retorts are one right after the other. It boggles the mind how his mind can formulate such amazing comments so damn quickly. And then there's his "tip-mobile"...but I can't describe that..you have to be there.
desire
I concur with the Mayor. You should have raised and then bet after the flop as well, in my opinion.
As for the Mayor, you may want to relate once more for the new guy what happened to you when you went cap crazy with pocket queens against me and the flop came A K Q rainbow...hehehe.
NOT rubbing it in..see you this weekend :))
Seeing the lady in the red visor is always expensive. Are you a pro?
SPM, ...trying to get a little for the lady in the red visor...
Rick,
John said brilliant because I'm the bald mentor. Your the "pretty boy" mentor. He'll mention you next time.
Vince.
Vince,
John does not need a mentor for baldness.
Regards,
Rick
I have AhJh on the button, in a full 40/80 game.
Everyone folds. I raise. SB (very weak, loose player) calls. BB (very good player, although willing to call with a wider variety of hands in the blinds) calls as well.
The pot is 3 BB
The flop comes J43 - with 2 spades (J being a spade).
SB checks. BB bets. I raise. SB folds. BB 3 bets.
I know that the BB knows I'm a solid/tight player, and I think it highly unlikely for him to 3 bet with a flush draw. In order for him to 3 bet, he has to think one of the following : 1. that I am on a flush draw trying to get a free card. 2. that I have AK/AQ trying to get a free card. 3. that I have an overpair, and he almost definitley has to have a J (not two pair, as he would not have called with J4, J3 or 43) or a set
I put him on a weaker J, like KJ, QJ or a set of 4s or 3s. I'm either way ahead or way behind. I call the 3 bet.
The turn is a Ad.
He checks.
This gives me zero information about what he had. If he had a set, he would check/raise me, thinking I have an ace and would bet it. If he just had a Jack, he would probably fold it now due to my strength (the only thing he could beat is a flush draw, notice he'd lose to a J with a higher kicker, QQ, KK or AK, AQ, AT, hands that he are afraid of), and since I'd bet on the river even if a flush didn't come, he may fold then too....so it seems likely that I'm losing more bets if he has a set, but gaining nothing if he doesn't....I just want to make sure I get one bet from him if I'm ahead, and lose just one bet to him if I'm behind....so checking seems like the way to accomplish this feat
I check.
The turn is a blank (let's say 7d).
He bets.....I call.
He turns over J8.
Comments?
He's going to 3-bet the flop with any jack or any pocket pair because you should raise his bet with just about anything to let him know there will be a showdown, increase your leverage on a later street and knock out the sb. His check on the turn screams "one pair;" he has no reason to believe you'll bet his set or 2 pair for him. Your check on the turn was a mistake, IMO.
thanks for your opinion....you wrote : "His check on the turn screams "one pair;" he has no reason to believe you'll bet his set or 2 pair for him. Your check on the turn was a mistake, IMO. "
If this is definitely true (that he has only one pair - and that pair is likely Jacks), and he is likely to fold if I bet the turn (this is my opinion), then a bet on the turn is a big loser....I want him to bet the river, or call a river bet from me. If he has a Jack, he has zero outs.
you have to bet turn to make him pay if he is on a draw
the turn is the time to make him pay with your good hand...the river is never the place to try and make up lost bets (he may have caught a card and drawn out on you)
Why on earth would you check the turn? You just improved by catching nearly the best card you could have caught, and you are going to give him a FREE chance to suck out on you? AND you have POSITION. A bet on the turn is MANDATORY. You are lucky he didn't suck out on you on the turn. If he check-raises the turn, I would call him down with my top two.
Dave in Cali
I too would have bet the turn. However, I suspect kx earned a big bet by slow-playing (checking) the turn and inducing a river bet. The skilled opponent in the blind with a naked jack should rightfully fold when the pre-flop raiser bets the ace on the turn. This play was profitable, but way too passive for my taste. Once kx induced the river bet, I agree that he should've popped his opponent another $80 and made him pay to see "top two" at a showdown. A worthy opponent may not pay off the extra bet on the river, but you'll sure give him second thoughts about his ability to put you on a hand.
I agree. That's what I thought people would have a problem with - the fact that I just called the river. A river raise is great, because it may seem to the skilled Big Blind that I missed my flush and now had a desparation raise to try to win the pot.
I believe the turn check was perfect...but I am ashamed of not raising the river.
Thanks for your opinion Dave. Please notice however, that he had zero outs on the turn. And if I bet, I'd likely get zero bets, however, with a check, I did get one bet out of him. I'm 100% sure with the hand he had (J8), that I would not have gotten 2 bets out of him (turn and river).
Given that, do you still hold the same opinion? (I just wanted to make sure I pointed that out to see if that changes anything). Thanks for the input!
You said big blind was a very good player yet he called a raise with J,8 (suited?). Do any of the other posters think that this is a hand that a blind should be defended with? Poor poker IMHO.
I described him as "very good player, although willing to call with a wider variety of hands in the blinds"
Given that I am on the button, and the small blind calls....I think its worth a call..for any player.
I'm going to go against the popular response of betting the turn. You described this player as solid, he should have had a much stronger hand then he did. And although I know the results ahead of time your thinking seems sound to me, had you bet the turn he would have surely folded.
see my post below (meant to post here).
When you factor in the fact that it's a steal situation, I think the consensus is correct. If the raise came from, say, two slots earlier, I would have played it this way because now the blind has to respect the raise a lot more, which makes the 3-bet much scarier.
I've read the other posts, and while I'd probably have bet the turn, I actually think this is a very interesting hand.
It's interesting, because had you played this hand with both of your cards face up AND you knew he'd fold a worse jack, checking the turn is the only play. I'm not as critical as the others because if he does not have specifically a spade or straight draw, a free card is not terrible. On the other hand, if he has a set, you're glad you checked.
The only problem is you can't see his cards or know what he'd fold. He may also have check raised you with AK...
= Raider
Raider wrote : "The only problem is you can't see his cards or know what he'd fold. He may also have check raised you with AK... "
I can not see his cards, that is correct, but based on the betting (the flat call preflop), the 3 bets on the flop, how I know how this player plays, and how I know how this player thinks I play....it led me to believe with a very high degree of certainty that he had just a Jack.
He would have 3 bet AK preflop, I'm 90% sure of that.
Originally I agreed with you but I think you/we have to put more weight on the fact that he raised first in on the button. This means he could have a very wide variety of hands, even if he is a tight player.
I cannot explain such bizarre plays. It doesn't even begin to make sense even if you were trying to "vary your game" to come in with Trey-Deuce suited under the gun or Ace-Five offsuit under the gun in a full tabled limit hold-em game. They must have misread their hands or were drinking something.
Jim,
Two weeks ago I three-bet a solid early raiser with A4o. The day after I made the play I bought a pair of reading glasses ;-). Getting old is tough.
Regards,
Rick
"Although, you have done it alot and in most cases been right, so overall, are you ahead or behind on those types of laydowns?I would have to guess that you are ahead in the overall picture with those plays"
"Most cases" is not enough.
Vince
No doubt I still have a lot to learn...
If you're talking about about folding for a bet on the river, I agree that most cases is not enough, but calling 2 cold on the turn in a situation where it can get re-raised behind you AND you could be drawing 100% bonofiably dead, is a completely different story.
It's different not only because it's a multi-way pot, but I truly feel that over 90% of the time one pair just isn't going to cut it here, and it's going to cost 3 big bets to find that out. (Anytime I call the turn with a hand as opposed to a draw, I'm much more apt to call the river). Even if I did have 8 outs to two pair, I was getting less than 4:1. If it got re-raised behind me my odds are cut to 3.5:1, all the while the possibility exists I'm drawing dead (I know I keep mentioning that but I think it's important).
Anyway, this post has given me much to think about. Thanks.
Kevin
"No doubt I still have a lot to learn... "
This is either a false statement or a statement that is true for most of us.
Kevin,
First, let me remind you that Jim Brier, one of the best hand analysis guys here on this forum, said he would fold also. Jim plays higher than I do. Jim has been touted by Roy Cooke and I believe Mason as a very good player. On the other hand I have a big mouth. I also allow myself to be a little more skeptical of my opponents when I have Aces and the board is not paierd.
Vince
Well Abadaba, I was just telling David yesterday that perhaps we were beginning to see a new Ababdaba -- someone who would concentrate his considerable talents on poker rather than insults. But as usual, you prove to be a disappointment.
I suggest you read Jim Brier's post above. You may also want to read the warning we give in HPFAP-21 about playing hands that contain a deuce or trey in them. See page 187 in the "Playing Shorted Handed" section.
Mason,
I have a suggestion for you. Ask around at either of the cardrooms in which Abdul is well known and see how many people you can find, besides yourself of course, who will say a cross word about him. This may give you a little perspective.
His point in this post was quite simple and it was not insulting. A while ago he was discussing the merits of open raising with every hand that you (you being a generic you - winning poker player- not you Mason specifically) open with. You began insulting him and coming up with a barage of "great" poker players who do not play this way and in fact open limp much of the time. Abdul simply noted that one of the hands that one of your "great" players limped with was a hand that he should not have been playing at all, let alone raising with. Had you qualified your statement a few months ago to say, "If you are occasionally going to add deceptive hands such as 3,2s perhaps you should open limp with more hands that have real value to disguise your real trash..." or something to that effect.
I thought the point of his post was quite simple. If you are going to compare great players who always open-raise to great players who sometimes open-limp, at least make sure that they are playing the same caliber hands or the results will be inconclusive.
Regards
I was in Vegas in Oct. and played with Abdul. I thought he was a perfect gentleman. At one table we were playing with three real jerks and Abdul handled the situation with a lot of class. I haven't digested all of his stuff on his web page but I think it is a great contribution to Holdem, especially the short-handed stuff. (Abdul-the next time I come to Vegas I will be a non-smoker!)--Mike
Lonestar,
Darlin', unfortunatley, I believe that you are the one missing the point. I have never met Abdul. I will be in Vegas later this month and hope to meet you both. First let me say that I do not oubt Abdul's ability at playing or discussing poker. More specifically Holdem Poker. I don't believe I've seen him address stud. Maybe Omaha. But his posting about Holdem is enough to convince me that he is one of the best. His thoughts should be appreciated and valued by all who (or is it that, excuse my english) post here.
Quite frankly I believe Mason knows that. The point you miss has nothing to do with 3,2o or talk about great players. The point reflected in Mason's "Abadaba" and Abdul's posting of the 3,2 hand in the first place is that these two fellows just don't like each other. Being a person that is loved by everyon I don't understand the behavior of these two but as long as they both keep posting I will accept there little squabbles. Besides the discussion of the merits or non-merits of playing weak hands that grew out of this 'jealousy" relationship is worth the little jabs they toss each others way. Boys will be boys. Or don't you agree. LONESTAR - Wow, I love that handle.
vince
Vince,
I agree with your point. I believe this feud started when some articles were written by Mason in poker magazines. He routinely attacked various posts made by Abdul on rgp with comments like "Some internet poster made the following comments; here is why they are wrong...". On at least a couple of occasions, Mason deleted Abdul's posts for no reason that we could determine other than they disagreed with MM comments or philosophies. It has now become a battle of wills that will likely not ever be resolved.
As to Abdul posting on games other than holdem, he is a pretty solid stud player though he doesn't play it very often. He would likely say there are people far more expert than he to post about it. He plays a very good game of Omaha HL, but again, doesn't play it nearly as often as holdem. Since most of the situations that he posts about involve hands he was in or personally witnessed, these usually occur in holdem.
Regards-
P.S. For those who read my previous post, please excuse the fragmented sentence. I know better than to post when I am really tired but the attacks on my husband made me emotional enough to use bad judgement and post anyway.
Regards
Don't you know ANYTHING about poker Abdul???
32s UTG is a RAISING HAND!!!!!
Oh wait, no, it's a limp-reraising hand!!!!!
Go Figure on how THAT guy played it...
Seriously though, 32s and A5o are asking for trouble being played UTG and I don't care who you write for or how good you supposedly are. I cannot see that you would have any EV on this play, except for maybe NEGATIVE EV.
Something I have discovered: a lot of people can talk a really good game, but when it comes to practice, they are still way too loose and probably a small winner at best if not a loser. I met a man who could quote mason and david verbatim from half a dozen books. A walking encyclopedia of 2+2 quotes and anecdotes. But he kept calling my raises with KJ and losing to me with kicker trouble on the river. And he would probably play 32s or A5o UTG.
The point of this is not to point fingers, since I don't know who you are talking about anyway. The point is that would you want someone else to say these things about you? Are you really a winner? Do you really put your knowledge and skills into practice at the table?
I am sure you do Abdul....
My last trip to vegas I did not play any offsuit aces less than ATo and I never lost to a better kicker. Felt pretty good.
Actually, if I HAD to play A5o or 32s UTG, I would probably rather play 32s (easier to get away from), but it's sort of like choosing between smallpox and plague....
Dave in Cali
Dave:
Just a small point. But if "My last trip to vegas I did not play any offsuit aces less than ATo and I never lost to a better kicker."
You are probably playing a little too conservatively.
A similar example would be the person who when he bluffs no one ever calls. He's probably not bluffng enough. Or, when you call (on the end) you always catch your opponent bluffing (or at least have the better hand). You are probably not calling enough.
Playing offsuit aces less than ATo might cost you some earn here and there, but it is not a major leak in a standard loose full table game.
- Andrew
you may be right about this one Mason. I think because I was basically winning most of the time, I was erring on the side of slightly too tight, most likely in order to protect my win. Illogical, I realize, but I don't claim to be perfect. However, I will sometimes play A9o or even A8 or A7 if late and first in, but I usually raise. Good point though.
If you are going to make an error early in the hand you should probably be slightly too tight. At least this way you avoid compounding errors later on. Late in the hand you should probably be a little too loose.
Epilogue... Last night, I was playing in a $15-$30 game with one of the 2+2 website participants who witnessed Mason's exemplar player playing fishy in general and early open-limping with 32s in particular. Also in the game was the Poker Digest author whom we both saw open-limp early with A5 the previous night. Once in this second game when "Poker Digest" open-limped early, what do you think he revealed in the showdown? 32s! We were rolling on the floor laughing our asses off!
-Abdul
Both of these hands are instumental in making a wheel. A valuable hand in Hi-Lo Hold'em.
I now know that you are referring to Hal when you talk about the person who played the 32 suited. So the question is how well does this person play? The answer is very well though too loose at times.
For those who don't know, Hal has vision problems and is legally blind. When playing poker he has to sit in one of the ends seats or else he can't follow the action at all. Also, Hal finds The Mirage a little easier to navigate around in so because of that he has basically stayed at the $20-$40 level while the most of the other good players all moved to $30-$60 or higher at The Bellagio.
So what makes Hal so good? It is the fact that he plays his hands extremely well after the flop. I could give some examples of plays that I have seen from him, which virtually no one else makes at that level, but I don't think it is fair to Hal to expose some of his tricks.
But Hal, in my opinion, does have a couple of weaknesses. The most obvious one is that he plays a few too many hands. He also believes in rushes to some degree and if he wins a couple of good pots will frequently play the next hand no matter what he has or what his position is.
But the bottom line is this. Since The Bellagio opened approximately two years ago I believe that Hal has been the biggest winner in The Mirage $20-$40 game by far. I believe this based on my observation and what others have told me. (As one Mirage regular put it, "Hal is the luckiest player I know." But I (meaning me) know better.)
A more interestng question is how would Hal do in the bigger games against other players who play as well on the flop and beyond but also play less hands. I believe that Hal would do very well in these games because he would quickly stop playing as many hands as he does. (If he doesn't, he would have some problems. But he understands how to play hold 'em very well and should adapt quickly against tougher opponents.)
As for the Poker Digest author, I have no idea who you are referring to. I am not affiliated with Poker Digest in any way and don't vouch for the skill of any of their writers.
By the way, just to set the record straight for any of our readers, neither David not I advocate ever playing a trey-deuce suited or an ace-five offsuit in early position. But both of us do recognize a good player when we see one even if he does make some mistakes.
ROTFLMAO, though it would be rude for me to say in public exactly why.
-Abdul
mason said: "As for the Poker Digest author, I have no idea who you are referring to. I am not affiliated with Poker Digest in any way and don't vouch for the skill of any of their writers"
last i looked you are the same mason m who is "Poker Digest's Strategy Consultant"
and sklansky's an author there too. you wouldnt vouch for his skill? but you would vouch for this blind dude who plays 23s utg at 20-40? what are the directions to the bellagio again?
I suggest that you look again. Neither David not ZI have any affiliation any more with Poker Digest.
Mason
you wrote:
"By the way, just to set the record straight for any of our readers, neither David not I advocate ever playing a trey-deuce suited or an ace-five offsuit in early position. "
Now the poker world is hanging here, we need an answer. And it has to be specific and absolute and irrevocable. If you do not advocate playing 32s UTG, then where EXACTLY is the cutoff for this hand? And what about A5o? Don't leave us hanging! We are all ready with our notebooks and little hand ranking charts and calculators and simulators, just waiting for the words that will start us on the path to total enlightenment! Wait a second, I thought I was talking to Sklansky! :-)
Dave in Cali
If the flop comes 54A you got to like it.
Full Table 15 - 30 hold em game. I'm on the button with ducks. It gets folded to me. The BB is tight and won't defend without a good hand. The SB is loose and has alot of chips. I'm curious as to who takes a shot with this one and who dumps it.
I gave it a shot and raise to 30, SB calls, BB folds. I really can't imagine a flop I'm going to like that doesn't include a 2, but i got a decent one: 3c, 4c, 5h.
SB checks, I bet, he calls.
The turn is a 9h. SB checks, I bet he calls.
The river is a 2c, putting a 4 straight and a flush out there. SB bets and its up to you. Will post results under as I'm off work in a few minutes and am headed to the casino so won't have time to wait for some responses. Its time to Gamb00l!
I called and the SB had pocket 10's and I take down a nice pot with my 3 ducks. He wasn't too happy with my play, but it was the start of him giving back all his chips and then some.
The SB should be upset about his own play, not yours...IMO he played terrible. I'd re-raise almost everytime out of the SB w/ TT vs a button open - raise. I've most likely got the best hand and would love to get QJ or a bare high card out of the BB. On the flop I'd continue to pound. I'd most likely bet-reraise, since I think the button would raise any range of hand here; this includes a hand like 66-99, A5, A4 - all which I can beat, while I'm behind AA-JJ and a set.If I were 4 bet on the flop I'd check-call to the river or check - fold on the turn(depending on the player). If the hero didn't 4 bet (or even raise me for that matter on the flop) I'd fire on the turn and call any raises and check-call the river. The interesting situation would be if the hero called the re-raise on the flop and then raised on the turn, depending on my read of the opponent, I'd be inclined to lay my TT down at this point. Any comments?
Doug,
Haven't read the results yet. I think you need both blinds to be tight to try to steal with the bottom two or three pairs. And if both are loose than raising with the tiny pairs is a bad play. With one lose blind it is close. Calling is an overlooked option against loose blinds who play poorly post flop.
Since the loose player called pre flop, I think you pay off the river. He could be betting scare cards (although he should be scared of an ace held by you).
Regards.
Rick
I see alot of players just call first in on the button in my game. I'm not a fan of this play at all, especially with a hand like 22 where almost all flops will look horrible. Do you make this play to try and bring in the SB?
Doug,
I don't make it often but I experiment with it. There are some thoughts on this in Feeney's book.
In a nutshell, I want three basic types of opponents as follows:
1) Players who might be suspicious that I just called (they think I might have AA and want to trap them).
2) Ones that play poorly and weakly post flop. In other words, I want players who won't bet middle pair and will give up easily post flop when they don't hit.
3) Players who will be aggressive post flop on all rounds. This gives me good implied odds for my set.
Regards,
Rick
Not that I expected any less.
J-D
I used to be very suspicious when someone limps first in on the button, however in the games I play in, it generally means an average crap hand. I've been raising out of my blind pretty liberally with medium strong hands lately against this with a good bit of success.
Rick,
If the BB is tight, you don't think 22 is worth playing heads up, with position, against a random hand with dead money in the pot?
I am not saying it is or it isn't, but I do think this is an interesting discussion.
My theory is, which may be completely wrong, is that a random hand is only going to flop a pair or better around 30% of the time. So you should be able to steal this on the flop a decent percentage of the time. So, if you can steal this on the flop maybe 20% of the time, and your going to flop a set another 12% or so, I would think this 32% would be enough to play 22 heads up profitably.
That 30% doesn't include the times that they flop a draw, which is actually a better draw than they know because not only are they on a draw, but they have two overcards to you.
Also, if you can't steal it on the flop you have no idea where you are. They could be on a draw, or they could have a pair.
So maybe this play isn't worth getting heads up with unless you think your opponent will lay it down on the flop.
I sometimes play in a pretty tight 10/20 game (I would much rather play the aggressive 15/30 game, but it sometimes doesnt go), so blind stealing in late position is a pretty interesting topic to me.
My cutoff on blind stealing (for pairs) is usually 55 and up unless the blinds are tighter than normal, then I will steal with almost anything.
Anway, I any input would be great.
Derek
PS - I noticed for the first time last night that your name was in the credits in Mike Caro's book of tells video. Which player were you?
Joe,
Too tired to do any analysis but in the video I was the "Dork" who was calling for chips in the green sweater (I'm not 100% sure about the sweater). The odd thing is that I never go all in in a real limit ring game so I really had to "act".
I was also sitting at the table for a couple hands and looking on. Tell Vince I didn't look too "pretty".
Regards,
Rick
I'm not saying it's correct to slow-play AQ in this situation, I'm just telling you what your opponents are thinking. They think you have AK, and they want to make sure they're not beat before they bet.
I think it's a bad idea to play AQ or QJ with all the preflop raising. But having done so, it would be correct to slow play QJ, since it probably isn't a winner when flopping one pair.
The AQ player may have been better than you think, since when she bet, the QJ raised you out. Maybe she knew this would happen. But whatever happened, she's going to call with top pair top kicker, and you should have called with AA.
Like I told Vince, this post has given me much to think about. And believe me, I WILL mull this one over for a while! For now, we just have to agree to disagree. I just don't see a cold call as being profitable poker here in most situations. This was an exception. Thanks for your input.
Kevin
"At one point in a full game he cold called a raise with J3s in a hand where I was wondering if my call of the raise in the SB and 4 way action with KQs was too loose."
Hey Sean, below, I say "nice post" to your reasoning. But I assumed that you were up against a good player. Against a bad player, I don't know if I would 3 bet the turn with your KT. Bad players are unreadable or at least they are tougher to read but that one advantage does not overcome their other more significant shortcomings.
I am surprised that this fellow who appears to play so poorly preflop makes sophisticated plays postflop i.e. raising the turn with the intention of checking the river with his King no kicker etc.
Against a bad player, I don't know if I would 3 bet the turn with your KT. Bad players are unreadable or at least they are tougher to read but that one advantage does not overcome their other more significant shortcomings.
Don't get me wrong, I do pay the price for plays like these by having a fairly high standard deviation. I might have been less likely to make that 3-bet had I been at a higher limit game, but when I play $10-20, I'm willing to add some variance to increase my win rate. Plus, it keeps things interesting.
I wouldn't go so far as to say unreadable though, perhaps unpredictable. While I had no clue as to what his specific holding was, I was fairly certain that whatever it might have been, my hand was better. Actually I think the combinatoric calculations in my results post were off by a little bit, and that there were even fewer ways he could have had the goofy 2 pair hands that might have beaten me.
Had the situation been a bit different, say, had he limped in early position, and check-raised me on the turn, I would have had to consider the possibilities of KQ, KJ, 66, and 33 that he may have limped in with, which would have been 18 (I think) more hands that could have beaten me, which would have about doubled the chance that I was beaten. The one part of his play that was predictable and readable were the hands he would have 3-bet me with before the flop.
I am surprised that this fellow who appears to play so poorly preflop makes sophisticated plays postflop i.e. raising the turn with the intention of checking the river with his King no kicker etc.
I forgot to mention this hand was on Paradise. 'Nuff said, right? The "raise the turn check down the river" play is really common there. I think the fish learn by osmosis or something. Most of the loose-aggressive-tricky players on there can be surprisingly sophisticated in their postflop plays, while others are just plain goofy.
-Sean
Another exception is that there are some very loose players who raise very tightly regardless of their position. That is they play a lot of hands, but if they raise, they are very strong.
I guess what is all boils down to in alot of these decisions is knowing a little about your opponents. Where in some cases it is correct to muck the AQ against an early position raiser and in others it is correct to 3 bet them. IMO poker is very situational and knowing the players is very important. If I am new to a game and don't know the players, and as was stated in another post by a very good player, one who has taught me quite a bit, I would rather give credit than cash till I know someone's play.
Regards, Fidster :^)
In addition to not giving out free crds, a turn bet is also a value bet i.e. How do you know he would fold a Jack? The pot is fair size and if he puts you on AK, he still has 5 outs. In fact, he may put you on KK/QQ with all that flop raising and decide to get fancy with a checkraise on the turn! Give him a chance.
If he has a set, them's the breaks...you call his raise and call him down on the river. Once in about a million times, you may catch an Ace or Jack and draw out on him:)
skp wrote : "In addition to not giving out free crds, a turn bet is also a value bet i.e. How do you know he would fold a Jack?"
I don't know that he would fold a Jack on the turn, but I do have opinions...and here it is: I think he'd fold it about 50% of the time..however, given that he calls the turn, I do not think he calls the river if he checks and I bet. Thus, he's only putting one bet in anyway, and I think he's more likely to put that bet in on the river than on the turn. Also, I'm not afraid of free cards. Note that a Jx is much more likely than a set, as you all have been trying to tell me not to be afraid of a set...thus if that's the case that he has a J, then he has zero outs. A free card is only available to him if he has a pocket pair or a flush draw ... however, I was about 90% sure he had a J or set (with obviously the odds of him having the J much higher).
I'm not particularly upset ("you ignorant slut" is a Saturday Night Live line), and I don't see how the original post could be considered a put-down. If I hadn't posted it, one of those 2+2er witnesses likely would have. It's just the truth.
-Abdul
So what. So you saw someone who some of us think is a good player play a hand that can virtually never have positive value. If your point was to point out that good players sometimes play very funny hands in perhaps very funny ways why don't you just do that and leave the personal references to me out of it.
By the way, I have been known on occasion to play a hand like that. In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II I tell the following story on pages 287 and 288.
Story No. 4: How good are our books? One day, several years ago, I was in a $20-$40 hold'em game at the Mirage. I had been playing for a while and was about even for the day when I was dealt the
5h 2h
right under the gun. Normally, I will quickly throw this hand away, but this day was different. It's hard to say exactly what came over me, but I raised it up and was called by several players. Two hearts and an ace flopped, and there was a great deal of action on both the flop and on fourth street. On the river, a third heart hit and I won a big pot with a five high flush.
About a week later, a stranger came up to me in the poker room. "Are you Mason?" he asked. "Yes I am," I answered. "I was reading your book," he went on, "but when I saw you play that five-deuce the other day, I went home and threw your book away."
By the way, of all my poker stories, this one is clearly my favorite. I just wish I could make a flush every time I played a hand like 5h2h. Then poker would really be a lot of fun.
Yes, but if you're going to play a screwy hand like that, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to raise instead of just call? At least by raising you add some equity by the possibility of stealing the blinds.
-Sean
That depends what you think your chance of stealing is. If it is very small, you may have less negative equity by just calling.
Sean,
The trouble with a hand like this is that if you raise you are going to create a short handed situation the vast majority of the time. As cheesy as this hand is full tabled, short handed it's an absolute nightmare. You have no high, any pair you make is going to be bad, etc.
I have played 3,2s once in my poker career and even though I still think it was a good play mathematically (20/40 HM - on the button and the entire table limped in); I flopped two pair (obviously bottom two), the board paired on the turn and now I have kings and threes with a deuce kicker... oh the joy. Poetic justice; this is what is supposed to happen if you play this cheese.
Regards
By the way, of all my poker stories, this one is clearly my favorite. I just wish I could make a flush every time I played a hand like 5h2h. Then poker would really be a lot of fun.
The funny thing here is that Mason is displaying his full fishiness with the zest of a peacock. The irony is that the player who chucked Mason's book most likely improved his game.
- Andrew
I realize that you are both very skilled players and writers, and we all know that you both have many well thought out and valid points to be made. However, sometimes controversies arise and we can get a little testy. I am just as guilty of this as either of you. However, all this arguing is pretty much irrelevant to me as I will continue to read both of your work, evaluate it for myself, and do what I think the best play is based on my evaluation.
but seriously guys, lighten up!
Dave in Cali
For what it's worth, I thought your post was funny and nor particularly harsh or insulting to anyone. I don't think Mason "gets" you. Something tells me he wasn't a big SNL fan in the 70s.
The substance of the debate is actually quite meaty so I hope neither of you lets the crap about who's more insulting crowd out the poker stuff.
BTW, what's all this I hear about violins on TV? Oh.... never mind.
I'm sure badger would tell you that speed chess isn't really chess.
Damn you guys...I dropped chess and started playing poker to get away from the "Regular chess vs Speed chess" debate. Don't send me back to chesstalk.com, or even worse, god forbid...rec.games.chess.misc!!
I'm scheduled to invade Bellagio tomorrow and stay there for a week or so until enough damage is done. If you hear from me no more, go about your everyday businesses and forget about me. It can only mean one thing: Bellagio is still standing and Izmet is down.
To those who emailed me: for the umpteenth time, no, my sister is not coming.
Allah is great.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Izmet,
Have a good time, play your A game, and don't forget to bring the medical equipment necessary to apply the infamous Fekali enema (especially to those mid-week, afternoon retireee/rocks - they need one).
Travel Alert: Stay away from potential outbreaks of violence regarding the very local Abdulian/Malmuthian Fued. The main trouble spot appears to be the Bellagio 30/60.
Regards,
Rick
PS: If you hang around the cocktail lounges and look sort of lonely, you might run into something even finer than a youthful Slovenian sheep. But it is a tourist town so expect to pay top dollar, although celebrity discounts may be available (Vince may have information on how to get one).
PPS: If that rodeo is in town, try to play in games with those guys.
I'd pay good money to see that. Maybe they could do a webcast...
A) They hate each other and would not play in a short handed game together where they had to interact.
B) Abdul is one of the best short-handed/heads-up players around and Mason would never tangle with him heads-up.
Regards-
Izmet,
You are breaking my heart. I will be in Vegas from 16 Dec through 17 Jan with maybe a side trip to L.A in between. It would have been my pleasure to meet you. Contrary to what "Pretty Boy" Nebiolo says I can't get you a discount. David probably can though. He's a big star at Bellagio's.
I'm gonna go to L.A. to see if Rick really can last 14 hours or if he was just kidding. What a show that will be. Good Luck! Who know's you may just break Bellagio's and be the new owner when I arrive. I expect a free night in your new hotel if you do.
Vince
nt
Since I didn't email you...
Is your sister coming?
- Andrew
Just got called for the game, this time $20-40, and after waiting three hands where no flop was dealt (in each someone raised and won the blinds outright), I post the BB. Two middle position limpers, button limps, SB folds, I happily check with Qd 7c. Once again I know nothing much about the players except from the three hands I saw prior to posting the game seems to be fairly tight.
The flop comes
Qs 6d 4s
giving me top pair terrible kicker. Since there are only three other players in, the flop contains some drawing possibilities (plus an ace or king could come on the turn) thus giving a free card could be dangerous, and no one showed any strength preflop I go ahead and bet. I am called immediately to my left and then the next guy raises. The button folds and it's up to me.
I consider my options more carefully than usual. I figure maybe the caller limped in with some kind of medium connector. If he had a queen he surely would've raised me. But if he's on a draw why raise the other two guys out? So I'm pretty confident that the caller is drawing.
As for the raiser, he might also be on a draw and is trying for a free card since the button may fold anyway. Or he might have something like A6 and is trying to find out if his middle pair is any good. Or he might simply have a hand that beats mine like QJ.
Considering all, well at least most of, the possibilities I decide to threebet and check the turn. I might move the raiser off a middle pair, especially since a third player is in the pot who might also have something as well. Maybe I can even move him off something like Q8s or Q9 if he's real dumb or is the type that plays by feel and doesn't consider the pot odds he is getting. If the raiser calls I put him on either a draw or a hand that beats me. (If he 4-bets I'll just call.)
So then after 3betting I'll check the turn, intending to fold if he bets. No way he bets again with just sixes or a medium pocket pair like 88 since he's gotta figure me for at least queens. On the other hand, if he checks behind I intend to check the river also to try and snap off a bluff.
Anyway after I threebet the guy in the middle calls the two cold (confirming to me that he is on a draw) and the other guy just calls. The turn comes a Kh. I check, the next guy checks, and the third guy bets. I fold.
All comments are greatly appreciated. Could I have played it better? Should I have just called him down? I felt like I played the hand well but it's still nagging me. Incidently I think that if I had paired any other rank (aces, kings, jacks or lower) my flop play would have been much easier to figure out. Sorry to be so long-winded in this post but maybe you guys can point out flaws in my thinking that could be affecting me in other areas of my game. Thanks in advance, sucker
I don't think 3 betting accomplishes much here unless you also bet the turn. Also, given the position of the raiser there are many reasons for him to raise besides having top pair.
an altnernative that sometimes represents a stronger hand is to just call the raise and then bet into the raiser on the turn. In the few tight games I have played in this maneuver has been successful.
This is the biggest chip burning-get a person involved with a trash hand-loser that I hate to be involved in. We have all been there and done that. Catch just enough of the flop to make us think we have a chance. The bad part of this is "SOMETIMES" we do win with these trash hands when we get a "FREE" look at the flop. No one raising before the flop does not necessarily mean a big hand is not out there, or even AQ or KQ. Or even a Set was flopped.
I would check the flop and try to see the turn for one small bet, if possible. If the next player bets and it is raised on my right, I fold. Now I have only lost my BB bet.
I also have to consider if the player on my left who checked, that he or she, may not be hoping to check raise. The best thing that can happen is the player on my left bets, and is only called by the next player, thus I have no fear of a raise and getting trapped. If I bet out and get raised, even a position raise testing me, I am in a difficult decision making position, "to call, raise or fold?" In your case, I would hope to catch a seven, making two pair, but even then I would only check and call.
I find checking in these situations and mucking if it gets bet or raised is better than trying to guess if I have the best hand, betting and raising to find out I don't, is money saved in the long run.
May the flop be with you
Colby
You have a decent-to-good hand here with top pair in an unraised pot. You could be ahead if the raiser is on a draw, or behind to something like QJ.
Your choices are to play back, trying to drive out the caller in the middle, give up, or something more tricky.
I would just call here, and plan on betting out the flop if the third flush card does come. This puts pressure on the caller in between, since he has to fear a raise behind him, and on the raiser especially if he's on a draw.
- target
Dude...ya gotta bet the turn!
I might be wrong about this but I have alwaqys been under the impression that guys like Abdul, Mason, Gary, Badger, David all know each other personally. So, why is it that when they have a fight, a personal, name calling fight, it is done in public? You guys ever hear about e-mail, telephones, a private chat room, a motel room, a letter? Can't you just settle it like adults?
"Can't you just settle it like adults?"
Where have you been? Adults always need an audience for support. Young children on the other hand will fight it out anywhere. They haven't been touched by the need for notoriety yet.
Vince
Where have you been?
I've been sittin' on the dock of the bay watching the tide roll away, sittin on the dock of the bay, wastin time.
2000 miles I've roamed
Just to make that dock my home
Yeah I'm sittin' on the dock of the bay
Wastin' time
I think its funny and entertaining when the 2+2 posters get in to a scrap. but then again I also like the WWF.
p.s - how do you settle something "like adults"?
-
I am heading for Vegas at the middle of the month. I intend to play 15-30 Holdem unless I can convince some little old lady or man to stake me in the 30-60 or higher games. So like I was saying I will be playing 15-30 Holdem. I have been back here on the east coast since August. I have played only 2 sessions of Holdem during my stay.
My HPFAP book is no longer with us. Given that, what is the best way to prepare for my adventure?
Vince
You're obviously a solid thinking player that needs little advice. I'd say just take a little bit more time then normal before your actions to make sure your not just getting anxious.
My HPFAP book is no longer with us. Given that, what is the best way to prepare for my adventure?
Vince---I suggest you offer Mason about $25 for a used copy.
And save me a seat in the 15-30 game on Jan 13-14, unless you are still up on the balcony playing the little old lady's money.
Abe,
I have a seat on my immediate right already for you.
Vince
Bring lots of money and don't worry about your results.
Mason,
You wouldn't take advantage of little old me now would you?
Vince
Vince,
He will. Don't play any goofy games you can loose your bankroll with. There was one time you sat down at the same table as Mason just to introduce yourself and you probably lost enough money that you could have used to expand your 2+2 poker library. Don't play in a game you know nothing about.
I watched an interesting hand at my table that I wasn't involved in. UTG limps in, folded to a mid postion player MP who calls, folded to the SB who calls, and the BB checks. The flop is 10s 8c 5s. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets, MP raises, SB three bets, BB folds, and UTG folds, but when doing so the dealer hits his hand and exposes Ah Th. MP calls. The Turn is a 10d. SB bets and MP calls. The river is the 10c. SB checks and MP bets. SB grumbles and calls, SB had 55 for a counterfeited full house, and MP had 8s 6s, for a now better full house. Anyone think SB should fold on the river?
I think SB has to call since MP could have been pushing a flush draw. When the flush doesn't hit there is enough $ in the pot to make the call.(8.5/1)
BTW the last time I folded top pair top kicker I also would have won a gigantic pot. Was Utg's laydown a good one. I suppose SB was a tight player and UTG knew this.
Impressive lay down by UTG. Top pair, top kicker.
Folding on the river would often be a mistake in this situation. The fives should *know* that MP doesn't have a ten. Checking and calling would usually be best.
I'm really lost as to how to properly play overcards in shorthanded games after showing strength before the flop. Any advice is appreciated.
Basically, if you have overcards and especially an ace, you probably have the best hand especially heads up. Play with caution, though, as people will enter pots with weaker hands and easily could hit any card on the board for a pair.
By play with caution, I don't really mean fold. Short handed you should bet lots until someone raises you, then you should generally fold rather than call. Or reraise if you have a good hand, but probably not just overcards or a weak ace high.
Go read everything that abdul has posted or written, since he's spent lots of time thinking about shorthanded play. One of his essays is posted farther down in this forum.
- target
Hey all.
For all you mid-limit players in the SF bay area, how is the 15-30 at the Oak's card club in emeryville compared to the other mid limit games at bay 101, garden city, Lucky Chances, and AJ's?
I've been contemplating a move from 15-30 and 20-40 to 30-60 and 40-80, but would like to get in some practice against tough competition before doing so. How would you rate the competition at the Oak's? My friend who plays there regularly said that the players there play at a much higher level than those in other card rooms. Any opinions?
It is the toughest game in the bay area at that level. The 20-40 at LC and GC and even Bay 101 are cakewalks comparatively.
natedogg
disagree Players are easy reads at oaks
I downloaded my Palm pilot and saw these two hands that I was going to post. I think they were routine plays, but at the time I question my play. This was going on during a major tourment. The Game was very tight and very aggressive. In fact the game sucked, but I wanted to play with some heavy hitters and see what I could pick up.
1st Hand: 30-60 at Commerce...
I was in the BB with AQs. A Tight Pro Raised UTG all folded then Roy Cooke Raised on the button. The SB folded. What's your play and Why?
2nd: I'm on the button with ATs (Spades) all fold to LP (Roy) Raises I three bet the blinds fold. Roy put on his act and after what seems like eternity; he reraise and I call.
The flop Qh-Jh-7s: Roy bets, I've been playing very tight for two hours and I think my best play is too raise, so I do and Roy three bets. (He didn't hesitate:) What's my best play here? I thought about calling, but why not raise? I will post the results later.
1) Fold
2) I wouldn't want to re-raise. With what cards are you planning to beat him? You might easily have less than a 20% chance of winning this hand.
I may have misinterpreted what LP meant. I assumed it meant late position. If so, isn't it possible to plan on beating Roy with an ace? Wouldn't Roy (or most people) raise in this spot with many hands that ATs would play well against?
Kevin
Hand one: No brainer I folded. I was out of position and two good players were showing aggression.
Hand two was a little bit trickier. I couldn't fold pre flop because Roy would raise with a wide range of hands. I think I should have just called on the flop, because it is hard to get a free card from a good player with that flop. I called the raise on the flop, and a blank fell on the turn and I folded to a bet.
First of all, I don't consider myself qualified to be giving advice in games featuring high caliber players like Roy Cooke. But it's fun (and instrumental) for me to think about these situations so here are my opinions...
1st hand: If Roy Cooke is willing to 3-bet a tight UTG pro, I would fold and rather quickly. The suitedness of my hand wouldn't matter much in this situation against two pros, both of who are representing big hands.
2nd hand: I assume LP means late position. Again, I think you should consider the caliber of your opponent when making pre-flop decisions. I would be much less inclined to 3-bet a very strong player. That said, I think a 3-bet is correct in most situations where LP would likely use his position to put pressure on marginal hands and pick up the blinds. When he re-raises of course you call and might consider re-raising for positional and deceptive purposes. Had you done so, the flop may have played a little easier for you.
On the flop, you can't like the hearts, but they are a little less concerning heads up. I likely would have played this flop fast. But I think it should be emphasized that an additional investment of one more bet pre-flop may have gone far in easing the pressure a high caliber player like Roy, is capable of subjecting you to.
Kevin
1st hand: You fold because A) it costs you two bets to call; B) a tight pro raised UTG; C) Roy Cooke raised the tight pro who had raised UTG; D) you are in poor position relative to the other two players; and E) at least one of the players (Roy) and probably both play well after the flop.
2nd hand: There's $440 in the pot at this point; I would call $30 hoping for a King on the turn. An Ace might be good as well (if Roy has K-K or A-Q) and you've got a back-door flush draw. Personally, I would have folded pre-flop and just called on the flop, but once you got to the point where you were, call and see what the turn brings.
I'm in my local 10-20 game. The game has made a transition within the last hour from being aggressively tight too passively loose.
Anyways, small blind is seat 1 and I am in seat 6 for this hand. I have 8s10s. UTG folds, Player 1 calls, Player 2 calls, I (Player 3 call), Player 4 raises, Player 5 (button) calls, SB calls, BB folds. 6 players to see the flop.
The flop comes out 3s 7h 6h. Anyways, SB shoots out a bet. Everyone, including myself, call to the pre-flop raiser who also calls. Button raises. SB calls and everyone else calls. Pot is now $240.
Turn card comes a 4s. SB once again shoots out a bet. Player 1 raises. Player 2 re-raises to $60. here is where I call for time. I then decide to call the $60. Surprisingly Player 4 calls 60 and player 5 also calls 60. SB calls 60 and Player 1 calls 60.
Pot is now $600. No one folds the turn.
River comes a 9d giving me the nut straight. SB checks, player 1 bets, player 2 calls, I raise. All fold to SB who mucks his hand in disgust. Player 1 calls while swearing, and player 2 shows me his 5 and mucks. I take down a $700 pot.
Comments on my call on turn???
The Fish
I think you have to call with your double gutter, despite the fact that there are probably not many fives (maybe one?) left as an out. There's also the possibility of running into a higher flush. But you KNOW an off 9 is good and 6:1 should be enough to cover the times you hit and lose. I think you made a good call.
Kevin
the odds indicate your call is marginal at best. you're getting 17-3 on your call, or 5.66 to 1. your straight will come in 17% of the time. this is a small winner with expectation of $2.64.
however, the situation is much worse than that. your effective odds need to be reduced quite a bit from what the pot seems to be offering.
first, all those players have to be hanging around with _something_. it's likely that at least one is drawing to a heart or diamond flush. so, half the cards that make your straight also have the potential to make a flush for someone else, which could prove expensive for you.
second, why would the 4 cause a bet, raise, and reraise before it even gets to you? a five in the raiser's or reraiser's hand is a distinct possibility, and since the pot was raised preflop, it's distinctly possible that whoever has that one five has another one. in any case, this activity screams that a straight has been made.
so in the worst case, you're down to 2 outs, and probably down to 5. that means you're roughly a 9:1 dog. just another case where the pot odds need to be adjusted downward based on the action. also note that you've made a fundamental theorem of poker error - you played differently (i hope) than you would if you had been able to see your opponents' hands.
so i think you made a bad call. you got lucky. enjoy it, count your money, and try to avoid similar mistakes in the future, as they can be quite costly in the long run.
You are too pessimistic. with the pot being this huge I would count on spades as also being an out. with this being the case the Fish played it correctly as he had 12 or 13 outs on the turn assuming the diamond draw was out there and depending on whether the 5 in player 2's hand was a diamond. in fact, if you had a big stack of chips you might even want to cap the betting.
i'm not being pessimistic, i promise. i'm merely looking at what the pot appears to be offering and adjusting this offering for what the opponents appear to have. this is really easy in this case, as the bets and raises are pretty much neon signs. big flashing neon signs. and they all say, "you have no call here." a cap may be an option, but a fold is probably the best option.
trying to move up a little from 3-6, 4-8 took a seat in 8-16 game. very first hand posted in cutoff; dealt KK...UTG limps..fold to me i raise...fold to SB who raises..limper calls and i cap at 4 bets...flop comes J 8 3 rainbow... SB bets, limper raises, i 3 bet, SB 4 bets all call for cap on flop...I know nothing about players(very first hand with no observation), I have KK..that makes someone who would raise early with AA,KK.QQ,AK ...more likely percentage wise to have AA, which i am fearfull of.. turn comes 6 with possible backdoor flush..SB bets limper calls, I call(should I have raised
scalf,
What was he critical of? The fact that maybe you should have raised the turn. Otherwise, your play was OK.
Regards,
Rick
You played fine. Your opponent appears to be brain-dead to not fear AA, KK, or JJ after you capped preflop and on the flop. Even at 8-16 or higher, some opponents don't bother to think about what their opponents might hold--he probably just thought "I have QQ and it's an overpair."
You could have raised the turn, but I don't think it's a huge deal to just err on the side of caution and call, especially since a raise won't knock anybody out, and the limper is likely to call one more bet after taking all that heat.
-Sean
SB played the hand very poorly, and then tried to blame you for his stupidity. You played the hand very well. The Jack high flop was a key card in defining the hands. The Queens should have realized much earlier that he was beat. By the way, this is one reason I don't like 3 raise limit games. The fourth raise is very important in defining hands more clearly. Players put in a gratuitous capping raise much less frequently with 4 raises. Malmuth covers this subject in more detail in one of his Poker Essays books.
I see no reason for sb to berate your play. Yes, you could have raised the turn, but the sb overplayed his hand IMO. You defined your hand well by 4 betting pre-flop and 3 betting the flop, yet the sb STILL caps over you and leads the turn. What did he think you had? It seems you were thinking a level beyond him.
Kevin
Here are a few routine hands I've collected, from my own play or ones that friends have mailed for comment. I don't know the specific limits off the top of my head, but they should be all either 10-20 or 20-40:
Hand 1:
All fold to a somewhat loose and passive player who open-limps in late position. Hero raises with AJo in the small blind. The big blind 3-bets. (This opponent doesn't seem too noteworthy.) Flop is QJT, hero check-calls, turn A, hero check-calls, river 9, hero checks, big blind checks behind.
Hand 2:
Hero open-raises with AJo from 5 off the button. The player on his immediate left 3-bets. (This player seems fairly tight and aggressive.) Flop is ATx 2 suited, none of hero's suit. Hero check-calls. Turn is a J, hero checks with the intention of check-raising, but preflop raiser checks behind. River blank, hero bets, preflop raiser folds.
Hand 3:
UTG open-raises. UTG seemed to be a bit loose, certainly too loose with his limps, and at least a bit on the loose side with his raises, but hero wasn't sure how loose. Hero has AQo in late position, and 3-bets. Flop is A86 2 suited, none of hero's suit. UTG checks, hero bets, UTG check-raises, hero calls. Turn a 6, UTG bets, hero calls. River a Q completing the flush, UTG checks, hero bets, UTG calls.
My comments:
Hand 1, hero should have bet the flop, but I don't really mind the checks on the turn and river.
Hand 2, I don't know about the check-call on the flop. I would say it's correct if there wasn't a broadway card on board, but with an A and T I don't know. I think hero should have lead out on the turn, because you don't want to give a free card to a 1-card straight, and also don't want to have to pay 3 bets to a straight or set.
Hand 3, I think hero should have 3-bet the flop and led on the turn if checked to, or called if bet into., If AQo is good enough to 3-bet with before the flop, it should be good enough to re-raise the flop when check-raised against an opponent who might be a bit on the overaggressive side.
There's nothing remarkable about any of these hands, but I'm curious if anybody has anything to add.
-Sean
Sitting in on 20-40 Hold'em game that is very loose and aggressive. Average of 7-9 players seeing flop and always raised and capped half the time. Average pot is ranging from $850-1000 and several 1500 ones. My questions are this. What hands should I call with near the button for a raise. I had KJs and it was $40 to me. I called and then it got re-popped and it cost $80 to see the flop. Granted there were 8 players but I just dont want to play this hand for $80 but if I only wait for aces and kings I might just as well be donating the blinds. A friend of mine and I discussed hand selection in this sort of game and he said that I should loosen up a little and play hands like 87s and j10o and KQo in this type of game because I'm a very good post-flop player. 1. What hands would you play up front? 2. In this game where everything is being raised would you just limp wiht big hands and let the others raise.(AA,KK,AKs) 3.Would you play hands like A-10s and AJo in the middle? 4. Would you play only nut hands and take your chances of losing big pots and your mind? 5. Would you quit and look for another game?
Russ
playing J-10o and K-Qo is not good. It doesn't matter how good you are post-flop. The first thing I would do is try to get to the right of the action players. Ask for a seat change. Waiting for Aces, Kings and Ace-king suited is a little too tight, but it is not far off. I think their is some mention that you can play hands lik A-Js and A-Qs in S$M HFAP. I'm not 100% sure though. You might want to see how others respond
When many players are seeing the flop cheaply you should play many hands you would ordinarily fold. However if there are many raises preflop that is no longer true. And in this second case it does you little extra good to have the button.
Salutation! Raises be the key! Tighten up some even on the button.
Vince.
Russ,
You should be well bankrolled for this game since your swings will be much higher than what they will be in a typical game. But you knew that.
If it appears that it may or will be capped multi-way then the only offsuit hand I would play is AK. For suited aces stick to AK through AT. I would also play KQs QJs and JTs. Some may say that QJs and JTs can’t be played, but against this large a field it will flop enough draws to make the reward worth the risk. I’ll go against conventional wisdom and say you can play all pairs (including deuces!) so long as you think you will get six opponents or more. When you flop a set, which you should be able to bring home at least 60% of the time, and it will be a monster. But if you are paranoid about set over set or want to reduce your swings, maybe forget the bottom three pairs (plus these pairs don’t make good one-card straights)
If you can probably get in for two bets (e.g., early raise, many cold calls, you act last or almost last), then add all suited aces, and all suited connectors and one gappers down to about 64 suited. Now you definitely want to play all pairs. You might be able to play AQo but still stay away from KQo and AJo. Post flop you will rarely know where you are at when you flop a pair with the weak offsuit connectors.
The big thing is that you must be prepared to play well and continue to play well even though you can easily lose $2000 or so before hitting a hand that holds up. While waiting to win a hand, you will see many hit huge pots on hands you would never play. In the meantime your set, aces or nut flush draws cam easily miss or get cracked. But some times they come in and things go well. For those that can handle it, your average win will be huge since when things break your way you will win monsters.
Also note that these games do not go on for long. In other words, some players may rack up a big win and leave and some of the live ones will bust out. When they do and you didn’t get your share you have to ask yourself can you handle the frustration. If not, find another game.
Regarding your questions, I do think you can limp and allow the others to do the raising for you. Position won’t matter much post flop either since your raises will not narrow the field and others will usually bet your hands for you (especially sets).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanks for the input. Whether I agree with your post or not(I do BTW), I appreciate you giving it your time instead of an easy one line solution.
Russ
Lost bet?? 3 or 4 players seeing most flops and little raising after the flop. In early postion I limp with A8 of diamonds. Middle player limps and Button calls. Flop is Q93 diamonds. I check MP checks and Button bets. I call MP folds. Flop J clubs. I check Button bets, I call. River 5 clubs I check, Button checks.. Should I have bet on the river??
You had the nut flush and couldn't find a bet once? You should bet out on the flop because no one will believe you have the flush. then if you positively, absolutely have to use a fancy play you can check the turn then raise. Then always bet the river. When you have a hand just bet it and see how no one is going out anyway.
what level game is this? this simply cannot be a mid level game if you play so poorly that you didnt check raise the turn and then bet the river with your nut flush. this has to be a joke..
if it's not, please tell me where you normally play and what you look like so we can play a couple friendly pots together.
Both responses believe I should have been firing away after the flop...As I mentioned there were 3 or 4 callers seeing most flops but little raising after the flop. I had the niut flush after the flop and certainly could have been raising but I believe I would have scared both players out if I came out raising especially with a flop that doesn't appear to have helped anybody except if they were holding diamonds. I believe by checking I got the button to bet twice whereas if I came out betting he may have called once but would not have called the turn. My concern was should I have bet the river instead of checking?? I had planed to checkraise him but he checked as I mentioned and I may have lost a bet if I would have bet the river rather than checking....
It's just one of the facets of poker that when you get a great hand, you bet it and everyone folds. On the other side of that is that time when you get a great hand you bet it and someone raises you, or you catch a few people on a draw, or someone else has a smaller monster. All these things can happen but you cannot take advantage of them if you think that everytime you bet everyone will fold. Do your job, bet your hand and let your opponents play theirs. BTW if they will fold everytime a scary flop hits I'd be betting every scary flop.
Sam: appreciate your answering my post however I don't think you are looking at the bigger picture here..I not only have a great hand (on the flop)..I have the nuts.. With 3 of the same suit on the board and I come out betting I may scare the only two players still around, maybe another diamond or high card etc. on the turn will keep one or both of them in the game for the turn card when the betting gets bigger. It's easy to bet with the nuts but I want to get as much out of it as possible. Your way I might win right there on the turn, thats not what I"m looking to do with the nuts, I'm looking to get as much value as I can out of this hand....
I think what some posters are saying here is a bet on the flop might get someone to think you are just trying to protect top pair, or are even betting middle pair with an overcard, or even on a diamond draw.So they raise your bet.Just smoothcall the raise and depending on your read of the button bet or check raise the turn. If you bet and are raised, re-raise!, then bet the river.So what if he folds to a re-raise, then he never know if you had a hand or not.(And is left thinking maybe you made a move on him!) If you check the turn and are checked behind, definately bet the river.(Ditto if he fold to this bet, he never knows if you made a move on him or not)
Your play did induce bluffs by the button but if you are convinced your flop bet would have caused both players to fold then maybe you should be semi-bluff betting more often.
You had your reasons for your play and maybe you feel you did earn two more bets than you would of had you bet the flop. Alot depends on your read of the button. If he is aggressive and makes a play at you, make him pay! By the way he checked the river, what did he have?
you were smart to just smooth call the flop. it sets you up for a super check raise on the turn and unless the person who bets on the turn is either good/tight and/or doesnt have a diamond he will likely call one more bet to see the river, where he may call again. this is basic stuff man. playing when you flop the nuts is easy. it's all the other hands that are tough. you play really tight-passive a lot?
was just looking at poker digest vol 3/#21 and it addresses this issue on page 14, matt lessinger. his article is about an unbeatable hand, but yours is close enough to make it valid. he argues that you should bet the turn cause you may not get called on the river.
While Fmonti was at the table, and clearly has a better feel for this particular hand, I'd still like to take issue with playing this weakly.
If you flopped the nuts against the weakest two nits at the table, maybe you played it properly. Otherwise, raise the dang flop!
If a flop raise lets everyone at the table know you have a made hand, you are not playing aggressively enough. Raise your top pair/likely top kickers. Raise your good draws vs enough opponents. Semi-bluff raise middle pair. Etc.
Let the mama's boys flop their trips and straights, smooth call the flop and check-raise you on the turn. It makes them feel better and they'll stay around and lay down the best hand for you when you need them too. Raise!
Jones
Fmonti-
I'm curious as to what limit you are playing. In higher limit (tougher) games, rope-a-doping a monster is rarely correct. Your thinking is opposite of what it should be.
You are willing to accept minimum profit so as not to lose your opponent. Instead, you should be thinking about how to maximize your hand! With this board, your opponent either has a hand worth continuing or does not. When he does, you should more than make up for the times when he does not, by playing this a little faster.
= Raider
Those are all good points, but... the only way you're going to win any serious money with your hand is if you can catch someone with a quality second-best holding. Sure, you might have eeked out an extra bet here somewhere by checking and calling, but what you really need to do is find someone with top-pair or better that's willing to pay you off. And you've got to charge them the maximum along the way. Why assume nobody else has anything they like? Sure, they 'probably' don't, but think how well you get paid off if they do.
That's really the trick-- finding players with quality second best hands. It's the underlying concept behind lead betting a small set into a likely overpair, or betting out with trips when a face card's on board. You've got to find someone with a hand they like-- otherwise you're just fighting for loose change.
Of course, YES! Why take the chance someone won't bet? You probably should have bet the turn for the similar reasons. You may have even gotten raised! If so, it could've been much more than a single lost bet.
= Raider
I have the same problems with timid opponents. I want to slow play them for a couple of extra bets when I think they will fold to my aggression.
Let me tell you a story.
I once raised AhQh and got one late caller. Flop came 8h4h5h. I check my nut to trap him for a couple of bets. He bet I called. Turn was 5s. I checked he bet. He was aggressive and I figure he would bet the river and I could c/r then. Problem was the river was 5d and he didn't have any problem betting his tens full. Afterward I steamed the rest of the night. This was 1/4/8/8. If your doing this at higher limits you don't belong there, because your losing many bets.
If you have this "problem" with timid opponents you should bluff more. not only will you steal more pots but they will start to get suspicious and give you action when you have a monster.
Agreed, No problem bluffing them heads up, but how to suck bets out when I now I have the good hand. Sometimes you don't get a chance to show your bluffs. Take a look at how I slow played a set in the "small stakes" section.
I can't find enough timid opponents in 10/20 or higher, as that would be me, over timid or over aggressive! I appreciate and respect your comments.
Now that I think about it I should have just bet the dam hand since they normally figure you for AK anyway. Then again I'm long past forsing AK and some know it. What to do , what to do ?
That hand I gave was long ago (flush).I still remember it like it was last night.
For those still interested.....The game was 10-20. I checked the river as mentioned hoping to chk raise when he checked I showed my flush and he mucked his cards so I didn't see his hand..Also in HEPAP on page 263, first paragraph, I think confirms my playing the hand the way I did except for possibly not betting the river where I may have lost a bet if my opponent would have called.....A thru E were all met..Further comments???
I know, slow play the big flush, fast play the small.
But slow playing heads up can and does backfire, sometimes you just can't get paid in full which is better than checking yourself into a loser. Sometimes he takes free cards, you basically want to charge him for the privilidge to lose with the 1 card flush.
Like Boris said, I think this is an image thing, if your image is that of a loose player you should play it fast heads up. If it's tight you have to slow down a little. A very good read on your opponent and your own current image helps. If you had sandbagged until the turn then raised or bet the river you would not be asking this. Suppose he had the K in suit, he's not going to bet afer it doesn't hit and may not call.
10-20 holdem with a tough crowd. Seldom more than 3 players see the flop, usually with at least one raise pre flop. I am up one stack or so with two red tens under the gun. I feel I have lost alot of money with TT in the past and I'm trying to move up to higher limits lately.So here I sit at a crossroads.Totally Undecided what to do.
I just figured with probably only 2 or 3 callers I wont be getting the odds to play for a set and surely someone would hit an over-pair to bust me.(Real positive thinker aren't I?)
I know if I come in I should raise, but by now I'm aware the whole table senses my confusion as they are waiting for me to act.I FOLD.
Well you can guess the rest but here goes.EIGHT players call!, no raises! (uh-oh)
The Flop is Kc,Qc,9s. (and I feel better, as possible made straights, 4 flushes, and 2 top pairs, and overpairs abound) Five players stay to a bet and a raise.
The turn is a 10c (and my sinking feeling returns but tempered by the fact now a made flush possible and any J completes the str8t as well)Now 4 players stay to a bet and a raise
River is a Ks (uh-oh all over again, although KQ,KT,K9, is a very real possibility)
Anyways 9-9 wins a BIG pot with nines full and I folded a nice winner. Of course a flush and str8t is shown down as well.
So once again TT costs me money! :oD
Flame on- I can take it- I'm here to learn.
I would make the routine play of raising. In a tight game as you describe you may have won it right there.
If you decided to limp in, Abdul Jalib recommends you limp reraise with this hand. I admit I would not have the guts to do this, but, what a bonanza you would have hit if you did this and carried out your threat of pocket aces or kings to the end.
Just to make you feel better, if you just limped in you probably wouldn't be able to take the heat that flop would have generated
As the betting and raising turned out I could have seen the showdown for 90 dollars. Too bad the hand didn't occur with me off the button in better position. (Who would have thought, all of a sudden, EIGHT limpers?) I think even in the blinds I would have played on and won the pot. I just felt under the gun it was a safe fold as I was trying to reduce my variance at the higher limits I'm attempting to enter.(Thus a marginal hand to play I thought I could safely avoid) I just did'nt have the feeling that a raise was going to pick up the blinds as unfortunately for me they were the loosest players at the table.
I suppose a case could be made for adding my hand to the "scared money don't win" category but I feel the hands I did play I played aggressively and I did leave the table a small winner. I closely monitered my opponents play and don't feel from what I observed that I didn't belong or was being outplayed left and right. They did have more experience than me at those limits though.
You have to go back to the books and rethink your position on TT. It can win many pots as overcards, part of a straight, a set of course, and representing a bigger hand. If you feel you have to flop a set to win with it, then you shouldn't even play it from late position.
Of course I don't feel you always need a set to win with TT. Obviously it depends on the nature of the game, your opponents, pre-flop activity, your position, the texture of the flop, your reads, etc.
How much do you pros think I'm giving up if I elect to fold TT UTG? And am I right in thinking it is worth less in a loose game (UTG) than in a tight game, when open raising has more of a chance to chase the overcards (to my pair) with bad kickers or connectors off their draws?
i agree it is tough from up front but i think a raise is best in this situation, but at least you made a real poker decision ;raise or fold;
however if you play hands you have folded with mind bets(and we all do), the problem is you will lose your mind, not your checks...good luck
... luckily, (or should we say skillfully :o) I did not lose my mind or go on tilt and I stuck to my game plan.
In the game that you describe, RAISE is your only choice. If you don't win it right there, you will be a favorite unless you get reraised. That will be a whit if bridge that you could cross later. Obviously it wouldn't have happened on this hand. Play aggressive or don't play.
I think everyone here is missing the point of limp-reraising.
You limp to encourage others to limp. That way the time you get 8 handed you are going to make a bundle when you make a set.
If you limp and then someone raises you need to re-raise because all the raising is going to limit the field. Tens are pretty good against a limited field.
Of course this is high variance play and not something that most people have the bankroll/cahones for.
Hillbilly, that's an awesome story. I once mucked AKs pre-flop, although the circumstances were a bit different...
But enough of all that. Honestly, that truly is a great tale. My only recommendation for the future would be to either a) raise, or b) call, depending on the texture of the game.
But that's really secondary. If every poster here was able to relate their problem hands with such candor this forum would be a lot more entertaining.
And don't worry, I'm not poking fun... I've got bonehead HE plays that definitely have yours 'outkicked'... :)
I think your fold preflop doesn't make sense and you shouldn't be intimidated into rushing a decision if you want to think. If you choose to raise the field may be as confused as you.
I think you should raise UTG w/this hand, in these conditions. YOu may take the pot then, and in any event you are a favorite against ALL hands except AA KK QQ JJ. If you are going to fold hands like this maybe you should rethink a few things.
I agree, raise or call. HFAP gives some advice about playing JJ in early position. It think this advice applies to TT as well for the most part. You can raise a little more liberally with JJ. Given the way you described the game you should have probably raised but the way the hand played out you should have called.
Local 20-40 game.
It's pretty early in the morning around 3:00 am and the table is tired and tight.
I'm dealt KK in the cutoff. Some loose guy in early position raises. Looser caller to my right calls 40. I decide to make it 60 to chase out the blinds. Surprisingly enough SB calls 60. SB is perhaps one of the best players on the table. Everyone else calls,
There are 4 people to see the flop.
Flop comes Q 9 3 rainbow. SB bets out (??) and all call to me. I'm wondering if he has AA. Anyways, I just call (bad move???). Turn comes a 6 - no backdoor flush. SB bets out again. All call and it comes to me and I just call (bad move again???). River comes an Ace. SB bets out once again. Now I am positive he has pocket aces, but to my surprise the original raiser calls so maybe the case Ace fell. Anyways, I look at my KK and muck the river.
Turns out SB had pocket nines. And the loose raiser had AK and was drawing dead.
Personally myself, I would never call 99 after someone makes it 3 bets preflop. Sure if you spike your set you are good, but what if someone else spikes a higher set.
But anyways, please rate my play?
Flop comes Q 9 3 rainbow. SB bets out (??) and all call to me. I'm wondering if he has AA. Anyways, I just call (bad move???).
Most likely.
Turn comes a 6 - no backdoor flush. SB bets out again. All call and it comes to me and I just call (bad move again???).
Absolutely! Especially since this card is a blank and you just called the flop. Why did you feel the need to slowplay and give everyone a cheap shot at you?
= Raider
I definitely raise the flop to find out where I am. When he re-raises you (he should), I would just call fearing a set or 2 pair. Then call the turn praying for a king or the board to pair. If neither happens then fold to a bet on the river.
Well, if the pre-flop call is a bad one it isn't bad by much. Although you're probably right in that in the long run it's a money losing play. But that's one of the nice things about playing late at night-- you can often catch someone, even a good player, at a point where they simply decide they're not going to muck their hand--- period. Of course, it didn't work out this time for you..
Anyway, I'd be pretty worried when a decent player fly bets this flop. If he had AQ, or KQs, you'd think he'd try and check raise the flop. When a genuinely solid player bets out here, you just have to worry about two pair or better. But nevertheless, I think you've got to pop it somewhere in here. I'd probably just call the flop, then raise if the turn comes clean. Note that by just calling the flop you can get away from your hand cheaply if a scare card comes and one of the players in between two bets. If I'm re-raised on the turn I'll probably muck, although that move is, of course, player dependant.
Fish,
You wrote: "Personally myself, I would never call 99 after someone makes it 3 bets preflop. Sure if you spike your set you are good, but what if someone else spikes a higher set."
Don't worry about set over set and worry more about overpairs. Even with an overpair probably out I would need only one more opponent to take the flop. But in your example your SB opponent was looking at a loose early raise and a cutoff reraise. This can mean many hands other than overpairs. So IMO his preflop call was fine.
Regards,
Rick
"But in your example your SB opponent was looking at a loose early raise and a cutoff reraise. This can mean many hands other than overpairs. So IMO his preflop call was fine."
If I think the first raise was loose, and the second raise is somebody that will 3 bet with AK or AQs, I will 4 bet with 99. I like taking medium pairs (88,99,TT) 3 way against loose raisers.
In a tight game, this is suicide as the second raiser will be screaming AA or KK.
I would raise the flop. Your getting three bets in the pot for your one, I would estimate that you only need to be ahead about a third of the time for the raise to be good. Which brings me on to the next point.
Why are you positive he has pocket aces? I see no reason to suppose he has any thing better than top pair yet, maybe not even that depending on how aggressive he is on the flop.
Same thing on the turn, I raise.
On the river you have pot odds 14 to 1. I know the ace is a major bummer, but do you really think you are winning this less than 7% of the time? Bear in mind that the ace provides bluffing opertunity for someone who knows you.
I think you are giving the SB too much respect, you said he was a good player not a Rock.
I will leave Abdul to answer your question about 99.
Suppose you raise and are either heads up or 3-way. Is it a leak to ALWAYS bet the flop?
I don't know if it's a leak to always bet the flop but you certainly can't do it automatically. If your opponents catch on to it will certainly cost you a lot of money.
I think the two main things to consider when bluffing at the flop are the type of opponents you are up against and the texture of the flop (as well as what you have). Here are some tips:
1. If the flop comes with a high card and no possible straight or flush draws (such as K73) and I was the preflop raiser, I would go ahead and bet a high percentage of the time no matter what I had.
2. If the flop has some two medium card combination, such as T8x or J9x or QTx or JTx or T9x (etc.), I would be less inclined to bluff at it in general.
3. If my opponents are prone to check-raising (or very good players in general) I would be more inclined to check behind them if I had nothing.
4. If you are first to act, against two opponents, the flop comes fairly ragged, you missed, but you think that there's a good chance neither of them hit, then go ahead and bet. But if you don't win it right there give it up.
5. You can bluff more often against one opponent than two. Very rarely bluff against three, and virtually never bluff against four or more.
6. If you have a little something (such as A3 on a Q53 flop) or you have some extra outs other than your overcards, then obviously you should be more inclined to bet in a shorthanded pot.
The thing is, many of your opponents at the hold'em table like to check to the preflop raiser even if they made something decent on the flop. So against players like that you would much rather take a free card instead of betting their hand for them.
Just keep in mind that you don't win your money in limit hold'em by bluffing. You win the great majority of your money in hold'em by playing tight and showing down quality hands.
sucker
Here's a hand that's really been bugging me, although I'm not sure why.
Two limpers in front of me, and I pop it somewhere in middle position with JJ. One cold caller behind me, both limpers call.
Flop: 9c 9h 5c. First limper checks, next limper bets, I raise, pre-flop cold caller mucks, first limper mucks, bettor re-raises. I call.
Turn: Ad. Bettor checks, I check
River: 7s. Bettor checks, I bet.
All comments appreciated.
I think betting the river is very player dependent and a strong matter of, would a worst hand call or check/raise you?
I really like the idea of check/raising a variety of hands for your opponent here including a 9,55, busted clubs or even 77 to put you to a tough call.
= Raider
I think you played it fine against a generic tough opponent. Much of the value of position is being able to make thin value bets on the river after your opponent checks. On the turn, your check is fine, as there you suspect that either your opponent had the goods with a 9 or was semibluffing, possibly with an ace high flush draw or two overcards including an ace. It's pretty obvious your opponent does not have KK or QQ. Bet the river, and make him pay you off with any pocket pair or possibly KQ.
Because you're posting it, I would guess you got snookered and your opponent had 77 for a 7's full that you let him river, and then he check-raised you.
-Abdul
GD,
I would be hestitant to bet for value here. One of the hands my opponent would likely have is the nut flush draw. It's fairly easy for him to not figure me for a nine,and unless he hold's a nine, how can he be that confident without a flush draw. I'd figure him for a weak Ace suited, or a hand with which he would be unlikey to call a bet. Even if he was froggy with an underpair, I would put him on something like 8's or 7's and I wouldn't want to bet for value given the likely makeup of his hand.
With a weak ace, he will check and call in case you have A-K or another big Ace.
You played the rest of the hand exactly as I would have, though.
I forgot to mention that if he does hold a nine you are almost certainly going to get raised on the river.
I think you played the hand o.k but I think that checking the river is the more prudent play.
vince.
Depending on your image and how you perceive your opponent, I think it would often be preferable to bet the turn and fold to a check-raise. If your opponent just calls and checks again on the river, you would then check behind him. The primary advantage of this play would be to deny your opponent a free card in case he was semibluffing.
I'd put him on a lower pair or a nut club draw way before any 9, although I'd be a little concerned about A9, and I would have done as you did.
Betting the turn makes it easy for you to lose 2 or 3 big bets when you're behind but hard to win a single bet when you're ahead, but checking the turn increases the chance he'll pay you off when you're ahead and limits your downside when you're behind, especially if you'll fold to a check-raise on the end.
That's pretty much the way I analyzed it, although I felt like kind of a weenie for not betting the turn.
We need a difinitive book on short-handed play. I think you should give it a shot. Put it on disk and sell it over the internet. I'll be the first to buy it! Carson did it and so can you.
Abdul--How is Tyson doing-has he moved up to the 80 game?
I totally second that...
I want the second copy...
ThePrince
We had a late breakfast this morning so I will let him answer the question on the book now he is getting pressure from all of us.
I'll buy !
Two players limp to you in the cutoff. You have 88. Should you limp or raise, and why?
Raise, and try to get rid of the blinds. If your image is good and an A or K hit the flop bet sometimes it's enough to win right there. But sometimes it's a statistical cleansing, when the limpers hit and you don't.
SPM, ...it's always something...
This is dangerous advice among some player types. You need players that are capable of folding on the flop to make this play. That is not always the case. We can all put a face on this guy, he never just gives it up on the flop, he's a regular loser and he will pay you off with his QT on an A T 6 flop when you hold slick. He will also run your ass down when you hold the 88 because he just can't fold. Put two of these jokers in the pot and 88 is in trouble even just calling pre-flop.
-Fred-
Danger Will Robinson...there's always danger with a calling station, even with AA. Sometimes you just got to gamble.
SPM,...willing to gamble with the calling station...
Limp.
If first in you can raise to get heads up or steal the blinds. with two people already in you want more callers so that if you hit your set you will be paid off.
If you are in the Big blind or UTG raising is, IMHO, not a bad idea.
I'm more in the Abdulian camp of always raise, never limp than in the Two-plus-Two sometimes limp camp, so take my advice with that in mind. I think this situation is one in which you can sometimes limp, sometimes raise.
The arguments for limping would be 1) 8-8 ain't that good; 2) there are already limpers so you're not going to get to a head-up situation by raising; 3) you want lots of players with 8-8 in case you flop a set.
The arguments for raising would be 1) by raising you manipulate the pot size to entice others to play when you are going to play beyond the flop which is, basically, only when you hit a set; 2) you can "buy the button" by raising; 3) you can eliminate one or both blinds so that one of them doesn't beat you with 9-3 offsuit when the flop comes 9-6-2; 4) you have more of a chance to win by playing hard after the flop since they now think you have a big hand.
I think the arguments for raising outweight those for calling. But you might want to vary your play. I raise except when I've got 2 red 8s or 2 black 8s. Then I'm raising 2/3 of the time and limping 1/3 of the time. If you think the arguments for limping are better than those for raising, then reverse this and raise 1/3 of the time and limp 2/3 of the time. But either way I think it's wrong to always limp and probably wrong to always raise.
Background hand: A few hands earlier, I have QQ in late position and take down a large, multiway pot after the flop came K-K-K. It was checked to me, the SB check raised, and one player (we'll call him Ted) cold-called. I am new to the game, and don't know either player. The cold call scares me, obviously. Turn is a rag, SB bets, Ted calls, and I just call. River is a rag and SB now checks, and Ted bets. I call, SB calls, and Ted reveals a sterling J4s for trip kings, jack kicker.
In the instant hand, I get QQ again. It's folded to Ted, who raises. Next guy (NG) raises, and I cap. Ted and NG call. I have only seen 15 hands or so but NG seems to be a normal player -- tightish for this game.
Flop comes A-3-6 rainbow. Check to me. I bet, Ted calls, NG check raises.
(1) Would anyone fold now? What if you think there's a 20% chance that Ted would re-raise with any ace?
(2) If both just called, and the turn was a rag, would you bet again?
"Flop comes A-3-6 rainbow. Check to me. I bet, Ted calls, NG check raises.
(1) Would anyone fold now? What if you think there's a 20% chance that Ted would re-raise with any ace?
(2) If both just called, and the turn was a rag, would you bet again?"
Response: 1) I would call the check raise hoping to spike a queen and planning to fold on the turn if I didn't. You are getting 16 to 1 on this call for your 2 card out.
2) I would bet again if both had just called my flop bet.
call with the intention of folding if a Q doesn't come on the turn.
(1) Would anyone fold now? .
Without any other outs (like a backdoor flush or str8) I'm down the road.
(2) If both just called, and the turn was a rag, would you bet again?
What can they call with, just garbage? If so then bet the turn, check the river. A sane player holds an ace here, a moron has any damn thing.
-Fred-
Why bet the flop?
If you check are you prepared to call one of them down if another rag hits? I assume you fold if it's bet-call to you on the turn.
If you were going to call someone down you saved at least a small bet and encouraged them to bluff at the pot to hopefully add some wins. I would think that with all the money in the pot on the flop, nobody is going anywhere, you are an underdog on the flop based on the pre-flop action, a free card will not hurt you very much if you do have the best hand, and a free card could help you a lot if you do not have the best hand. Could be wrong though. If you were sure that the check raise (very sure with all those chips in the center) meant that you were beat you would gain some information. When the action gets back to you on the flop after you are check raised there is approximately 18 small bets in the pot with another one probably going in. I wouldn't fold after the check raise. I'm thinking that maybe you're pot stuck with the loose player in their and all that money in the center.
1) I would fold. the preflop action points towards at least one ace being out.
2) this depends on the players but most of the time I would not bet the turn because a) If you are in the lead they will not call but they may try to bluff on the river thus you win more money; b) many people wait until the turn to pull the trigger. you showed agression so this would be a good place for a check-raise. save the bet for a crying call on the river when they bet into you. you could even fold on the river and induce a bluff on a later hand.
that thing about folding on the river to induce a future bluff is sweet boris. definitely a level of thinking above the other posts.
i would fold right there on the flop too, but i was surprised to see so many players say that. i was expecting a couple people to say reraise or something over aggro like that..
Scott one of the reasons for leading at the flop here was to find out where you are at since there is a slight chance no one has an Ace. But once you get raised, you know that you are playing two outs so fold since the pot odds are far short of 23.5:1 and you won't win 100% of the time when you do turn a set. If no one raises your flop bet and a rag comes on the turn then you must grit your teeth and bet again since your hand may be good. You might even get KK out.
I dumped it on the flop after the raise as you suggested but I think it's closer than you make it out to be due to the implied odds, which are bolstered by the presence if the wacky player.
I feel ok about this one. Thanks for your post.
All fold to you in the SB with QJs. The game is online, so there is no chopping, and the BB is an unknown opponent. Is raising preferabale to just calling? If raising is correct, then what is the correct strategy on the flop if the BB calls preflop.
I think raising is OK. You are in an obvious steal situation so the BB is likely to call with even a mediocre hand. I'm assuming you want some action here.
I would just about always raise here, then bet the flop and turn (whether I improved or not) against MOST opponents. If I met some resistance I'd of course rethink the hand, but generally I'd keep firing.
A raise is probably preferable to a call, since you have a chance of stealing either now or on a future betting round, and you'll probably get your opponent to call with a lesser J or Q.
had an interesting hand playing 9-18 the other night. I'm in the big blind with 7-7. 2 limpers, button raises, small blind folds, I call, limpers call.
I don't remember the exact details but the flop had a 7 and two rag spades. I bet, all call.
disaster strikes on the turn when the 3rd spade hits the board. If I remember correctly big lick makes a straight. I bet once again, limpers call, button raises.
At this point I remember a comment that Ray Zee posted about most players not defending their equity in the pot. I decide to re-raise. the limpers fold and the button calls.
All comments welcome. Was this a case of "defending your equity in the pot" or was I acting like a maniac?
With this many players in the pot, when the flush card comes on the turn it is a safe bet that someone has a flush. I don't like your re-raise although with 10 outs to a full house it is not all that bad. The problem is that your re-raise may chase away the other two limpers and it is not clear that you want them to fold. Furthermore, it may be get raised again costing you additional money to pursue your full house.
If you haven't done this yet you should read about playing 4th Street in HPFAP. You really should check and call here because you have a big draw and there are so many players in the pot who could have made the flush. Now if you had somthing like top pair with no big flush card, a three flush on the board, and you were against 1 or 2 players it would be more correct to bet and fold if raised.
CV
Well I'm happy to report that I ended up taking down the pot. the 4th spade came on the river and both of the limpers who folded muttered something about how they had a spade. the button had two pair with no spade. obviously I was pretty lucky here. my justification for the play is that the limpers just called on the turn so I didn't think they had the flush yet. when the button raised he either had the flush or was trying to protect his hand. by re-raising I have the opportunity to drive other players out and possibly save a bet on the river because unless the button had the nut flush I don't think he bets when I check the river. the check and call approach will cost 2 bets just the same as re-raising will and in this case it won the pot for me.
Letting the 4th Flush card fall for cheep with trips is debateable on how to play 4th street, but as you saw these guys were willing to pay one bet for non nut draws and you had to suspect with the board so wragged that someone was on the Flush draw. I am trying to say that your bet didn't drive people away from trying to draw out and you would have been raised if a person had a Flush. So unless you make a Full house on the end it will usually cost you 3 bets insead of two when you are beat.
I don't know how many times a player with a Flush will let the last card fall without a bet when they have position. The person would have to be a weak player and from the way this person played two pair on the turn you would have seen a bet comming at you on the end if he really had a Flush not to mention the chance of a re-raise on the turn.
Other than that it was a great play.
CV
i think this falls into the lucky/good category. I was lucky the button raised me with two pair. and it was good that I re-raised to drive the other two out.
New to the game, I post in the cutoff position. Pot is raised UTG by a good, solid, but not great, player. All fold to me; I call with Kh-Jh. Button and small blind fold; big blind calls. $200 in the pot and we take the flop 3-handed.
Flop is J-T-8 rainbow with one heart. Big blind bets. UTG raises. I make it 3 bets and both players call. $470 in the pot.
Turn is 7h making board J-T-8-7 with two hearts. Both opponents check to me. I bet and they both call. $650 in the pot.
River is a blank. We all check. BB shows Q-J; UTG mucks; I win with my K-J.
All comments and criticism welcome.
Warning: This is not a response that I would consider to be a well thought out one. I haven't posted in a while (busy at work) and just felt the need to look in and see what's happening. Since I only have a few minutes, these thoughts are somewhat of the cuff and probably do not consider all factors that weigh in on the flop.
I think that this is a spot where rather than 3 betting the flop, you are better off calling. This is because the only UTG hand that you can beat which you wouldn't mind seeing him fold would be AQ (you don't mind too much if he sticks around with AK as he only has 3 outs then).
A call also gives you more info on how to play the turn. This is because when you 3 bet it, UTG could very well checkcall the turn with a hand that beats yours and you wont know it. On the other hand, if he fires again on the turn after you cold call the bet on the flop, you can be more sure (though still not positive) that he has you beat.
Another advantage of coldcalling the flop is that it allows you to represent a greater range of hands on the turn. For example, with the 7 coming on the turn, you could bet if checked to (or raise if bet into) because your play on the flop will look like you just made a straight on the turn. You might also semibluff raise when a blank heart comes off on the theory "what the hell, I have to call anyway so I might as well throw in a raise and maybe the other guy will lay down AJ or QQ or something to my 'obvious' set. If he calls, I will check down the river if I don't improve"
On the other hand, there are probably several reasons why you may want to 3 bet the flop....but I gotta get back to some more dictation (groan).
A solid player who raises under the gun should have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK,AQ, and maybe AJ suited. Now when the blind leads into him on the flop and he raises I would tend to eliminate AK or AQ or TT. Therefore, his raise would seem to imply that your top pair of Jacks is no good. I think 3 betting is over playing your hand. I am unsure as to whether or not I would even have called two bets cold except that you have both a backdoor Heart flush draw and some remote runner-runner straight possibilities in addition to your top pair and King over card. Then there is the unpleasant prospect of having it get raised again by the big blind who could easily have a top pair with a better kicker than yours or two pair or even a straight.
It took BOTH the utg raiser to over play his hand on the flop AND the big blind to have about the weakest hand he could have for his betting action for your play to be correct.
Nothing succeeds like success.
Jim: Why would you eliminate A-K or A-Q when he raises on the flop? With that flop wouldn't many opponents raise?
I felt big blind's most likely hands were A-J, K-J, Q-J, J-T, T-9 or 9-9. And I felt UTG probably had A-K or A-Q, possible K-Qs.
All in all, however, I think you are probably correct in saying that I could only win with a certain combination of holdings or if I got lucky on the turn or river. But I think 3-betting the flop was a better choice than merely calling the raise. Get out or take charge.
Thanks to you, and all, for your comments.
Andy think of it this way. If the UTG pre-flop raiser has AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT, or AJ suited (21 hands given your holding and the board) he will raise 100% of the time. If he has AK or AQ (28 hands given your hand) it is not clear he will raise 100% of the time. With AK he has no pair but he has a gutshot. With AQ he has no pair but he has a double belly buster with any King or Nine. Some players will raise in this situation and others will simply call since they have no hand yet. Given that he has raised you are badly beaten in many cases and only a marginal favorite against the UTG only in other cases. How can 3 betting possibly be right here? You will rarely be re-raising with the best hand in this scenario considering both your opponent's actions, you have no chance of winning the pot outright, and you are chasing with hardly any outs in many cases.
Thanks, Jim; I was out of town for a few days, don't know if you'll scroll down this far. Your analysis seems better than mine was when I played the hand. Folding would indeed have been more correct than my re-raise.
hello, just checking in to say hi.
You shouldn't be in the hand unless this player is a loose raiser. This is not selective play. Get yourself in the habit of respecting raises unless you are SURE that he is a FREQUENT, I'll say it again FREQUENT loose raiser.
Taking control is the name of the game, and unless you have group 1 or some of group 2 , good luck. Is that too tight? NOPE!!!!!! And if you think it is you will be an even money player or slight loser long run. Your posistion is not enough here. so long,................ps, if you are a new player playing at bthis level,... i hope you money, lots of it.
Al, did you notice that our hero had posted a late position blind? If you still think he should fold preflop, let me know.
no i didn't , my apologies.
...damned if ya don't. I think you played this hand perfect. You played it aggressive and gave no free cards to the gutshot str8t in the BB, nor to the UTG. Your read on the UTG was perfect as well. I'm guessing he had AKs or AQs, maybe of hearts.
Somewhat loose, somewhat aggressive player raises from middle position after one limper. Fold to me in the BB with Ad-10d. I call, limper calls. Limper is very loose, kinda wacky.
Flop comes 10s-Js-4d. I check, limper checks, raiser bets. I call. Limper raises. Something tells me he is on spades. Raiser calls, I call.
Turn is the Jh. I check, limper now checks, raiser bets. I fold, limper calls.
River is a red 2. Check-check. Limper shows Qs7s and raiser shows AK.
I hate the way I played this hand, especially since I had some info on the limper and sensed he was pushing his draw, which was possibly confirmed on the turn.
Please comment on all streets.
so you mucked 2nd pair when faced with a little heat. Big deal. IMHO you did the right thing. there is a good chance you are already beat and even though your intuition was correct about the draw, those draws do get there pretty often.
If it makes you feel better remember how many times a calling station calls you all the way with second pair and you just smile to your self and think "thanks for the chips bud".
something tiny to think about,
when there has been a raise pre-flop, and there is just 2 or 3 players, no queens, kings or aces flop, and you have a piece of the flop with top kicker, maybe a bet is in order.
without knowing more, I have to ask why you didn't bet.If it is because you didn't have top pair, well I think you might reconsider.
If a queen,king or ace had hit the flop, then I would have played more closely to how you played it. Yes, you have to respect the raiser, but if the flop is semi weak, how many hands are you willing to give them credit for? take it before someone else does, or they show you a real reason to leave. seeya
good point. this is why I always cold call any number of raises with J-10o. haha.
seriously though, I like you analysis.
Pre-flop, your call of the raise out of your big blind is fine. When the flop comes Jack-high, you should bet the flop with your middle pair/top kicker and see how your opponents handle it. If no one raises this usually means no one an over pair or even top pair so your hand may be good. Your mistake here was checking the flop and putting yourself in a check-calling, guessing mode. Having failed to bet the flop, you have to fold when the turn gets bet and the top card is paired since it could get too expensive to see this hand through and you don't have enough outs and if someone has a Jack you are drawing dead.
Like I said, I hate the way I played it. I think you are dead right.
I think a bet on the flop here is preferrable. You might even consider check/raising if the limper is passive and likely to check to the raiser.
Also, from the way you describe middle player, I might consider 3-betting pre-flop if there was a chance the limper would have folded. Although in this case, I would've been wrong since he showed AK.
= Raider
Given the way the flop was played on your hand, I am quite surprised at your check/fold on the turn.
Given that the raiser did not 3 bet the flop, you should think that he is likely on a hand like AK, AQ or perhaps 99 or something. And given that the flop raiser checked the turn, you should think that he is on a flush or open-ended draw. I think you ought to have been able to deduce that you were probably in the lead at this point and that there were likely to be about 15-18 bad river cards for you. You cannot fold. You must at least call and perhaps consider a raise in order to knock out at least one of your opponents and increase your chances of wining the pot.
...of course, this is easy for me to say since I know what these guys held:)
Just got back from a trip to Vegas and there's a hand that's been bugging me for a week now.
The table is better than average. One borderline maniac on my left and a loose player who knows the game but is playing a lot of funny hands beside him. Otherwise pretty tight. I'm in mid-position with two black queens and raise an early position limper. Surprisingly all call except SB. POT- $190
FLOP- 9-5-3, two hearts.
I bet, maniac raises, all but one call. I re-raise, maniac hits it again and I put in the 4th raise.Four remaining players call. The maniac I'm not concerned with. He could have 2 over cards, pocket 2's, 9-10 or the flush draw. The loose player I know doesn't have me beat. With this flop he would push a better hand. I'm concerned about the last 2 who are fairly new to the game but appear solid. They called a lot of bets to have nothing. POT- $565
TURN- 6 of hearts
Obviously a terrible card. The flush is possible and I can't rule out the straights by the 2 players to my left. I can't see my hand being any good with the pressure I put on the flop. The pot is big though so I don't want to give out a free card. I decide to check and see the action. It's checked around to the last player who bets.
With 3 players to act and $595 in the pot how do you proceed?
i guess you have to call given the pot, but someone is probably going to raise behind you. raising's not going to help, although im sure some will recommend raising to get out any straights or two pair..both which seem unlikely given the board right? someone almost surely has the flush with that many callers. looks like youll have to call to the end though, unless the raising gets too heavy.
-------
on second thought: fold right there and then. you cant even make a full house and someone's bound to have something better than an overpair at this point, you cant even cancel out a possible KK or AA. youre drawing dead.
looking forward to the results.
I would fold. With all those players taking all this heat when a two flush flops, someone must have a flush and you have no outs. If by some miracle no one has a flush, you can also be drawing dead to a straight or a set. Furthermore, you are being bet into which means it could get raised after you call despite everyone checking.
.
Jim,
There is six hunderd dollars in this pot and you are going to fold to a $30 bet with Q,Q when the highest card on the board is a 9. I did read the results before posting which makes my comments hind sighted but please. Show me the money! You and TJ suffered a Sklansky catastrophe! I'm not sure I like Abdul's raise but I think it just may be the best play. Information please.
Vince
But Vince a bunch of players (4 plus a maniac) took a lot of heat once a two flush flopped. This almost always means a flush when the flush card arrives on the turn. Last time I checked an over pair loses to a flush and has no outs against it. Furthermore, based on your logic you will pay off at the river as well so it is really costing you $60 to see this hand through not $30. This hand is probably being presented by the poster because it is highly unusual. If he saw the hand through and someone showed him a flush at showdown it probably would never have been posted or, if it had, the entire forum would have responded wanting to know why he had not folded earlier.
There are a few cards that mayl allow you to safely fold the river. Almost any heart and a few others but yes it does cost you sixty dollars so maybe Abdul is correct. Raise and fold to a three bet. But even if you just call there is over $600 in the pot so you are getting at least 10 to 1. Also there may not be a bet on the river. Yes the heart flush is imposing but I've seen to many players add a flush card to their betting hands to make me shutter and fold when a fortune of big bets are at stake.
Vince
With 3 people behind me to raise I decide to fold and it's folded around to the other solid player who just calls. River blanks. Button bets and his JJ beats the other guys 10-10.
And some people say position doesn't matter :)
I think you bet one more time and if all hell breaks loose, then you can fold. By checking, your now put in a guess situation, does the better have you beat? It looks this way to me.
Perfect. Raise, and probably fold to a 3-bet. Check-call on the river.
-Abdul
I've been keeping better records of late and the data has proved to be invaluable. Now, I know we're supposed to think of life as one long session and there really aren't any losing sessions or winning sessions, but poker players talk about a good night or a bad night so I bow to popular parlance.
As I said, I'm keeping better records now and I've noticed a pattern.
1) When I have a session with undersets, nut flush flops with the board pairing on the river, 7 out of 8 flush draws that do not fill, 7 out of 8 straight draws that do not fill, overpairs getting beat, group 1's getting beat then I have a losing session.
2) When my flushes fill, my straights fill, my sets hold up, my AA and KK win 1/2 the time and I get dealt a lot of J6o in the BB I have a winning session.
Does any one else have similar experiences?
Yes. When your hands hold up and you are able to hit some draws, you win. When they do not hold up and you do not hit your fair share of draws yourself, you lose.
This seems a tad bit too obvious. You don't need records to tell you this. Am I missing your point?
= Raider
Raider,
You're not the first person to miss my point and due to my obliqueness I'm sure you won't be the last. My point was that I am a winning player. But, as Jim brier has said many a time luck plays a bigger factor in our profits than we might like to admit. We, who have adapted a disciplined, thoughtful approach to poker, we, who read and learn and then read some more, we, who do our best to put our money in when we have way the best of it are at the mercy of a fickle god. Yes, my conclusions are obvious but they are also a reassurance to those who lose and know they are playing very well. Since there is an unspoken agreement not to post typical bad beat stories I thought I would circumvent that and just roll them all up in one post. Maybe the fickle finger of fate will smile her eyes upon me again soon.
Here's what I think happens. Because of things like blinds/antes and speculative hands that you frequently start with, you tend to lose. Then a hand comes along where you hit a big pot (such as a set or a completed flush) and you win it all back plus a little more (assuming that you are a winning player). On your really bad nights, the big hand gets beat. Now instead of being ahead, you are way behind.
Of course this is an over simplification of a complex game, but you should get the drift. All comments are welcome.
I agree with your observations but I would add that the primary reason an otherwise decent player loses over a long period of time (e.g.-500 hours or more) is due to suckouts. The most typical form is something like having an over pair or top pair/top kicker on the flop against one opponent and losing most of the time because your opponent turns or rivers a card that gives him the best hand. This "garden variety suckout" may be the single biggest reason two players of otherwise equal ability can have significantly different results over an extended period of time. If all the data were available a "suckout factor" could be developed for each individual player. Differences in earn rate could be largely driven by differences in "suckout factors" between the players not their playing decisions. Holdovers and payoffs are another problem for a good player who is caught in a losing streak.
In the category of "what works for me" my goal is to win >70% of my sessions which average around 200 minutes. I read once that if you take perhaps 3 bad or otherwise beats in a short time that you should run not walk to the nearest exit...this overstatement may be closer to the truth than you realize. What I mean by this is the short term damage that has been incurred by your physche and more importantly your table image is gone for the moment at that table you are somewhat impaired and vulnerable both internally and externally so what I am getting at since the game is open year round is to rack your chips and return tomorrow or at the very least take a 30minute break.
cheers Repete
It is true that if you play correctly, you are constantly having $$ drained from your stack. You fold your blinds to a raise, you limp to see the flop, then fold, you play a hand only to be forced to fold on the turn, etc....
What happens is that once in a while, you get a decent starting hand, see the flop, make it past the turn, and wind up with the winner on the river. I doesn't matter whether your big pair stood up or you made you flush, it's all the same.
The point is that you don't make it to this point very often. I would estimate that I usually only win a few pots per session, unless it is a really long session. So most of the time, if I am playing, I am losing $$. But that one big pair that stands up, or that one flush draw that hits on the river, wins me a big pot. And then all the here and there bets I lost seeing the flop, folding, folding blinds, etc, get made up for.
All you need is one or two good pots and you can have a substantial winning session. Then you can afford to lose a few bets playing tightly waiting for another chance to win a big pot.
Think about it: The person at the table who wins the most pots, or wins most often, is usually the biggest loser $$ wise. And you, if you are tight and aggressive, will most often be losing, that is, folding, getting out when beat or pot odds don't warrant, etc. But when you win a pot it will be as big as you can possibly make it. So by winning the fewest pots, or winning the least often, you can actually make the most $$.
Sort of ironic that by losing the most you can also win the most.
Or something like that.
Or maybe I'm just delirious today. But I think I made my point, so I'll just have to be happy with myself anyway.
Dave in Cali
After a sufficiently large number of sessions, there will be a positive correlation between the number of pots an individual player wins during each session and his/her session outcome (profit or loss). Paradoxically, the players who win the most pots in typical low-limit games will tend to have the poorest net outcome over a long period of time.
MJS
a good player like Jim, is correct when he talks about losing to suck outs, because he has learned to avoid most of the traps.
It's a mini revelation when you finally realize that even though you have a solid hand, that if your opponent is dictating the action or raising in response your probably beat(against typical opponents) Players like Jim step aside while typical players can't let go. These typical players also think they have had bad beats since they had fairly strong hands starting out. But all the signs were telling them to put on the brakes, they just don't. I feel most typical players lose this way more than just not making hands, since they lose much more money in these types of situations. seeya
you very wise man Mr. Raiseya.
I am on the button with the KsQc. An early player limps as well as two middle players. I limp and the small blind folds. There is $110 in the pot and five players.
The flop is: QhJd7s
The big blind and the early player check. The first middle limper bets and the second middle limper calls. I raise to $40 with my top pair/excellent kicker. The big blind and early player fold. The first middle limper re-raises to $60. The second middle limper folds. I call. There is $250 in the pot and two players.
The turn is: 4s
My opponent bets $40. What should I do?
If I call and the river is a blank and my opponent bets again what should I do?
Well you certainly can't fold. So the question is whether to raise the turn and showdown, or just call/call.
I'd be more apt to just call/call, since AQ,QJs and 77 combine to enough possibities (given his position), that have you drawing to 3 or less outs. It sure looks like you're beat, but the possibilities of KQ,KTs,T9s are all reasons your can't fold.
= Raider
I'll try my best on this one.
Call. Call. OR Call. Fold.
I would guess that when the middle limper re-raises your flop raise, he may be on the steal, semi-bluffing, or protecting a hand that may get outdrawn. He may well have top two pair or even a set of 7's. But you have draws against both of these hands. Regardless of which of the three he is doing, it would be silly for him not to bet the turn when a rag hits. So, you have to call. When he bets the river he might well be guessing at that point that you're in for the duration so he wouldn't bet if he doesn't have top pair beat - so you may be able to safely fold at that point without fearing your giving away anything.
-Michael
He can have a draw or the same hand as you, but with top two or a set I would think he wouldn't want to squeeze out the middle guy and risk getting no bets after the turn, especially since he can't put you on AQ.
So definitely call the turn. The river is a little trickier, but he might bet a busted draw here since you might have one too. I'd pay him off.
call him down no matter what the river brings. Too much money in the pot to make any sort of laydown especially since you are heads-up. If you raise him and he really has it you will get reraised. If you raise him and he was bluffing (and would have bluffed the river) then you lose a bet.
On the river, I can't think of any card that could hit that would make me consider folding. In fact, if the river blanked off and he checked, I would definitely bet my queens for value.
I think this is the sort of situation where you just have to pay off because KQ on a Qh Jd 7s 4s board is simply too much hand for me to fold against only one opponent. I suspect you were beat by something like QJ or 77 since there was no raise before the flop.
Regards, sucker
Once there is money in the pot, there are only two players, and the first player bets, the second player should usually merely call as long as he puts his chances anywhere from about 15% to about 75%. That is a pretty big range. To try too hard to find an excuse to do anything other than call twice could be counterproductive.
I agree with David, but I think the most important thing to be learned from this is not how you should play the turn, but rather how David's reply should affect your play on the flop. [In fact, I think very few people realize that when the post mortem of a hand convinces them of what is correct for a late street action, they should go back to the earlier streets to see if that play was consistent with this revelation.]
I'll give you a few hints about what I think about the play on the flop. First, you said you like your kicker. Well, this is purely a function of how the other person plays preflop, but against a somewhat reasonable 20-40 player, you really shouldn't be that thrilled with it, and if you happen to be against a tightish, passive preflop player, you should be downright terrified. I'm not saying you can't be up against a draw or a pair of jacks when he bets out, just that your kicker is not that great since it only comes into play if you both have a Q.
Losing the player between you would be a big plus. Therefore raising with the hope of a reraise from the original bettor is a decent idea. There's only one problem: This other player has to be aggressive enough to do it with a hand worse (or equal) to yours. [Often it is okay if his hand is very possibly better than yours, but in this case almost any hand better than yours has to be significantly better, and the pot isn't all that large yet.] If you don't think this guy is aggressive enough to 3-bet with a draw or a QT, then raising may make the operation a success, where the patient dies.
If we assume that the original bettor is not aggressive enough to do our bidding by reraising unless we are in real trouble, then putting in a raise here puts us in a spot where we are committing an extra big bet to see the showdown when we are a huge dog or an extra half big bet as a slight favorite (against two draws). When you consider the amount you stand to lose if a draw improves (possibly 3 more big bets - remember David's admonition about calling down), and the fact that you probably won't be paid off by hands that are much worse, then raising in such a situation is actually kind of iffy.
Far be it for me to downplay the importance of aggression. When it is a close decision, the more aggressive choice is almost always the correct one. I am simply pointing out that there are some considerations here that may make it correct for you to consider just flat calling on the flop. You will get to the river for 2.5 big bets whether your opponent backs off or not, and since you (should) have no plans to fold, trying to make more with aggressive flop play may not be warranted. You also may escape particularly cheaply if a major scare card comes and you are faced with multiple bets (or maybe even just one from a new shooter).
Sigh - Jim, please stop posting hands that I find interesting (if the play I suggest wasn't so counter-intuitive, you would not have heard from me), I really get nervous when I discuss strategy in an open forum. Heck, maybe my advice isn't counter-intuitive, but rather it is intentionally wrong just to keep you guys off balance. You'll have to work that part out for yourselves, heh.
Tom Weideman
That's one hell of an analysis and well worth reading and considering for that matter. Of course I have a problem with gauging your post flop play strictly on the play of one of your opponents in a multiway pot. There are anumber of reasons for raisng the flop here least of all is trying to thin the field. As for ever being afraid of a King kicker in the scenario discussed there are not many "tightish" 20 - 40 players that will limp with A,Q or K,K the only kicker problems one need to worry about. In fact either of these two hands being limped with from early and or middle position are horrible plays that only exceptioanlly poor player make. I might even consider Q,Q and J,J in the same category.
Raising on the flop with top pair and a big kicker from the button can never be a huge mistake. The fact that you most always gain at least some information from your opponents response almost makes the raise mandatory. The potential of thinning the field and getting it heads up also cries "raise". These are my opinions and they are disputable.
Vince.
Any 20/40 player that will limp with AQ, KK, QQ, or JJ needs to move to a lower limit. Unless the game is so loose that you can limp-reraise with KK and QQ.
Tom-
Thank you for posting your analysis. The light just went on over my head. However, I'm too embarrassed to reveal just how simple a point was just made clear to me.
I just read David Sklansky's response above that said Tom was correct that calling the flop in this hand was the way to play the hand. Well from what I read Tom doesn't really say that it is the best plkay just that a raise may not be the best. David says that calling is correct. Not unusual but I disagree Old wise one.
Why? Well let's see. If you call this hand down to a lead better you invest 2 1/2 bets every time. Somkeone else can figure out how often you win thoat way and your EV. Maybe Rick wants to consult Bayes again. I'm sure he has an answer.
Now what happens if you fold. Ha, Ha just kidding although you don't invest anything so you better be able to show me a +EV by just calling this hand or else a fold is better. Follow.
Now what happens if you raise. Well if you call the raise and fold the turn as some have suggested then you lose only 1 1/2 bets on those times when you get reraised. O.K. I know that David said to call so the turn even when you get raised on the flop. O.K. so you call the turn and fold the river and when that happens you invest 2 1/2 bets which it so happens is the same as when you call down the hand. O.K.,O.K already so David said call the river too. Poo on you! So you call the river and now you have 3 1/2 bets invested.
So if we play my way you invest 3 1/2 bets and Tom's way 2 1/2 bets. And Ricks' way 1 1/2 bets. He folds the turn. And Mason's way ) investement. Don't you know that Mason is the tightest player in Vegas. Just ask Abdul. BTW - where is Abdul? I thought this question would be right up his alley. Maybe he and Mason are having dinner together at the Bellagio Buffet. Ironing out thier differnces. Burying the hatchet. Cutting the cheese. Wait no, that's not right.
Anyway, If you play the way I say. Raise. When you lose you lose 1 more big bet. When you win, which I believe is may be more often because of your agressiveness, you win ? Hey someone do the math and tell me if I'm right. How about you Tom. I trust your judgement. After all Sklansky said you were right. He doesn't usually complement other people besides himslelf and of course the current poster. Please factor in the fact that you gain a great deal of information about the other opponents hands when you raise.
Vince
Raising on the flop is definitely OK if the original bettor is either rather tight and non tricky or quite loose and/or aggressive. When it is between those extremes calling all the down is a bit better. (Of course if they ever check to you, then you bet.)
David,
I like the quite loose and/or aggressive part for raising. I knew I agreed with you but I just wanted you to put it in writing. BTW - I also thought that Tom Weidman did us all a favor with his take on the analysis. I hope he knows that I respect his opinion but wanted to clarify a few things. I wasn't worried about you, David, misunderstanding. You usually laugh off all my arguements anyway.
Vince.
Tom,
Excellent Post. The technical stuff about the hand is great but what really got me is the following: "{In fact, I think very few people realize that when the post mortem of a hand convinces them of what is correct for a late street action, they should go back to the earlier streets to see if that play was consistent with this revelation.]"
I hope everybody reads this and you post here more often.
Regards,
Rick
I don't think it matters if you fold or play. You'll probably win just often enough to justify the odds you're getting (4:1) on your $80 to call.
If it is even money then calling is better for the image.
-Fred-
Call and call again on the river. Kiss your chips goodbye as you throw them in, probably.
I wouldn't be liking my kicker right now. The only hand with a Q that your opponent could have that you beat is QT.
I say you have to call him down. Your probably beat (my guess is QJ), but he may have KQ or QT. He might even be on a straight draw.
If we take it as a given that we're going to call the turn and river once we call the flop, should we consider raising again on the flop instead? Then if the opponent checks the turn, we check it back; if she bets, we can fold. Any hand that would keep betting on the turn is too big for us to call; but several hands bigger than ours, like top two or small set, may check the turn to us. Also a draw (unlikely IMO) might be induced into a bad bluff on the end.
I'll answer without looking at the responses, some of which will probably be much better than mine.
Preflop is fine. In rare cases you could raise to try to knock out the blinds, but very rarely.
On the flop your raise is clear. When you get reraised, there are a couple possible scenarios.
He might put you on raising for a free card, even though this is less common at the middle limits since it often doesn't work ;). Have you used this play in this session or against this player before? I tend to discount this, but it is one of things I like to think about when someone reraises me on the flop, just in case.
More likely, he thinks your hand is good but his is better. However, it is not so good that he is too worried about knocking out the limper caught between the two of you. So I would say a set is a little less likely than otherwise. Most players would play them slower, especially given the absence of a flush draw (but again it depends on what you know about this player). And only 77 would make a set but not raise preflop.
So possible other hands are QJ, KQ, AQ, and an outside chance of QT getting frisky. So, we use the good old Bayesian analysis: 6 QJ, 8 AQ, 6 KQ, 8 QT. Then we weight those with likelyhood of being played this way, Abdul style. We'll pretend for simplicity that QJ and KQ would always be played this way. QT would only be played this aggressively one in four times, lets say, so effectively there are only 2 ways of having it. But the real question is "How often would this player limp after one early limper with AQ, suited or unsuited?" If the answer is very rarely/never, then it looks like you have a clear call, even giving some chance of having a set. You might even raise the turn and check the river unless a king falls, and fold if reraised. On the other hand, if this player would often limp with AQ, it is closer but you still probably call him down, getting about 8-2 odds.
David
Jim,
After being unable to participate much on the forum lately, it is great to see a Jim Brier post to respond to. As usual I haven’t looked at the other responses yet. I’ll assume a reasonably competent opponent in the absence on other information, although he should be a little looser than you or I (as most opponents are if you play in good games).
When the early limper reraises your button raise on the flop with another player caught between the him and you, I doubt he is on a draw or putting a move on you with a weak hand, primarily due to the presence of the other potential caller. So I would assume he has a strong hand or some sort.
I’m going to use a “semi-Bayesian” analysis. In other words, I’ll list the possible combinations and reduce them a bit according to an estimate of how likely I think they could be based on the play so far. I’m not sure this is valid technique so I would appreciate feedback here. Overwhelmingly, the likely candidates are as follows:
AQ (12 ways) – Since most would raise with this hand UTG before the flop, I’ll give this a weight of about 5 ways.
QJ (6 ways) – Note typical (not strong) opponents play this offsuit up front. Since some won’t, I’ll modify the likelihood of an opponent holding this to approximately 5 ways.
KQ (6 ways) – Here we have a tie and this is also fairly consistent with the play so far. I’ll give it a weight of about 5 ways.
JJ (3 ways) – Not all players raise pre flop with jacks so this is possible. I will give it a weight of about 2 ways.
QQ (1 way) – Although not all raise with queens, most do so I’ll discount this one in the analysis.
77 (3 ways) – This hand is completely consistent with the play so far. Most limp with jacks and playing it hard on the flop with a draw out makes sense so I’ll give it full weight.
If your opponent holds AQ or QJ, you are drawing to 3 outs. If your opponent holds 77 or JJ, you are drawing dead. If your opponent holds KQ, you will have to take the heat for half the pot.
Based on my “semi-Bayesian” analysis, we should be looking at AQ or QJ about ten ways or half the time. Since you have only three outs and should win only $330 when you call $40 on the turn, this is clearly not a favorable call.
You will be up against a set 25% of the time. Here you are drawing dead.
You will be drawing to a tie 25% of the time.
My math laziness gene just kicked in (plus I have to run an all day errand), but it already looks like this is a fold on the turn and it isn’t close. I’ll post it anyway and would appreciate any criticism or help with bringing the analysis “home” assuming my assumptions make sense.
Regards,
Rick (who is not afraid to show his weaknesses in math but believes the underlying logic is OK :-) )
I think your answer is right and folding is the correct action.
possibility that QT could be held by the early limper. Most of the other posters mention this hand and I didn't include it in my analysis. Even if it is possible, it would take an EXTREMELY frisky opponent to make it three bets on the flop with a player between him and Jim and facing Jim Brier's raise. If Jim had labled the opponent as aggressive, tricky, reckless and so on it would be different. Since he didn't, I would think his play as typical and typical players don't make it three bets here.
If I'm wrong on this I will be going in the shop for a complete tune up ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I think you are very wrong. I believe that an opponent with Q,T might very well make it three bets. Especially if he believes the button is raising to get a free card. The problem with this hand is the Q,J. We all know that. Obviouoly the likelyhood of a limper with this hand is high or the likelihood tah a limper that raise with this board having Q,J is pretty high. There are just all kinds of problems with this hand especailly when the K,Q gets to the turn and still has top pair with no made hands showing. It now becomes a guessing game. I actually like to raise the turn better than a call although only agaisnt specific opponents.
I liked that spiffy little Bayesian analysis you did, Rick. But I doubt that Bayes ever played poker so although it's a nice little thought the fundamental strategic concern on the turn is knowledge of the opponent. Unless you know the opponent very well calling the turn and river are correct. Unlike Jim I don't feel calling a turn bet here is a leak in ones game and once you get to the river, well...
Vince
Vince,
Since Jim didn't say much about the players I assumed that they were typical semi-rational Las Vegas opponents. If he said this took place in a typical Los Angeles game then a three bet with QT or a draw would be quite possible. And if he said the early player was hyper aggressive I would have opened up my range of possible hands.
BTW, that wasn't an example of Bayesian analysis; it was semi-Bayesian analysis. I've never really done much and am trying to exercise my flabby mind. I wonder if combining pure Bayesian analysis with the likelihood of the hands being played that way is valid. But first I need to pass Bayesian 101 before I post such a question on the theory forum.
Regards,
Rick
PS: You can call me wrong so long as you get in touch if you make it to Los Angeles.
I called the turn bet. The river was: 3h. My opponent bet and I called. My opponent won with the QsJh for the top two on the flop.
I like Rick's analyses. When re-popped on the flop in this situation, it frequently means two pair and sometimes a set. When he follows this up with a bet on the turn you will usually be looking at 3 outs and sometimes none.
This is one of those hands where you are earmarked to lose money. It is a very common occurrence if you play a lot of hold-em. I have had a problem over the past year in these situations where I am constantly paying off. I think I wasted $80 on this hand.
You play in relatively rational games. In 10-20 or 15-30 on the boat down here or on the Net, you just can't fold that hand most times. At Bellagio, against a known opponent, I can sure see it. QJ seems quite probable there -- people love to limp in with that sucker.
In my games, people will check raise or even three bet drawing hands and will bet and raise top pair-weak kicker on the flop with no hesitation. Last night I raised with QQ and the next player 3 bet with 34s so fast your head would spin. A woman called my turn bet with A7o and a board of Q-J-7-9. So it's hard for me climb out of the cesspool. In real life, that's a very defensible laydown.
after reading the early posts, I was worried that I might be wrong in my analysis (and therefore blasted in public on the forum!). Maybe I fold too easily when reraised. I was Especially worried about this after reading DS's and Tom Wiedeman's responses. However, Rick's response made me feel better about my original stance of probably fold.
The fact that I did in fact read the hand correctly is just hindsight 20/20 - letting me have some peace of mind in the fact that I would probably have folded in your situation.
dave in cali
That's what you get for slumming around in the 20-40 game!
Seriously, I completely agree with you that this is the type of situation that comes up a lot, and plugging this leak would be a big money saver. Like many other situations, though, you need to have a pretty good read on the player and the texture of the game, but when you look at Rick's analysis, it's hard to argue.
BTW, how are those golf lessons coming?
I took a couple of golf lessons and my instructor pointed something out that I had not thought of. When I go out to a driving range, I practice my swing by placing the golf ball on a mat which is what most everyone else does. However, when I take my lessons the ball is placed on grass. Well, it turns out that an artificial surface like a mat is a lot more forgiving than grass. Specifically, if you badly divot the ball on grass you will definitely get a lousy result that you can easily see. But on a mat, you can badly divot the ball and still get a decent ball loft and trajectory which gives you the illusion of having stroked the ball adequately. In the future I must practice on grass not on artificial surfaces.
True, but you can tell from the sound and feel off the mat whether you hit the ball solidly or bounced into it. You just have to be a tougher critic of yourself off carpet because the shot looks deceptively decent even though you hit it fat.
I think you are right that you are most likely beaten and destined to lose money on the hand. But given the odds and the situation, I also agree with DS that calling the hand down is not too wrong.
One point no one else brought up is that your opponent may be re-rasing on the flop without Q-J because he probably figures you don't have a Queen since you limped. Even with the presence of the other limpers in front of you, most players will raise pre-flop with a hand that contains a queen. So he might be more inclined to re-raise here with Q-T or a draw than he would be otherwise.
my gut feeling is that the limper has QJ and flopped two pair. if you believe this, then you should fold. Is there some chance that he would play AQ this way, if so, then also fold, but I doubt AQ. No, He flopped two pair with QJ, that's what I am going with.
if you think he would three-bet the flop with a worse queen than you, then you have to call him on the turn. of course if you are going to call the turn you have to call the river too. Anyone who calls the turn then folds the river is drawing to their three outer against a big bet and should be ashamed for calling. Nope, if you call the turn, call the river too.
My experience is that unless I am playing against a maniac, I will usually fold in this situation. I often times have maniacs in my games, which makes it more difficult. I usually have to call them down when this happens. Sometimes I lose but I win more than often enough to make up for the times I don't. But most players are not maniacs and will usually not three bet without at least two pair.
it will be interesting to read the other responses now.
dave in cali
When you raise on the flop, it gives you the opportunity to save a little EV against some players when they reraise and you fold their fourth st. bet. But you save only a little and open up a pandoras box. That is one reason why Tom Weideman is right. Calling three times can never be far wrong.
I can understand how routinely and predictably playing this way against the same opponent who is astute enough to take advantage of it would indeed be opening Pandora's Box. But against different opponents who are semi-sane and tend to play their hand more than their opponent it just seems like an expensive way to play poker if you never let yourself get away here. I have been in scores of hands like this over the past year where I had top pair/good kicker and got 3 bet on the flop or check-raised on the turn and payed out all the way only to have my opponent show me two pair, a set, or something better. I cannot remember the last time I actually picked off a semi-bluff in this situation.
Jim,
If you look closely at what David wrote, I think you'll see what you are looking for. If you are up against a player that you have a very good sense is straightforward and not at all tricky, then raising on the flop is okay, precisely because you can use the information provided by a reraise to let go of your hand. [It's also okay if the player is particularly loose/aggressive, since your chance of having the best hand is higher whether he reraises or not.] But my point was that you have to come to this conclusion before you raise on the flop, because that is the nexus point of the hand. If you came to all these conclusions, then the way you played it was fine. But the main point is that this is a special case for a particularly readable opponent, and in the more general case you are probably better off playing differently.
Just to give you an extra feeling of discomfort about this laydown, you may want to ask yourself if there is a chance that a person with a better hand than yours would flat call your raise and then go for a check raise on the bigger-bet street if no scare card comes. The more likely this scenario seems to you, the more scared you should be about letting your hand go based on the three-bet information. And on the flop if you find that this three-bet information is insufficient to get you away from your hand, then the information gathering aspect of raising is lost, and I submit that flat calling may be a better choice.
As a general rule, raising marginal hands for value only on early streets is not advisable when you have position (there are certainly other valid reasons to raise, of course), simply because you can generally retrieve this value later if you do have the best hand (also you induce draws to continue (semi)bluffing - possibly through the river - and you give them no free cards if they check), and providing an early position player with an opportunity to get more value from a strong hand than he deserves can be quite costly (unless you are able to gather enough information to get away from your hand as in the case I described above).
Tom Weideman
Tom,
I love this response so much that I just don't know where to start.
"...., you may want to ask yourself if there is a chance that a person with a better hand than yours would flat call your raise and then go for a check raise on the bigger-bet street if no scare card comes."
Always a consideration against a solid player.
"The more likely this scenario seems to you, the more scared you should be about letting your hand go based on the three-bet information."
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that if you feel there is a high probability that a better hand will just call your three bet you sholud be more inclined not to muck? "scared ...about letting your hand go"
"And on the flop if you find that this three-bet information is insufficient to get you away from your hand, then the information gathering aspect of raising is lost, and I submit that flat calling may be a better choice."
Does this say that if you can determine before you raise that by raising no matter how your opponent may respond will not provide sufficient information to make a decision that you should just call? I think it does? What kind of an opponent(s) are we considering here? Could it not be the case that since there are multiple opponents a raise will always provide enough information to make it worthwhile. And that against a single opponent with a specific style that you would want consider his style. Say against a very tricky and knowledgeable player.
"As a general rule, raising marginal hands for value only on early streets is not advisable when you have position"
I don't get this either. If you are saying that if the only reason you are raising is because you have position then it is not advisable to do so then I agree.
"providing an early position player with an opportunity to get more value from a strong hand than he deserves can be quite costly (unless you are able to gather enough information to get away from your hand as in the case I described above). "
The information coupled with the possiblity that you have the best hand and or the best possibility of winning the hand have to be greater than somewhere between 1/2 and 1 full bet. I submit that in most cases this is true.
Vince
Tom I love your response. You are almost as smart as me.
"Tom I love your response. You are almost as smart as me."
Heh, thanks Vince - high praise indeed. But I fear that neither of us is as smart as we think we are, since the communication (from me to you) has apparently been badly garbled (and I wouldn't presume to know if it was the fault of the transmitter or receiver). I will clarify one point and let the rest slide, as I've spouted off too much in this thread already...
----- "...., you may want to ask yourself if there is a chance that a person with a better hand than yours would flat call your raise and then go for a check raise on the bigger-bet street if no scare card comes."
Always a consideration against a solid player.
"The more likely this scenario seems to you, the more scared you should be about letting your hand go based on the three-bet information."
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that if you feel there is a high probability that a better hand will just call your three bet you sholud be more inclined not to muck? "scared ...about letting your hand go" -----
All I meant was, the more likely you think it is that the opponent would flat call your flop raise and go for a check raise on the turn with a strong hand, the LESS likely he is to have a strong hand when he decides to reraise on the flop. That being the case, it becomes more difficult to make a good laydown when he does 3-bet. This calls into question the information-gathering value of your flop raise, yada yada...
Hope that clears the point up.
Tom Weideman
Tom,
Don't let it go to your head. I didn't really mean that you are as smart as me. If I did I would have capitalized me, like ME! See.
You wrote:
"All I meant was, the more likely you think it is that the opponent would flat call your flop raise and go for a check raise on the turn with a strong hand, the LESS likely he is to have a strong hand when he decides to reraise on the flop. That being the case, it becomes more difficult to make a good laydown when he does 3-bet. This calls into question the information-gathering value of your flop raise, yada yada..."
As advanced as I believe this thought is I think I've got it! Yes, by OZ I've got it! Now Tom you can see that what I really meant was that it's a good thing that you are AT LEAST as smart as me or I never would have gotten the point. Follow?
Thanks for the response and taking my silliness in a good way. (I was gonna say "good manner" but John Cole, the English Professor, always reads my posts and hates when I use big words when little ones will do)
vince.
Thanks for your response. You have given me a lot to think about. Perhaps there may be some additional considerations. First, there was a third player in the hand still to act so it was not heads-up. I would think this would make a difference because there would be a stronger incentive for the bettor to 3 bet to get this third player out when holding two pair or better rather than just call and give him a cheap turn card. Second, my approach would not be to fold when 3 bet. My approach is to call when 3 bet and see the turn. Now for my opponent to put a move on me here he must not only 3 bet on the flop but he must follow this up with another bet on the expensive street and run the risk of getting raised. It has been my experience that only a very good player who had an excellent read on me or a maniac would be capable of a move like this. Finally, given the absence of a raise pre-flop I viewed my hand as a good one since someone with AQ would have probably raised pre-flop. These players will frequently lead with any piece of the board in an unraised pot when some of the field has checked to them.
Thanks again for your excellent post.
Tom,
I found one of your statements to be so interesting, I've decided to quote it below:
"As a general rule, raising marginal hands for value only on early streets is not advisable when you have position (there are certainly other valid reasons to raise, of course), simply because you can generally retrieve this value later if you do have the best hand (also you induce draws to continue (semi)bluffing - possibly through the river - and you give them no free cards if they check), and providing an early position player with an opportunity to get more value from a strong hand than he deserves can be quite costly..."
This seems to conflict with the conventional wisdom that one can/should play more aggressively when you have position. Are you suggesting that marginal value bets/raises (or check-raises) are more appropriate from early position?
I actually share your cautious view of late-position marginal value raises on early rounds. However, it seems to me that by virtue of your position, such "value raises" can nearly always be viewed as something other than a pure "value only" raise.
MJS
"I have been in scores of hands like this over the past year where I had top pair/good kicker and got 3 bet on the flop or check-raised on the turn and payed out all the way only to have my opponent show me two pair, a set, or something better. I cannot remember the last time I actually picked off a semi-bluff in this situation."
Is this the same Jim Brier that keeps copious notes? I would think you would have these statistics at hand. Jim, if you get in the habit of throwing away potentially best hands to raises you will encourage your oppnents, especailly Roy Cookse and Malmuth and Sklansky and Lepore and many other fools to take shots at you.
Vince
Actually Vince I try to avoid games where there are tough players like Roy Cooke, Mason Malmuth, and yourself who are capable of thinking this way. The other thing is that in this particular problem there is a third player in the hand so it is not heads-up.
I believe as I stated in a response to Tom Weideman that the third player IMO makes the raise on the flop for information a must. I know that it is controversial but I believe that the information gained plus the potential for having the best hand plus the probability of making the best hand plus the potential for a free card warrant a raise against two or three opponents. I'm not sure about more opponents.
Vince
if you have completely made up your mind to call both a turn bet and a river bet, then you should raise on the turn.
if he reraises, then fold. if he calls, then you should be able to take a free card on the river (or fold if he bets out on the river).
notice if you are behind, you will normally lose the same amount as just calling both the turn and river.
but in the rare case that this guy folds, it is a huge bonus for you....and there's a chance that may happe...for example, he may fold if he has J7
let me clarify my post, as I'm sure it isn't exactly what I meant. - I don't mean that a raise on the turn is the play that I think is absolutely correct....all I am saying is that it should be considered and used once in a while - say 20% of the time in a situation like this. the other 80% or so, just call the turn and the river..
30-60 at Bellagio.
About my 5th hand, I'm holding 44 on the button. 5 players see the flop.
Flop comes QQ9 rainbow. Checked to me. I bet, hoping to pick up the pot right there. Fold, fold, fold, (including an exposed 9) and a call (yuck) from the player to my immediate right.
Turn is a 5. I bet once more (probably a bad decision) and am called. River is a 6 and I check.
Player to my right wins with 56o.
What the heck was he doing calling my flop bet with 56o? This is still a mystery to me. It's not like he was setting up a run at the pot...he never raised, bet out, or check-raised. In fact, if he had check-raised, he'd have one the pot right there, but just calling with 56o? Needless to say, he ran through about a rack-and-a-half in record time.
You did all you could. Your turn bet is correct when only one opponent calls. You might win the pot outright and if called you can get a cheap showdown. Yes, many players in this town call flop bets with nothing. God only knows why. Another question would be how any decent player would limp in with Six-Five offsuit in the first place.
Well, he really wasn't a decent player. He was just about the worst I've seen at 30-60. (I hope he doesn't read this forum! But I doubt he does.)
Another fun pot in this game (at least to watch).
Two-handed pot (luckily, I'm just observing).
Flop is Ace-hearts, x-diamond, x-diamond. Turn is a diamond. River is a diamond. No straight flush possible.
Two players get in a raising war. In all, 12 bets are put in on the river. All the while, a small crowd forms and murmors of "bad deck" are heard -- obviously the most logical explanation is that both players at the Ace-diamond.
Unfortunately for one of the guys, he misread the Ace-hearts as the Ace-diamond. He made this realization as he flipped over his king of diamonds at the same time that his opponent said, "well, i don't know what you've got but I've got the nut flush."
He cost himself about $870 on that pot, $600 of it due to a bad read.
I was in a $30-$60 game involving two players, Ernie and Doc. Doc was in the big blind and Ernie was in the small blind. A player limps from middle position and Ernie limps. Doc takes a free play. There is $90 in the pot. The flop is:6s4s4d. Ernie checks. Doc checks. The limper bets. Ernie calls. Doc calls. There is $180 in the pot. The turn is:Tc. Ernie checks. Doc checks. The limper bets. Ernie raises to $120. Doc calls and the limper folds. There is $480 in the pot. The river is:2s. Ernie bets $60. Doc makes it $120. Ernie makes it $180. Doc makes it $240. Ernie makes it $300. Doc makes it $360. This went on until Ernie was all in for about $1100. Doc wins a $2500+ pot having the 5s3s for the nuts. Ernie had the 6h6d for Sixes full of Fours which was not even close to being the nuts.
I can see missing the straight flush for a few raises but with an open pair on the board why wouldn't he suspect quad 4's.
Ken
I think the original posters hands isn't even close to bad beat. I would say a bad beat is when you are a huge favorite on some street say over 92% on the flop or 97% on the turn and your opponent still wins.
I doubt in either case (Jim's Try this hand or NW card hack's ) satisfy this criterion.
Well, as long as you're picking at nits let's see how you like this one. The title of the thread says it all. It doesn't claim the BEST bad beat, it claims the WORST bad beat. Therefore out of 1000 bad beat stories NW card hack is claiming his would be #1000, not #1 which of course would be the best bad beat story. Jim's is perhaps a little less worse than NW's so I guess we could call a little bit better bad beat story, but they both still have a long way to go. However, your point that these might not even make the qualifications for bad beats is something to consider.
Also, the title includes the disclaimer: "(sic)" -- a hint that the post may have been in jest.
I always wondered what (sic) meant!
Thanks, Ken
I thought "sic" meant an exact quote even though the language may sound odd or be incorrect.
I had AA on the button - after my raise I was faced with two opponents. The board was A3462 -I folded on the river after bet, raise - my opponents both had 55 to split the pot!
Here is my worst beat lately:
8-16 game in seattle, not particularly wild until this hand. It was called to me in cutoff. I raised with pocket 10's, utg reraises, mp caps. 3 players (utg, mp, me) see flop.
Flop 10s 3d 7s with 2 spades. utg bets, mp raise all-in, I reraise, utg calls. Turn is a 3s, filling me. Utg bets, I raise, utg reraises, I cap (?). River is a queen, and we each put in 3 bets (bet raise (?), reraise, call).
UTG had quad 3's (of course), and the all-in mp had trip queens, so I came in third. Question is whether I should have saved money by putting the guy on quads.
This was at 10/20...
flop came down 777. Lots of betting. Turn comes another 7. Lady on the button calls 3 bets cold. River comes. River brings a 8 or 9 or something like that. Lady on the button again calls 3 bets cold. 3 guys turn over aces and she turns over a pair of 3s, thinking she has won the hand.
This happened to me many years ago. I have A9h I forget all the details but I won't ever forget the result. Three hearts come on the flop 2h,3h,5h. Lot of action on the flop and it gets to be head up. Turn is a blank and river is a 4h. I lose to K6h as my straight flush wheel is no good.
Tom,
That's not a bad beat. That's a good one! Got anymore fireside stories you want to share with us. Besides anyone playing A9 gets no sympathy here.
Vince
You must be a beginner if this hand is surprising to you.
natedogg
not the worst ever because he has six outs against you.
The worst ever bad beat that I know of (other than those described in Mason's book) - a friend of mine had black pocket aces BTF, raised a limper, and only the limper called. My friend flopped quad aces. limper bet, he called. On the turn a 5d hit and again he was bet into, and he called. the river was a three of diamonds. When he was bet into again, he raised. after a long string of reraising, he finally realized what his opponent had:
4d2d for the steel wheel.
Ow! When you look up "disbelief" in the dictionary, you see a picture of my friend sitting at a low limit table near the glass in the taj mahal, with the dealer pushing the chips to the other guy.
dave in cali
I think the initial poster may have meant "worst flop call ever"....although I have got a couple that top his tale of woe.
That may be. However, I am sure that nobody can top my worst pre-flop fold of all time. I won't bore you with the specifics, but the rough elements of the hand included a) a suited slick, b) a kill button, and c) a four way pot in which every one had limped to me.
If you can top that-- or, for that matter, know anyone with a story that's even close to mine-- please let me know their name and the game they play in.
n/t
This hand came up last night in a 3-6 game, and might have qualified for Honorable Mention in your category, except for the ending.
Game is very, very good. One of skp's buddies (Jay) who lives here in Edmonton and I are in a battle to see who can stack 'em up quicker. Rest of the table is very loose, timid, calling stations, except for guy in the #2 seat who is steaming off rack after rack. He's is at least $500.
I limp out of SB with the black 3's. Seven or eight people take the flop of Jc-9c-3d. No fancy check-raises here. I bet out. BB folds, UTG raises. Steamer in #2 seat cold-calls, everyone folds to the button (very weak player I had never seen before) who also cold-calls. I of course 3-bet, and UTG caps it, leaving himself only $2 on the table. At this point, I am a little leery of pocket J's or 9's.
Turn is offsuit 7. I bet to at least start a sidepot if UTG, now all-in, has the overset. Steamer calls, as does the button. At least I now know I'm ahead of those two. River is a very ugly Ten. I check, Steamer checks, and now the button bets. I make the crying call, fully expecting this guy to show me a str8 of some sort. Steamer hums and haws for a second, and then overcalls.
Button shows down Q-T! He had flopped the open-end, and made a futile attempt to buy the pot at the river. I table my set of 3's, and Steamer mucks. I'm just happy to see him out of the picture, and all-in guy shows down AA. Nice pot.
Wonder where the Great Gift is? At this point, player seated in the #3 seat pulls #2's hand off the muck, and says to the guy, "You had a str8! What are you doing folding?" Turns over 98o! Now the guy did not make any sort of big stink over it; he realized his hand was dead when it hit the muck. He would have made a perfect runner-runner str8 to run over my set, but I get the nice little early Christmas present. Makes you wonder, though. Was he making this overcall on the river thinking all he had was a pair? I said he was in $500. Now you know why.
By the way, I am going to make it a point to the player in seat #3 to never grab someone's hand off the muck. We could have ended up with a big hassle, although I would have gone ballistic if they had tried to award Steamer the pot.
I was given an amazing gift one time. After a multi-way pot in a $15-$30 7-stud game, I bet my 777JJ full-house on the river and got called in 2 places. I showed my full-house and the 1st player mucks. The 2nd player sitting right next to me, who had been running bad and is almost out of chips, picks up his hole cards and shows them to me only. He has 88855 and got me beat. I go: "Ah, you got a full-house also". He goes: "Yeah but it doesn't beat yours, it's just not my night". He mucks his hand face down, picks up his remaining chips and leaves. I am stunned while I am watching this. The dealer pushed me the pot. About $650 which is a nice pot for $15-$30.
Amazingly no one asked to see the hand, and of course the dealer is not supposed to expose it. I guess he must have thought that either he had 5's full or I had Jack's full.
Well, as long as the subject has been raised...
End of a long night, down a couple of racks, garbage hand after garbage hand when I look down on the button to discover AKo. After I raise it there's five or six players in, including one short-stacked guy. The flop comes A 6 3 with two clubs. There's a bet, call, some folds, I raise, and two players call (with the short-stacked player going all-in). The turn card is a red King. Bet, I raise again, called. The last card is a third club, the 7. He bets and I call. Him turning over the T9 of clubs for the flush is not what kills me, but when the all-in turns over two red 7s, meaning that the 7 of clubs was the only card that could have made me lose both halves of the pot, well that got me to my car in a hurry.
Hey Dunc,
Say "hi" to Jay for me. He is a player good enough to beat the Edmonton 15-30/20-40 games for a good chunk of change. Tell him to build his Bankroll and move up.
BTW, how is Dan Hanson doing these days? Does he have any plans of returning to the Forum?
Ciao.
skp
How come I never run into all you Edmonton players? Don't you ever play at Baccarat?
Not that often, Dave. I live in the west end and it's a lot more convenient for me to take a 5 minute drive home after a session at Yellowhead than 15 minutes from Baccarat. Besides, they generally have 3 games going in the evening where Baccarat usually only has 1. Plus the food's better, IMO.
Having said that, I do stop in at Baccarat once or twice a month. Next time I'm in, I will ask the floorman if you're in the house.
I haven't talked to Dan for over a month. He hasn't been playing at all. When I last spoke to him, he said he was probably going to keep lurking around the forum, and might post occasionally under a pseudonym. I'll have to give him a call.
You're certainly right about Jay. He's very solid, and I give him a lot of room at the table. I saw him again last night when I went down for my weekly 10-20 game (been moving up a bit) and he looked like he was doing fine in the LL game again. I think he has stepped up to 10-20 the odd time, but you can sign up a week ahead for the nightly 10-20/15-30/20-40 game, and unless you're in from week to week, it's sometimes hard to get a seat. Although they did get a 2nd 10-20 game going last night that lasted several hours.
I'm starting to get a lot more comfortable in this 10-20 game. I've played about 6 or 7 sessions over the past couple of months, and have had only 1 loss. The more observant players have started to realize that I've brought a fairly solid game with me up from 3-6, and have basically quit attacking my blinds at each and every opportunity. Play back at 'em a couple of times, and they settle down.
I've plugged, or at least semi-plugged, a couple of leaks from early position, because obviously the mistakes you make get magnified at larger limits. But the more I play with these guys, I realize they are most cases just as bad as the LL players. They just bet more money. e.g. I raise in early position with Slick. Guy cold-calls with 4d-3d and flops a diamond flush that of course included the King. He eventually burns up all those chips plus more, and I go home up over $300. Not a really huge win for 10-20, but a nice evening's work.
I'll be sure to say hi to Jay for you.
Just head west to Vancouver for 10-20 action. You see better play at the the half-a-buck tables on Paradise.
Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better at these levels. In fact, Abdul often writes about fish at the 80-160 tables....there are fish everywhere.
True Story:
The hero has AhKh on the button in a 5-10 game in Seattle - 1982. The betting is capped with 7 players. The flop is Qd Jh 10h. The betting is capped again with 5 players. The turn is the Qh for a royal flush against two full houses - but wait! The turn card was turned before the last player to act had put in the last bet. In this club, the pot was made right and the Qh was returned to the deck immediately and shuffled. Now the turn is the 8h. The betting is capped with 5 players. The river brings the 2c. The betting is capped again with the hero and another player remaining.
The other player shows the 7h9h for a jack high straight flush. The other players had QsJs, Jd10d and black 10's.
This bad beat story won the Mike Caro essay contest in Gambling Times for the saddest hold'em story ever told.
$3-$6-$12 Hold-Em at Lake Charles. Game is temporarily shorthanded with only 3 players dealt in. First player has KhKs and open raises. Second player just calls. Third player folds. Flop is:KdKc2h. The first player ended up losing the hand to the second player who made quad Aces. No bad beat jackpot awarded because the dealer did not rake for a jackpot due to having less than 4 players dealt in the hand. The jackpot was at $54,000.
I had pocket 10's, and long story short, the board came 7-A-A-A-5
Bad beat at our casino is Aces over 10's beaten by quads, using both cards from both hands.
I am calling thinking I only need someone to have A-8 or better to give me the bad beat pot (about 20K). One better to the river, I call and say "Show me your Ace PLEASE!!", he turned over a 7. Sigh. Closest I've come to winning it..Sure I won the pot, but I was already counting that big money. And a $60 pot in 3-6 doesn't quite compare.
Me: Ah,Kh -
My opponent: 9h8h -
Flop: Qh,Jh,Th -
Bad-beat jackpot: a little over $36,000
Problem: the game was 4-8, and the pot was only raked for the J/P (and therefore eligible to be won) if it reached $40; this pot contained $38.
Reason #1 for the undersized pot: for the entire time I had been there, the average # of players seeing the flop was ~ 7... this pot was played heads-up. (BTW, I was the big blind.
Reason #2: the small blind had folded pre-flop; this was practically a breach of ettiquette in this game in an un-raised pot. ( Remember, I was the big blind; I DID raise, but the small blind had folded prior to my raise.)
Reason #3: (obviously) my opponent was all-in.
REASON #4: MY OPPONENT WAS - AND STILL IS - MY BEST FRIEND ON THE PLANET, AND HAD JUST BORROWED $100 FROM ME TO BUY MORE CHIPS, BUT THE DEALER HAD DISTRUBUTED THE CARDS BEFORE I COULD GET TO MY POCKET AND GIVE HIM THE MONEY. ERGO THE CASH DID NOT PLAY FOR THAT HAND.
and finally: THE DUMB S.O.B. HAD JUST TIPPED THE COCKTAIL WAITRESS $1 - OF COURSE HE USED A CHIP TO DO IT. IF HE HAD WAITED, OR TIPPED HER WITH CASH, THE POT WOULD HAVE REACHED THE REQUIRED $40.
BTW, there was a time charge in this game - so those of you who are wondering whether or not the rake did or didn't count toward the size of the pot can stop wondering; there was no rake.
Epilogue: I was upset, but managed to get over it - rather quickly to my suprise. Ditto my opponent, and the others at the table; the split would have been 50% for him, 25% for me, the rest would have been divided among the other eight players.
It took us several minutes to revive the dealer; for a while it looked as though he wasn't going to make it...
I am a little better than avg. when it comes to tipping;
My friend is probably in the top 1% in the world in regard to gratuities, mostly since he worked his way through school as a waiter / bartender.
P.S. I no longer listen to bad-beat stories
S#*t happens,
J-D
x
more tales of the bizarre...player on my right has his second card, the 6h dealt face-up. Dealer gives him another and burns the dead card. flop is 3h4h5h, the guy looks sick, calls the flop bet, then nearly tosses his breakfast when the 7h comes on the turn. he calls again, the 2h appears on the river, he raises, and shows evreyone the Ah, the card he'd recieved in place of the 6. spitball
3-6 game last night. Weak Calling Station (WCS) is in BB. Unknown player raises UTG. Very Loose Player (VLP)in next seat coldcalls. Second Very Loose Player(2VLP) in next seat 3-bets. Everyone folds back around to BB, who coldcalls, and UTG caps it, all calling.
Flop comes down 5d-5s-3d. I'm watching the action with interest. BB checks, UTG bets, VLP raises, 2VLP calls, as does BB, and UTG.
Turn is 8s. BB checks, UTG checks, VLP bets, 2VLP calls, BB calls and UTG folds.
River is 6c. BB Bets! I'm thinking he's taken all this heat with something like pocket 6's?? VLP makes the crying call, and 2VLP folds. I could make big money here running a contest and charging $1 per guess as to this guy's hand, but I won't keep you in suspense. He turns over 9h-7d. I looked at this in stunned silence. The dealer is a pretty good player himself, and even he had to do a double take, looking at this hand.
VLP had called the original raise with A-5o (I said he was loose), so you could make a case that he got what he deserved, but sheesh.
P.S. I cash out +$200 in this game in just over 4 hours and was a little disappointed I didn't do better. Oh well, maybe next time.
I'm in a 15 - 30 limit hold em game at the Grand in Biloxi. Because of a player leaving on the Button and a new player filling his spot, and 2 players making up missed blinds, there are now 2 big blinds, one post of 15 by the new player in the cutoff, 2 posts of 25 in both spots before the cutoff, and UTG Straddles!! I'm the first to act with 8d9d, now I'm not a fan of playing suited connectors even in late postion let alone first in but I'm just not disciplined enough to resist this so i make it 45 off the bat. The player after me we'll call him (PA) makes it 60, both posted blinds call (B1) and (B2) call, the Cutoff Calls (CU), and the Blind on the button calls (Bob) and the Straddler (ST) calls as well as me (ME).
We take the flop 8 handed with 480 already in the pot. It is Kh 9c 3s. ST checks, I check, PA checks ??, and it gets checked around!
The Turn is a Js, ST checks, I bet really wishing that I had bet the flop, PA calls as does CU all others folded.
The river is a Kd. Whats my play? Results to follow.
i think a call wouldve been more prudent preflop given your hand. no one was going to fold to your obvious steal attempt.
bet, although youre almost completely sure to have lost to someone with TT or a J. you cant possibly fold at this point though.
one or both players may have taken up a flush draw when the second spade fell. PA (preflop reraiser) may have AQ, i think TT is more likely though or even QQ. better luck next time.
You have to bet here. No one has a King and you might get someone with a Jack or a better Nine to fold.
Jim normally you are right on the money but here you are mistaken. The very nature of this particular hand suggests that neither of the results you think possible by betting will occur. Not one player will believe that our hero has a king so every jack will call.This is a prime example of a player making two mistakes. One, raising before the flop and then not trying to represent the king on the flop. Two, betting when it is likely he is now beat because he realized he had already made one mistake. Keep up the mostly excellent advice though I have learned a great deal from you.
I bet as I thought PA had TT or QQ, and it was my only chance at the pot wich was huge. PA mucks, and CU calls with QJ and takes down the pot. Sure wish I bet the flop. :)
After taking that much risk to enter the pot, why did you play so wimpily on the flop? If you are going to three bet with 98s, then call a capped pot, and you flop a pair on a raggedy board, and no one is betting, it doesn't take a super-genious to figure out what to do. This is a situation where your aggressive pre-flop play needed follow through on the flop.
Dave,
I agree but is "wimpily" a word ;-).
Regards,
Rick
f
Guess what. QJ isn't going anywhere for one bet on the flop with a gutshot draw with that big of a pot.
But I agree that I would have bet the flop and hoped someone raised behind you to get the overcards out.
Doug,
Here’s my take without looking at the other posts or your results.
Before the flop I like a call of the straddle since you have a hand that has little high card strength, likes a big field, and should get it with a call letting the others in. If I had a hand such as AJ offsuit, I would raise to narrow the field (of course, anything better is an easy raise but that is a borderline raise).
A flop bet would have been nice as you noted. On the turn your bet is a questionable but at least you did not get raised. Hopefully your two opponents picked up draws but there is a chance that they also have a nine or a jack.
On the river, you have an easy bet if for no other reason that a king is not likely out and you may get a jack or a better nine to fold.
Regards,
Rick
What advice can you offer me when playing in a full $20-40 (or any limit game for that matter) game and being dealt nothing but rags, rags and more rags for hour after hour? It happened to me this weekend. It was a good game with a few poor players. But almost every time I looked down all I saw was 9-2o, 8-3o, 10-4o, J-2o, 7-2o, Q3o etc etc etc. At one stage I folded 36 hands in a row before I got a playable hand. On the few occasions I had playable hands in the later seats eg JQs, the flops would miss me by a mile, so I was becoming increasingly frustrated.
Now we all get runs of cards like this occasionally but this lasted the entire day - I played for about 8 hours (which was the amount of time I intended to play for anyway) and the blinds ate me alive. Because I was folding so much preflop the very few times I got strong hands and raised the whole field usually folded and all I won was the blinds - once or twice I had a couple of callers but they folded after the flop so the pots were tiny. Only once did I get played with to the river and I won a small pot heads-up.
A couple of times on or near the button I tried to make strong plays with hands like J-9 or Q-10 (not good hands I know in a full game) was called down every time and lost - yes I admit they were probably tilt plays on my part out of sheer frustration. My frustration was compounded too by the fact that I saw some very poor players take down some big pots with real ugly cards and miracle catches on the river.
So all that said I have 2 questions:
(1) Is there a point you reach on a rag day like this (2 hours? 4 hours?) when you just realize it aint your day and leave and come back the following day, or do you just try sit it out? I tried the latter but the cards didnt improve.
(2) Also, when you are in this situation for hours on end is it better to limp in when you do find a big hand like AA or KK or should you still come out firing?
Thanks for any constructive advice offered.
FOLD FOLD FOLD.
If you think 8 hours of rags and missed flops is bad, try having 5 CONSECUTIVE bad 8 hour sessions. Or a whole months worth. At some point it will happen to everyone who plays on a regular basis.
As for this question:
"(1) Is there a point you reach on a rag day like this (2 hours? 4 hours?) when you just realize it aint your day and leave and come back the following day, or do you just try sit it out? I tried the latter but the cards didnt improve. "
If you start going on tilt then leave no matter how good the game is, unless you can get it under control. Once you sense you are tilting get up for a while and take a break. Leave if you can't get it fixed.
"A couple of times on or near the button I tried to make strong plays with hands like J-9 or Q-10 (not good hands I know in a full game) was called down every time and lost - yes I admit they were probably tilt plays on my part out of sheer frustration. My frustration was compounded too by the fact that I saw some very poor players take down some big pots with real ugly cards and miracle catches on the river. "
These were tilt plays and if you were having a bad session, you just can't get away with them. When you have a losing session people are more inclined to call you. There are lots of psychological reasons for this.
As for this question:
"(2) Also, when you are in this situation for hours on end is it better to limp in when you do find a big hand like AA or KK or should you still come out firing? "
COME OUT FIRING! Limping with AA and KK during a losing session is another kind of tilt I like to call 'passive tilt'. It is just as bad as TMH (too many hands) tilt. Anyway, when you have a bad session people are more likely to call you down, so raise raise raise while you have the best of it.
If you feel tempted to play AA and KK passively like this, you are on tilt and should leave.
Hercules
I don'nt have much of an answer for you but I know how you felt during play. I just returned from 2 days ago from Vegas and I lost 4 of 5.
The same types of cards that you described were facing me constantly. I also never hit any outside straights (I never went for the gut-shot) and missed almost all flush draws, which I only went for when I had 4 to the flush after the flop.
Anyway I held firm to my normal starting requirements which I think helped to minimize my loss. On the few pots I did take down the amount was small considering the size of many of the other pots. Poor timing as it turned out because I saw a few hands where the winning player never had to raise due to everyone else raising, re-raising and capping it for him.
When I did have the nuts it so happened that my opponents had junk and I never played against a large field. I guess that’s life at the poker table at times.
I also observed as you did, many pots taken down with garbage starting cards. If I were to play them I would most likely lose and it is not worth the gamble to match stupid play and go for luck as they did.
In the end I felt I made few if any mistakes but the cards were just not there.
I hope this helps.
1. Be patient. It will turn around, but you have to wait it out.
2. Changes tables, even if that means a different level. You're right, your oppenents will notice the drought: they drop when you can bet out, and they'll torment you when you can't. Change tables more than once if the streak lengthens. This won't "change your luck" , but when the cards come again, you'll be better able to take advantage.
3. Continue being patient. Remember Caro's Law of Least Tilt. Winning players lose less when things don't go their way. Play your best game and be satisfied that the bad spell costs you less than it would someone more emotional.
When your frustration begins to affect your play, take a walk, go to dinner, change tables, change games (e.g., stud), change casinos, or just quit for the day.
Frustrated,
Respected Las Vegas mid limit player Sissy Bottoms has been quoted as saying that one key to her poker success and longevity is that her bad days are never that bad since she has no tilt. All players have days like this and the key is to minimize the damage.
You asked: ”1) Is there a point you reach on a rag day like this (2 hours? 4 hours?) when you just realize it aint your day and leave and come back the following day, or do you just try sit it out? I tried the latter but the cards didnt improve.”
Two hours of bad cards is nothing. Four hours should barely cause a sweat. So assuming you normally play eight hours and the game is good, then you should play. Remember that there is no such thing as “ain’t your day” as having run bad for the last four hours has no bearing for how you will run the next four. That being said, you might change tables (to an equally good game) if your opponents have become encouraged by your beats and have become trickier when in the pot with you.
”(2) Also, when you are in this situation for hours on end is it better to limp in when you do find a big hand like AA or KK or should you still come out firing?”
Come out firing. Your opponents become braver when they see you losing so that they give you action anyway.
Regards,
Rick
if it's to the point where it is very obvious to the others that you aren't playing much, then you need to find another table imo.seeya
Frustrated there are far worse fates than just having rags hour after hour. Try getting good hands cracked time after time and see how you can drop a couple of dimes real quick in a $20-$40 game. Endless rags are the easiest hands to play. You simply fold endlessly. Now if you get unhappy, bored, or frustrated simply quit and find another game. When you get a good hand, you must play it strongly. Your opponents may notice that you don't play very many hands but they will also notice that you don't drag any pots either so they will not necessarily be intimidated by your presence in a pot. They will still play their junk hoping to get lucky. Unlike yourself, they came to gamble and not fold cards all afternoon.
I find the above advise all good, but should be taylored to the individual. In a 20/40 game I might be more inclined inclined to leave early or go to lower stakes. One problem I see is that when you do get good cards and come out firing, don't hit the flop, you can find yourself compounding the problem of leakage and tilt. I agree with "come out firing when early" but late without the big pair I think maybe calling a couple of limpers with "A big" or similar can't be to far wrong. This makes it easier to get away from, if by chance your bad luck continues. Overplaying the hand only makes matters worst. Like HFAP (I believe) says, on a day like this "ATo can start looking pretty good". What becomes as frustrating is to play correctly or "by the book" preflop and see those rags flop and would have won, then it becomes more tempting to play them.
I read John Feeney's part 4 again last night. Thanks John, I "think" I finally get it, and it may help you as well.
x
at this point everybody thinks your a tight player so tring to steal a couple pots here and there would be a good play and profitable
Planet Poker 20/40 game. 7 way action to me in the big blind with 8d6d. I check. Flop comes:
10s9d7d
SB checks, I come right out betting. Figure there are draws galore out there. Three callers, then late position (LP raises) He folds out the Button and SB. I reraise. All 3 callers call two bets cold, and LP caps.
Turn is 3d.
Do you check with your low flush? I figure I might as well, as I might have the best hand and I want to make a single high diamond draw pay through the nose. One limper calls, two fold, and LP calls. I feel pretty good right now.
River is 3s
Hmm. Is this card bad or not? Do you bet out or check? How was the turn bet? Comments please, results to be posted.
I like the turn bet for the reason you gave. On the river, I would check-call against most opponents. This play might lose a bet if LP was raising with two pair (i.e., 9T), but it could also gain a bet if he bluffs with a busted straight draw. A check-call can save a bet (compared to betting out) if one of your opponents has a bigger flush or a full house.
hetron,
I like your flop play. On the turn you follow max aggression on the flop with max aggression on the turn and were not raised. I would think your flush is probably good here.
The river card is scary to you but should also be scary to your opponents since you helped cap the flop. I would bet and fold to a raise by a LOL (little old lady) or TOM (tight old man). The advantage of betting is that you might get a slightly bigger flush to fold and if you check you would have to call a single bet anyway.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
This last part of your analysis ,"The advantage of betting is that you might get a slightly bigger flush to fold . . ." has me befuddled.
There's 14 bb in the pot by my count. Can you really get a flush to fold for one bet here?
SammyB,
Probably not often but once in a while is good enough. Tight players caught in the middle might assume a full is out and may even lay down a nut flush. I saw a friend pull this off on a similar hand a few weeks ago in a 15/30 game.
Anyway, if you check the bigger flush will often bet and with the pot this big you will probably need to pay off (since you won't know you are beat at the time). And with the board paired, the bigger flush usually won't raise so what do you have to lose.
Regards,
Rick
Excellent point. The funny thing is you pretty much said the same thing in your original post about as long as you're going to call you might as well bet, but all the possibilities didn't hit me until you said it again. Thanks for the second hit.
Best of it to you
SammyB
Your plays pre-flop and on the flop are fine. Your narrative is a little confusing since you say:"Do you check with your low flush? I figure I might as well...". However, it sounds like you bet the turn in which case you played correctly. When no one raises your bet on the expensive street, you should assume your hand is best. At the river, a running pair of Treys does not figure to help anyone unless they flopped a set. But if someone flopped a set they would have found a raise on the flop I would think. Therefore, you should assume your hand is good and bet. You will get calls from two pair and maybe even top pair type hands.
Jim:
There was a raise and a reraise/cap on the flop, plus two cold callers of 2 more bets. So there could easily be a set out there (though I would think only the re-raiser would have it, because I would think one the cold callers would have capped it on the flop when it came back to them if he had a set). I would bet the turn, check the river.
SW
You are correct and I misread the problem. I would still bet the river but obviously a flopped set is possible. But sets are hard to come by and I need to see them to believe them. I guess I just like to gamble.
Sorry for the confusion on the turn play. I did bet out on the turn, not check. On the river, I decided to bet out. The remaining player between me and LP folded, and LP raised. Oops. I call, and he of course shows TT for the top full. I think my river bet was too aggressive. Top set was more likely than something like 10-9 or 9-7, given the fact that he capped the flop. Oh well. Those are the breaks.
Tough break but that's what I would've thought. How about if the turn or river was 10d? That would be cool.
Yeah it would have, except online it is 3 bets max even when heads up. Not like in live play where there are unlimited raises heads up. Still, $160 is nothing to sneeze at.
I think you played the flop well - although it should occur to you that the bigger straight MIGHT be out there. I wouldn't be afraid of it now.
I think the turn bet is close between betting and checking IN THIS CASE. This is 5 way action. If I only had one opponent I think you definitely have to bet. If you don't bet then you face the problem of either giving someone a free draw at the flush or the bigger straight or their full house. You are also succeptible to being bluffed - if you check and call, then what do you do when another flush card comes on the river and he bets?
Against this many people I think it is still better to bet out. If you get raised with 5 way action I would seriously consider folding. On the river you MUST check and call one bet. If there is a bet and a raise you really have to think hard about who the bettor and raiser are. If they are tight players who seldom bluff you are toast. I guarantee it 100%. A bluff raise with this board in a multiway pot is VERY VERY rare. If the bettor is a maniac and the raiser is a very good player I would consider calling. He might be trying to squeeze you out of the pot if he is pretty sure he can beat the maniac but doesn't think he can beat you. Most average players don't make this kind of play though.
Anyway I hope this helps.
-SmoothB-
The game is 10-20 Texas Hold'em. It's been fairly loose the last hour and a bit. A couple of guys on the table are on tilt and pretty much raising each time they're in the pot, which they are in the pot a lot.
I'm sitting 1 seat left to UTG and am holding KsKc. Anyways, the player 3 seats behind me has been raising the last 4 hands but mucks each time the flop hits so I know he's on tilt. So, UTG limps, I (Player 1) decide to just call. My reason is if I raise the tilt player will just call. He's not that crazy to 3 bet without a strong hand. So if he raises I will re-raise. Player 2 also calls, Player 3 calls, and sure enough Player 4 (Mr. Tilt) raises. Player 5 also calls, Player 6 folds, Button also calls. SB folds and BB calls. UTG calls the raise. Here is where I 3 bet it. Everyone behind me calls to the Button who caps it. All call. 8 people to see the flop
Flop comes 3d3c7d. SB, BB, and UTG check. I check (??). Everyone checks to the button who also checks. (Surprisingly no one bet.)
Turn comes a Js.
SB bets out. BB folds, UTG folds, I raise. Everyone else folds to the button who re-raises. SB calls the re-raise. What do I do?
Results posted later.
The Fish
Yikes!!! 8 way action with pocket Kings is always a bit dicey. I would have raised UTG instead of smooth calling. like you said, Tilt player was on tilt and raising way too much. so anyone who cold calls your two bets has to believe there is a very good chance of this hand being 3 bet by Mr. Tilt and possibly 4 bet by you. I think by raising UTG you could've thinned the filed a bit and reduced the stress level of this hand. But we'll never know will we?
You checked the flop when those rags came? shame on you.
in any event I think you have to call on the turn.
Boris
1.UTG limps, I (Player 1) decide to just call.
--You should have raised, you are already going to get at least one caller from UTG. The table is loose, and with pocket k's you should try and thin the field.
2.Flop comes 3d3c7d. SB, BB, and UTG check. I check (??).
--There is 8 way action for a 4 SB each before the flop. On the flop rags come, and you are going for a check raise? This makes no sense, you should definitely try and win the pot right here. BET!!
Turn comes a Js.
SB bets out. BB folds, UTG folds, I raise. Everyone else folds to the button who re-raises. SB calls the re-raise. What do I do?
--Above you said the SB folded. I am not sure of what action he has taken to this point. I would not reraise this late in the game, but you did. I would check call to the river. The pot is HUGE and hopefully no one has pocket J's, pocket A's, or a 3.
Derrick
Fish,
Although others may disagree, IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with your pre-flop play. If others are going to do the raising for you with junk, then let them. You will risk letting some players in with hands that may beat you but generally they will be donating big time when you flop well and even when they lead you on the flop you often have outs.
With 32 bets in before the flop, why not bet the flop? With a limp reraise, you showed the most strength pre flop and your check shouldn’t fool anyone. I assume you were hoping to check raise a late bettor but the pot is so big even long shots will call two bets cold (and be correct or nearly correct to do so). Of course there is no guarantee someone will bet the flop for you, especially the button, considering he made a “what the heck” cap before the flop (i.e., he had a chance to make it three bets but didn’t then he capped it late – this usually is more of a fun raise rather than an indicator of strength).
You wrote: ”Turn comes a Js. - - SB bets out. BB folds, UTG folds, I raise. Everyone else folds to the button who re-raises. SB calls the re-raise. What do I do?”
Why would the button check the flop if he has trips, jacks or sevens full? He wouldn’t since the action was checked to him. I don’t even see why he would check quad threes since he is acting last and the pot is huge and overcards will call. If the small blind is full on the turn, why wouldn’t he cap it on expensive street (although he might just call a reraise with trips)? Note that the pot has 23 big bets when it gets back to you. Even if you were looking at trip threes or jacks full or sevens full, it is an easy call. Since these hands are not nearly a lock, capping is probably best, calling is OK, and folding is horrible. Note that capping will not drive anyone out who has any shot to beat you; however you will charge them the max to do so. And if you are trailing, what is one extra bet, especially when it might get the small blind holding trip threes to check the river.
”Results posted later.”
They better be ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I am wondering about limping with the K's in the above post. You said if people are raising for you, then it is alright not to.
I understand your logic, but I don't agree with it. With pocket K's individually each caller is probably a big dog to you. You are dominating all hands but A's and the other K's, but collectively their outs add up to hurt you. Isn't this true?
Derrick
Derrick
There were some threads a couple of years on this issue with aces. To an extent I would say the logic presented then also applies to kings. In a nutshell, with a hand this strong you will win more money on the average with all opponents in for a cap but of course you will also win a smaller percentage of the pots. Remember, kings or aces can flop trips and make fulls just like small pairs can.
Now when you hold an overpair against a large field, you will often have a tough time surviving even when you have the best hand on the flop. But remember that someone can make two pair on the turn but you can make trips or a better two pair on the river.
That being said, of course you normally raise with kings. This will usually thin the field but the main impact is that you put more money in the pot. And if two opponents call with Ax, then you just got to love it as it is very unlikely that an ace will flop (although there are days where your kings appear to be an “ace magnet” ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Again, I understand what you are saying, you have the best hand by far before the flop, so you want people in. I could agree with a limp reraise with A's... A's are MUCH stronger than K's. How many times have you held K's and an Ace comes on the flop (about 22%).
Still this said, you are still dominating a hand with just one Ace in it. Its a 3 outer not counting suits / straights / two pair...
I too like playing in a capped 8 player field with K's even more than playing heads up / 3 way etc, but I play K's much more straight forward.
Derrick
You're right that their outs will decrease the chance of you winning the pot, but you still have a positive expectation against each caller so that you welcome every additional bet. As long as the callers are all big dogs you it's impossible for them to gang up and give you a negative ev. You raise to get 3 opponents to pay 6 bets instead of 6 opponents to pay 6 bets because it maximizes profits, not because a big field can drag you below the break-even point.
On the other hand, some players just hate to have big pairs cracked and welcome the low-variance that comes with knocking out opponents. But this isn't a profit-maximizing approach. In other words, you try to "thin the field" only if you hate fluctuations more than you love money.
I like the play of limp reraising with K's too, if you know you're going to get to pull it off. However I'm not so sure I would cap it on the turn in that situation unless I had a pretty good read on my opponents. I think against alot of players I would lay this down on the turn.
The idea that you are maximizing profits by keeping as many players in as possible pre-flop with aces or kings,doesn't work.
It will workout on paper, but not in real life. the reason is because in real life, against many players in a pot, you would many times have to stay to the river and take enormous heat in order to win. In other words to make this theory work, you have to play like a robot , and of course we know this doesn't work. You can run your sims until you pass-out. You will make more money and continue to play BETTER poker, by trying to thin the field and win as soon as possible.big pots will still hit you. seeya
Doug,
The cap on the turn may be a bad play but you must at least call. With 23 big bets in the pot, you have odds to draw to a big full.
Regards,
Rick
hey fish, one thing to think about might be that even though you have a loose raiser behind you,.....he's way behind you. there are too many players that are going to come in once 2 people limp.
Personally , i wouldn't want all those players in there with me, even with aces. You got your big pot, and you might have won it(your results don't matter for 1 hand), but long run? There are some who like the idea of having as many players in as possible when they have aces or kings. I think most of them have tried to borrow money from me. aces and kings are one pair. they get beat by two pair trips,quads,straights,flushes full houses and royals. (of course not in that order) If no one had limped in front of you, then..... maybe limp.
As far as how you played it.You three bet and then check??????Your letting 7 other players draw for free? are you sure your playing 10-20?? sorry just had to ask seeya
Pre-flop as long as you know that the pot will get raised, it is okay to do your limp re-raise thing with pocket Kings. You should be delighted to play in an 8-way capped pot with the second best possible starting hand. You won't win very often but when you win you will win huge. However, it is criminal of you not to bet the flop with your big over pair. You must protect a pot with 32 bets in it. You don't want someone with a pocket pair to get a free card to snag a set on you. Bet and give some of these guys a chance to fold. On the turn a call is mandatory. There are 48 bets in the pot and you are getting the right price to play your two outer assuming someone has trip Treys or a full house.
I don't care for your preflop limp-reraise due to the general looseness of the game and the presence of the UTG limper. By being the second early limper, you risk encouraging the remaining players to limp with speculative hands (with KK, you would prefer a smaller number of opponents to contribute multiple bets). There was no guarantee that Mr. Tilt would raise, or that he would not three-bet if you raised.
I would bet on the flop (rather than hope to check-raise). The flop is of a type which may not have hit anyone's hand, and your opponents may be suspicious of your check after the preflop strength you showed.
On the turn, the button's reraise is suspicious since he should have bet the flop with a 3, 77, or JJ. Nevertheless, some cautious players might check with JJ fearing a check-raise from a bigger pair. Furthermore, it is quite possible for the SB to be holding a 3. Therefore, I would not reraise. Of course, folding would be crazy since you have pot odds to go for a 2-outer. Call.
MJS
Once you have 8 people in the pot, KK is not much better than any other pair. I think you have to bet the flop because you don't want Ax to get a free card.
The button probably has AA but you still have to play it out. Call the raise and check-call the river. The danger here is the SB slowplaying a 3. If he check-raises the river, you have to fold.
"Once you have 8 people in the pot, KK is not much better than any other pair."
I disagree. In a cold sim vs. 7 opponents KK wins 32%, 99 wins 20% and 33 wins 13%. The big pairs always tower over the field.
First off, I need to confess that I was not the one who held KK. In fact, I was the one on the button. I held JJ. The reason I wrote this play up from the perspective of the player with KK was to gather more information regarding his play on the turn when I spiked my Jacks-full. Sure enough, this player was smart enough to check-raise the pre-flop knowing that the tilt player would raise.
Having JJ on the button, I nearly 3 bet the hand but because there were already 5 others in the pot, I knew that I couldn't possibly chase them out after they limped in and SB and BB would probably call with any marginal drawing hand due the to the nature of the size of the pot. So I just called the raise on the button. When the Player 1 pumped it 3 bets pre-flop I knew he had KK or AA and that gave me a ton of information. My cap on the button was to give the image of a "what-the-heck-let's-cap-it" raise. In actual fact, I was going to be gone should I miss my hit or draw on the flop.
When the flop came 3 3 7 with two diamonds, I was almost sure that someone had a 3 and was slow playing their hand. When Player 1 also checked the flop, I knew that he had KK and that he was waiting either for the tilt raiser or me to bet the flop so he could check-raise again and eliminate the field. He does this a lot to drive players out.
Since I was guessing that I was second best on the flop should noone have a 3 or 77 and that only KK or AA was out there, I had to check and get the free card. When the turn came a Jack, I nearly jumped out of my seat! When SB bet out, I was begging he had a 3. Then when Player 1 raised him I could only smile more as I made it 3 bets on the turn. SB called my re-raise which signalled to me that he had a flush draw and was trying to semi-bluff. Player looked down for a couple of seconds and then called the re-raise.
Wouldn't you know what fate had for me on the river...... A blashphemous KING OF DIAMONDS!
SB bet out as he made his flush draw. Player 1 raised. I knew with almost 99% assurance that he had King's full. However, the pot was so big I just couldn't lay my hand down so I cry-called the raise and sure enough he has pocket kings and takes down a monster pot.
Any further comments....
The Fish
Very instructive hand from your true perspective. I think you played it well from here and like your none raise preflop which garnered valuable information cheaply. You trap was set, you sprung it when you got lucky and could back off on the river when you thought you could be beaten. Well played, the limp reraise of KK is a tricky proposition becasus he lets As in cheaply and could lose easily. Thanks for the post.
Fish,
This is a great story! Sorry about the beat. Now I can't figure out if my analysis is any good or not :-).
Regards,
Rick
I don't like the limp re-raise because you are inviting a multi-way pot. I would rather play the steamer and a few stragglers and take down a decent pot than bring in every crap hand and play the whole field, which is basically what happened.
Now why didn't you bet the flop? You are screwed if someone has a 3, but if you don't bet you are giving a free or cheap (maybe the steamer raises you if you bet) card to small pairs and draws. Get them out now if you can.
Unless you have great intel on the button, I think you should call on the turn, but I believe you are about to lose to the button's 77 or A3.
Preflop: I haven't read the other responses but if they're giving you flack for failing to open-raise with KK they're wrong: the point is to jack up the pot, not drive them out. With inevitable raisers behind you limp-raising with KK is preferable and I think your preflop analysis was excellent.
Flop: not betting the likely best hand on the flop is a huge mistake. In the long run, this is your pot. Checking is analogous to handing part of your pot to your opponents.
Turn (facing the button's 3-bet): I'd ordinarily just call here and pay them off the whole way but your check on the flop might have encouraged your opponents to overrate their hands relative to what you actually hold. You may well be up against J5 or a pocket pair in the sb and AJ-QJ or on the button. I can't credit the button with much of a hand. Given that they can't put you on an overpair, I'd tend to 4-bet.
On the river the pot's too big to even consider folding.
The Fish,
Pop it again one more time. Don't get intimidated by a pair of 3's. Seek courage and you shall find success. That is what makes poker exciting and exhilarating.
Now, what's the result?
Were you trying to checkraise that flop after you limp reraised preflop? I don't think thats too smart. There could be a flush draw, ace overcard, gutshot straight draw - all sorts of draws that you don't want people drawing to for free.
Also the maniac is in the wrong position for you to checkraise effectively. He is on your immediate left, so a checkraise can't knock anyone out. All it can do is build a bigger pot for the winner.
As for what you do, I think you have to call. This pot is huge. What kind of player is the button? He could have AA but I honestly believe that AA vs KK confrontations are rare enough that I don't worry about them. (I have NEVER lost with KK vs AA. Ive lost with AA vs KK and won with KK vs AA, but thats another story.)
I'd call.
-SmoothB-
In a "Hand to Talk About", Mason gives an argument for checking the flop after he raise-reraised w/ Aces since the pot was big. He waited until the turn to bet-reraise with his aces in order to thin the field and increase his chances of winning the pot.
Since there were 32 bets in preflop, wouldn't this be a similar situation where you'd like to thin the field as best you could? The logic being that they'd call the flop anyway and you might as well prevent them from drawing out on the river.
That being said I don't think I'd be able to let that flop go unbet since there were diamond draws out there and gutshot straight draws.
Any comments?
Patrick
10-20 game, mega-fish is in the BB. Everyone folds to you in the SB, and you see 92o. What's the best play?
-Sean
This is a GREAT question. The answer is - sometimes raise, sometimes fold, NEVER EVER smooth call.
Whether to raise or fold depends on the opponent. This play is dangerous if he is a calling station - if you get called down you are in deep doo doo.
There is only one kind of player to raise against here with anything.
If he is the type that will automatically fold on the flop if it misses him, then by all means go for it! If he will call the flop but fold on the turn if it misses him, so much the better.
If he will call you down with ace high, don't even think about it.
He might call you down with any pocket pair. But he's only going to have one 1 time in 17.
I have made this play before, but honestly I would rather do it on the button when folded to.
I have a really tight image - one time a friend of mine was dealing. A REALLY bif fish was in the BB when I had the button. Everytime it got checked around to me I would raise. Every time. At first the dealer just thought I was picking up a lot of good hands - but then one time he peeked at my hole cards after pushing me the pot - T4 offsuit. His eyes bugged out and he smiled at me in appreciation. Heh heh.
The beautiful thing was that I made this move 4 times one session (long session) and it worked all 4 times and the only time I had to show my hand I actually had AQ and flopped 2 pair.
So, in short, try it but only if your opponent is the right kind.
-SmoothB-
Against a fish who would defend with any 2 cards, I'm not sure what raising with a mediocre hand would accomplish.
-Sean
Ask him if he chops. If he says yes, then take back your small blind as fast as possible. If he says no, then fold immediately and give him the puny $5. Why go to war with no hand, no position, and no pot?
Jim-
If you choose the opponent carefully this can be a very profitable play. I should point out - it is usually NOT worth it in a low limit game with a high rake. But if there is a time charge its GREAT.
Look at it this way - this guy is a fish. If he is a certain kind of fish you will make money.
If he will always defend his blind, but will always fold on the flop if it misses him, you will risk 0.75 BB to win 1 BB and will win approximately 2/3 of the time. This is MOST DEFINITELY a positive expectation play and making this play is mandatory.
Now, if he will call the flop with nothing but fold on the turn if he still has nothing, and we all know players like this, you will still win over 1/2 the time. Now you have to risk 1.75 BB to win 1.5 BB. Still worth it.
You must also consider that you will legitimately win some of the time. 92 is one of the worst hands you will get here. Your random hand will often be face-rag or better. And your chaces of flopping top pair or better and having it hold up are worth some equity.
Also note that sometimes your no pair will beat his no pair.
Think it over and give it a try sometime, Jim. I think you might be missing out on a profitable play here.
-Smooth-
In response to your excellent post I would simply point out the following:
1. Fish get good cards just like the rest of us and they will play them whether or not the flop misses them. Therefore, it could never be said that once the flop comes he will fold 100% of the time when you bet and the flop misses him.
2. You are out of position so it will be more difficult for you to manuever here. You will never get any free cards and whenever you check you will be giving your opponent the initiative. Even a fish will know to bet if he has something and you check. Therefore, you are embarking on an expensive course wherein you are committing yourself to bet the flop and then the turn hoping to bet him out of the hand. You will be frequently doing this without a hand or a even a decent draw. When the river comes, you have no hand to showdown, and you have been betting all along so you will probably feel compelled to bet the river as well.
3. The way you beat fish or any other group of poor players is not by playing the same or worse junk then they play. You beat them by showing them a better hand at showdown in most cases.
Bottom line is that we are gambling here and not playing with an edge at all.
Your points are well taken, and I should point out that this play does not work against a calling station who will call you down with ace high.
There are some players out there, and we all know a few, who always defend their blind but always fold on the flop or turn if they don't have a pair. If that is true then you can win money by always betting the flop and turn no matter what comes. Sure you are going to win some of the time - there is no question about it. But you are going to win more often than you lose IF it is the correct type of opponent.
Incidentally I got some of the math wrong in the other post. If he will fold with nothing on the flop then you risk 0.75 BB to win 1.25 BB. And you have roughly a 2/3 chance of this happening.
Anyway, in this case I would pretend that I am playing in a heads up match against an opponent who is too tight. Remember that most opponets cannot switch instantaneously from 'full table' mode to 'heads up' mode. Even most good limit players will play too weakly when they get it heads up with the SB or the button. And this guy is a fish.
I have played against some opponents who always fold by the turn if they don't have a pair or better. Against these guys I jam over half the hands I'm dealt. I would jam them all but I don't want the other guy to catch on and start repopping me or calling me down with K high to beat my 74 offsuit.
-SmoothB-
I have to agree. The fact that he's a fish means he's almost certainly going to call your pre-flop raise. And that, of course, means that you're stuck with the an awful hand, out of position, and trying to jam the pot to win what amounts to the blinds.
I agree with Brier about chopping with this trash hand,calling stations just dont understand high-class moves.
Me: Do you want to chop?
Him: No
I fold
or...
Him: Yes
I raise:)
most "megafish" play too many hands and call call call; is that the type of opponent 92offsuit plays well against?
One other point is that playing heads up can be intimidating, especially for fish. This is obviously the kind of guy you like at the table so I think its best just to chop and let him feel at ease. You really don't to single him out in front of 7 other people.
You are probably better off raising against someone who plays reasonably well. Fish call way too often. Against these guys, you need a better hand as any two will not do.
A player who plays reasonably well may give you the pot preflop, on the flop or on the turn. A player who plays very well may take away the pot from you preflop, on the flop or the turn if he starts to put 2 and 2 together as to your larcenous tendencies.
In short, there aren't many players in the big blind that fit the bill in terms of you playing 92 off for a profit from the sb. Besides, by folding hands such as 92, you tell the other guy that you are not out to rob him blind which means that he may allow you to rob him when you get some other cheesy (but better hand) like J7 or something.
Maybe I've played too much LL and not enough 10-20 or higher, but I just cannot see the point lookiing for a possible 1/4-3/4 BB 'edge' in this situation. If this guy is that big a fish, you will get more than ample opportunities from him and the rest of the table to maximize your earn, than trying out tricky little 'plays' with 92o.
As per Jim Brier, ask him to chop, and if he doesn't cheerfully give him your nickel. Next hand please.
One of the best scenes in an otherwise useless poker movie, "Maverick" was when he sat in and promised everyone he wouldn't play for an hour. I realize now that I make a good number of mistakes before I'm able to typecast a player (either he's new or I'm new) to the game. My question, does anyone softplay early, or refuse to play anything but premium pairs against unknowns early on in the session, just to get that much needed "read" ? or
At higher stakes or (lower for that matter) with better players, does the fact that these guys will change gears somewhere in the session require you to go at it from the beginning, since your early information may be meaningless ? I once read somewhere, that an old timer in a no limit game would even muck KK (to a raise) after first sitting down, is this practical ? When you consider a 15 hour session this seems feasible, but for limit ? Any comments appreciated.
Starting out by playing tight in a strange environment is often the proper thing to do. You get your blinds eaten up for an hour or so. Everyone thinks you are the Rock of Gibraltar. You get a read on your opponents and maybe steal a pot or two to get you back to even and then revert to playing your "normal" style.
I think that is a good recipe.
As for folding even KK in order to stick to this game plan, well...that's just silly.
You shouldn't change your style at all. They don't know you either, therefore you are on an equal playing level. Of course don't expect to be able to use your normally tight image if you haven't established it.
Is there anything wrong with going for a check raise on the river a decent pertentage of the time with a very good hand in order to a). Make money by check raising, b). To stop opponents from thin value betting against you?
I've been experimenting with this, and while I miss some bets, it seems to have the desired effect of getting more free showdowns when out of position. I'd appreciate any input.
First hand of the game, I posted a $30 late positon blind in the 30/60 game at the Bellagio.
A strong player raises UTG and all fold to me, I look down and see 98o
There is $140 in the pot now and the button and blinds haven't acted yet.
Knowing that I'm already beat by the raiser and may get reraised by the button or blinds; I should probably fold now, right?
However, I am getting almost 5 to 1 odds and have great position.
Question #1 - What I haven't figured out yet is how big does the odds have to be to warrant a call with this hand?
Or does the odds really matter if you have a piece of cheese like this?
Question #2 - What is the weakest hand I should call on in this situation? (JTs, 99, AQs)
Some great players and authors keep saying that starting hands aren't that important. I disagree in *most* cases!
Example: I did call, button 3 bets, UTG 4 bets, I get stubborn and call and button caps it.
Flop comes T 7 2 (I flop open end straight and call 3 more bets on the flop), I call the turn, and muck on the river. I compounded my mistakes by making the *first* mistake of calling preflop.
UTG had KK and button had AA ($270 down the drain instead of zero)
Your comments please!
Question #1 - What I haven't figured out yet is how big does the odds have to be to warrant a call with this hand?
In this situation against a lone UTG raiser who's strong, I'd want more ways to win. Here, you're basically playing for a straight draw or freak two pair. Make your 98 suited, and I think it's still close. Your good position makes up some, but ideally, I'd want more players. At least 5:1. Probably more if he's as strong as you say, (this slightly different from 4.5:1 minus rake) with some confidence it won't get raised behind me.
Question #2 - What is the weakest hand I should call on in this situation? (JTs, 99, AQs)
I would toss the JTs and play the 99 and AQs possibly re-raising with them.
Raider
I'm no expert and I don't know where to draw the line. I don't even play 30/60 (or anything remotely close).
But I think your biggest mistake was when you "got stubborn".
David
Since it's your first hand of the game, you may be put to the test right off the bat to see how you will defend your blinds. If you fold now with position others will notice and attack your blinds without fear.
I would call and if the further raising and reraising occur, fold then, not now. I'm sure if your playing 30-60 you trust your play post flop......
C'mon. Are you really that concerned UTG is soley attacking your blind from across the table? This sounds like paranoia to me...
= Raider
Raider:
I am not saying UTG is attacking my blind. I am sure he is on a great hand. My point is I would not drop this semi junk hand now. My call may bring in the SB and/or the BB. Plus my aside about table image,blah, blah, blah etc. all contribute to my call
Tony:
My only point is that by simply playing good poker, your image should take care of itself. I don't see a need to make a significant negative expectation play ( which I believe this is), for the sake of image.
= Raider
Raider:
I am not saying UTG is attacking my blind. I am sure he is on a great hand. (so quit picking on me everyone always picks on me!!!it's just that everybody always goes after me) I am not paranoid!!! My point is I would not drop this semi junk hand now. My call may bring in the SB and/or the BB. Plus my aside about table image,blah, blah, blah etc. all contribute to my call.
This is just my opinion.. Tony
Bob, you have to ask yourself what kind of a hand are you trying to make with Nine-Eight offsuit? A pair of Nines or Eights will not win the pot most likely so you need to make two pair or better or flop an open ended straight draw and make your straight. The odds against flopping two pair, trips, a full house, or quads is about 28:1 against. The odds against making a straight either by flopping it or flopping an open ender and making it on the turn or river is probably about 20:1 overall but I am not sure. Bottom line is simply that 5:1 pot odds are really not that attractive for this kind of a hand. If you were in the small blind which is $20 and several players limp with no one raising than you have my permission to toss in another $10 and take a flop with this piece of cheese. But other than that, I cannot see ever paying a full bet ($30) to play this unsuited connected crap. I think this answers your first question.
Your second question is more difficult. I would call with any pair since the odds of flopping a set are only about 7.5:1 against and when I consider implied odds and the huge pots that are won with small sets it makes sense to play with any pair. I would play with a suited connector of Jack-Ten or better. It might even be right to play some lower connectors provided they are suited but I am not sure. I would play any two unsuited big cards like King-Ten or Queen-Jack since if I flop a top pair of Kings,Queens, or Jacks they might be good against a UTG raiser. But I need to be able to get away from these hands if I catch a piece of the board and get any kind of heat.
You will flop a straight with this hand (or any other connector from JT down to 54) roughly one time in thirty, or 3.3%.
- This includes the flop of Q J T, which could very easily be the most expensive straight you ever flop given that the pot was raised UTG ( AK?)
I will let someone else do the math regarding how often your hand stands up.
You will flop an open ended OR double gutshot draw roughly 7.5% of the time, and complete the draw a little less than one time in three.
You will flop alot of gutshot draws; sometimes you will get at least one chance to draw to them, sometimes you won't.
I have no opinion to offer as to whether or not you should have called with this hand, I just wanted to offer the numbers as to often you will make your straight.
Jim's estimate of one time in twenty was a little low - one in fifteen is probably closer - but as usual, he wasn't far off.
J-D
I did a detailed analysis of exactly these kinds of hands for the general case when you don't think a pair will be good when you hit it.
The basic upshot is that you need (pesemistic) 13:1 to make the call. This number is very dependent on game conditions, so if the hand you are in has lagre implied odds, the required calling odds will be smaller.
Of course, if you think you might be able to win the pot with a pair or a bluff, the analysis is totally bogus.
- Andrew
(n/t)
Hi, I'm the Mayor of Any2card Town, calling with this hand is a regular play from our residents. When a strong player raises UTG, this is the kind of challenge any2card players live for.
However, if you live in the Valley of Patience (VoP) you risk eviction from the commuity for playing these rags. The rule in the VoP is, big cards beat little cards and most people ain't bluffing. So the answer depends on where do you want to live, Any2card Town or the VoP.
SPM, ...everyone should know their home address...
`
I'll largely hit on what others have said, but here I go... The reason it's scary to call here is that it's an early raise, and so the conditional probability that he has a big pair is high, and otherwise he almost certainly has overcards. So, if you flop a pair, you are either a small favorite or huge dog, and you're going to have to put in additional bets amounting to about the original pot to find out which one (though you'll likely get to see the showdown more cheaply when your hand is good, which is bad.)
However, many players loosen up considerably when facing a post. See Izmet's post on r.g.p. and the responses. Go to www.deja.com/usenet and type "rec.gambling.poker Izmet adjustments to a post". One guy suggested that he would attack (open-raise) a post from UTG with a minimum of 66/76s/J9s/KJ. I should think you could defend the post with 98 against such a player.
-Abdul
I defend. But then again I be loose.
vince
I received some good advice from Ray Zee when I posted a similiar question about defending your Big blind. basically he said that instead of just calling raises to defend, try folding to more often to raises and also raising and re-raising with good hands. this makes it more dangerous for someone to try and steal or raise just to get you out. hopefully it will have the effect being able to see more free flops.
this strategy also fits in well with following a non-self weighting style of poker.
you are in the big blind with Ac5c
UTG (decent player) makes it 2 bets. there are a total of 6 callers.
So, it's a no brainer to call.
The pot is 16 small bets.
The flop comes Qd3c8s
SB checks, you check. UTG bets, 4 callers to you.
Should you call?
Call > Runner-Runner clubs is about 24 to 1 to hit , plus whatever runner-runner wheel is worth. Getting immediate odds of 20 to 1 you should call. PS... be careful if an Ace hits it's probably not even an out.
No, you should fold. The reason is because your only outs are runner-runner and this is not draw poker where you get to take two cards at one time. There is a betting round in between so it will cost you money to see the hand through. It will cost you at least one double bet with the possibility of having to call a raise as well. Your Ace overcard is of dubious value since an Ace could easily help one of your opponents more than you and it may suck you into hanging around until the river incurring a further cost.
His bet closes the action; he is going to see the turn for one small bet ( 20-1 odds) and if he catches a club there is no amount of "heat" he can't withstand on the turn.
Regarding his Ace I agree 100%. Spiking it is unlikely to put him out in front, but he will (probably) know whether it helped him or not once the betting on the turn is completed.
BTW, with no legitimate draw out there, are you wondering the same thing I am -
What do the four callers have, AND WHERE IS THIS GAME =).
J-D
it was a 40/80 game - loose and wild, played like a 3/6 game. sometimes it plays that way, with the right people in...other times, it is the rockiest place in the world.
Call.
With your call closing the action, it's not even a tough decision.
I am a little tired and not inclined to do the math, but the number of ways you have to win this hand, PLUS the fact that the aggressor is to your immediate left (if you do win, this pot is likely to be huge) make this an easy call.
1. running clubs ~ 4.2%
2. runners to your straight ~ 1.5%
3. running "fives" ~ .3%
4. running "Ace,five" ~ 1.5%
- Neither of the last two are guanteed winners even if you get them (in fact, making Aces-up could cost you money); for that matter, only running clubs will give you the nuts, but all of these hands should win often enough to be considered when making your decision.
Bottom line: You will probably win his hand about 6% of the time, maybe even a little less due to the fact that you won't get the chance to pursue all of your draws to the river - i.e., if the 2s comes on the turn there is no way you could call a bet and a raise (with only three clean outs you might have a hard time calling just a bet).
Still, when you do hit your hand you are going to need a bucket to hold the chips that get pushed your way. There are 10 big bets in the pot at this instant; it will cost you one SMALL bet to call. Your implied odds could be as high as 40-1.
Go for it!
J-D
- P.S. Check your stack - if this call puts you all-in that's fine; if you have two racks in front of you, that's OK too.
If by some chance you happen to have almost exactly two big bets left you bumped into a little bit of bad luck, but I would still lean heavily toward making the call.
I am assuming you can see why this would be to your disadvantage.
I believe you need to consider the cost of seeing the hand through to the end not just the odds. Suppose 50% of the time it costs you 2 more small bets to go to the river when you catch a draw and 50% of the time it costs you 4 small bets to see the river since the pot will get raised a certain percentage of the time once the turn comes. The other problem is that if a Five or an Ace comes on the turn you may never get to see the river because you may get bet out of the hand. How much heat will you take on the expensive street if a Five comes?
We have an expression in our home game that gets used when someone mucks their hand from the blind on the flop instead of simply checking (I know it's a breach of ettiquette to do this, but it only occurs in pots where there are MANY players in the hand). The player who folds says, "this hand isn't good enough to check [or call a check, if he is second to act and the SB checks]."
If a 5 hit I can't imagine a situation in which I would call a bet; if an Ace hit I MIGHT consider making a bet, but under no circumstances would I call one - nor would I ever call a raise if I did decide to bet.
I am assuming that there is at least some chance of the turn getting checked around, but even if I knew for certain that the turn would be bet (ideally by the pre-flop raisor), I still think the combined chances of runners to the flush and to the straight make this call a no-brainer.
I will do the math (I'm sure you will as well) and get back to you.
If I'm wrong, I will be the first to admit it - but I don't think I am in this case.
J-D
P.S. Do you at least agree - even if you don't change your stance after having had time to think about it - that it is far from a terrible call ?
I am just wondering how far apart we are on this one.
You should know by now how much weight I give to your opinions. Still, as a close friend of mine is fond of saying, "500 years ago the greatest minds in the world thought the Earth was flat, 100 years ago [they] thought the Wright Brothers were out of their minds, and a little over 50 years ago television was just a fad that would soon go the way of the horse and buggy.
Granted, math is math, and the underlying theories of probability are pretty much grounded in stone; they aren't opinions.
I just want to make sure I am using the right "stone" to determine the answer to this question.
Hey, I was wrong once before:)
There are 2,162 turn / river combinations - if we take into account the order of how these two cards land. In other words, we are counting permutations, not combinations.
We win if the turn and river are clubs (90 times), or if the turn is the 2c or 4c and we happen to hit the gutshot instead of the flush (6 times).
Total wins = 96 out of 2,162... I am assuming that we do not pay to see the river if the turn gives us only a gutshot draw - this is probably an erroneous assumption, but for now we will focus only on the hands we will win if there is alot of "heat" on the turn.
We lose $10 when the turn is not a club, regardless of what comes on the river.
This will occur 1,702 times (37 misses x 46 river cards).
We lose ~ $30 (I am assuming an average of one bet on the turn; sometimes there will be more, sometimes we will see the river for free.) when the turn is a club but we miss on the river.
This will occur 364 times (8 times the turn gives us only a flush draw which we will miss 37 times, 2 times the turn will give us a straight-flush draw which we will miss 34 times.)
Our total losses for trying and failing are (1,702 x $10) + (364 x $30). This yields a total loss of $27,940.
WE WIN 96 times, either with a straight or a flush. When we do win, it is almost impossible for me to imagine the pots not averaging at least $300 in profit; I believe this to be a very LOW figure, since there is already $200 in the pot - winning 5 big bets when we hit sounds very reasonable.
However, if we use the $300 figure we will still win a total of $28,800 - more than overcoming our losses when we miss.
Note: for the sake of simplicity I made this a 10-20 game; it makes the math alot easier to check.
In an attempt to be thorough -
1. Very few of the hands we make will be the stone-cold nuts, but can you really imagine hitting the straight and losing to "6-5" ?
- I will concede that there is more than a little danger in making our flush if the board pairs in the process. But to use your words from a prior post, "I'll take my chances; maybe I just like to gamble". This is probably a good place to do your gambling; the action on the flop does not seem to indicate that anyone flopped a set, and I don't see a flop of Q 8 3 giving any of your opponents two pair.
2. The action on the turn could get completely out of hand, but again this doesn't seem likely, and we are not taking very much the worst of it even when we are forced to pay multiple bets to see the river.
There are probably other reasons to justify a fold, but in defense of a call -
1. The turn will sometimes get checked; this will allow us to win this hand in lots of other ways - runners to the straight, running "fives", etc.
2. Spiking an Ace can't hurt us - unless we allow it to "tie us on" to the pot (I don't believe YOU would allow this to happen, I am fairly sure that I wouldn't) - it can either help, or have no effect on the outcome of this hand.
3. If there is only one bet on the turn - and we pick up only a gutshot draw - there will be more than enough money in the pot to justify a call.
No doubt, all of this could have been analyzed more precisely. But I don't believe that doing so would change the outlook in any significant way.
IMO, this call is a no-brainer.
I eagerly await your response.
Best wishes,
J-D
J-D,
Nice math, I like nice math.
This is interesting, because your math works, but it requires a perfect situation, with players who are so passive that -- something you forgot -- you might see an A hit and everyone freeze with fear and win the nice pot right there, when you simply bet the river; or win on the river when an A or another 5 come out. But this game isn't the 10-20 you mention, or Jim's 20-40 or 30-60: It is more likely a $1/$2 game. And it is why people suck out.
Mark
Mark, you're wrong, it was a 40/80 game.
kx: Where? I can afford it, but I am usually scared to death of these kind of stakes...not with this crew though.
Mark
where is not important. it's not always like this, but every now and then, the game does get this good...this happens everywhere, but when it does, it is tough to get into the game, as the players stick to their seats.
assuming your numbers (net gain of $1000 over 2100 hands) - it's a net gain of $0.50 in a 10/20 game - it's close to zero, and I guess that's why tight, low standard deviation players like Jim B. prefer to fold, while others may prefer to call. Either way, it seems that in the long run (this type of action probably happens once every 3 months), it doesn't matter what the decision is.
it turned out that I called, turned a club, had to put only one bet in on the turn, and rivered another club, which turned out to make a straight for one guy, and a set for another, so I got paid off by both.
and yes, I'll repeat it, it was a 40/80 game, believe it or not - in beautiful California.
(n/t)
Even if your math may not be in dispute, the net effect of making this call is a very high variance game. You win 96 out of 2,162 times. In other words, you could lose nearly $30,000 before you start to make a small profit with your longshot-yet-profitable play. This might be a "no-brainer" if your bankroll exceeds $100,000, but those on a tighter bankroll might wish to consider the effect of making this play.
Hi J-D!
I have sent this to you through private E-Mail as well but I thought for the record I would re-state here as well. I think your analyses of this problem was excellent and I indeed was mistaken in dismissing this as an easy fold. I do have a number of observations about your post which are as follows:
1. I question your contention that: "When we do win, it is almost impossible for me to imagine the pots not averaging at least $300 in profit. I believe this to be a very LOW figure, since with already $200 in the pot - winning 5 big bets when we hit sounds reasonable." On the flop when we make the decision to call or fold there is $210 in the pot (21 bets) and 5 players in the hand. It has been my experience that once the turn comes players start dropping like flies on the expensive street and if the UTG bets he will probably get no more than one caller plus yourself. If this is true than there would be $250 in the pot excluding your $10 flop call and $20 turn call. At the river, if you hit your hand, you will bet and get no more than one caller usually which would make your profit $270 excluding your flop call, your turn call, and your river bet. So I believe that a $300 profit is not low at all but is probably slightly higher than average.
2. You make the statement: "However, if we use the $300 figure we will win a total of $28,800 - more than overcoming our losses when we miss." Yes, we win $28,800 when we hit and we lose $27,940 all the other times so our net profit is $860 over 2162 trials which is a an average profit of about $0.40 per hand or a positive expectation of 0.04 bets. I would submit that this is so close to dead even that it makes the decision to call or fold an unimportant one. Suppose our win only averages $290 per pot rather than $300? Well now our total win is only $27,840 and we actually lose $100 over these 2162 trials.
3. You state some reasons that would justify a fold. I agree with them. These reasons alone could overcome our theoretical positivie expectation of 0.04 small bets.
4. I agree that the turn will sometimes get checked but this lowers our win when we win as well as reducing our loss when we lose and most importantly with 5 opponents this is very unlikely.
5. I agree that overall spiking an Ace won't hurt us because we will be smart enough to get off the hand. However, imagine a scenario where an Ace comes off, we check (or would we bet??), someone bets, a couple of players fold, and now with $240 in the pot we have to decide whether or not to fold our top pair/no kicker hand rather than pay another $20 to see the river. We might have another decision to make here.
6. I agree that if we pick up the gutshot draw the pot odds will be there to call a bet on the turn. But what if it gets bet and raised to us?
7. You state: "IMO this call is a no-brainer". I respectfully submit to you that with an EV of only +0.04 small bets this call is microscopically close and hardly a "no-brainer".
Now having said all that, I have to agree that you are right and I was wrong and that calling is probably right here due to the large pot. Furthermore, if a decision is close we should elect to play because it helps our image when we drag a big pot especially when we suck out on someone.
Warm Regards,
Jim Brier
Your getting some real odds here, but you need perfect perfect to win. Calling this bet after the flop is best left to an expert from Any2card Town, his name is the Runner Runner Man (RRman).
RRman, has the ablity to leap tall odds with two running cards. When RRman is hot, the river is a flash flood.
SPM,... on my best day, I can only leap tall odds with a single card.
Here's a play I observed in a $30-$60 hold 'em game yesterday at The Bellagio that I thought some of you would like to comment on.
A moderately wild player limped in from the middle. A very good player on his immediate left raised, and an unknown player who was next reraised. The three players were the only ones to take the flop (for a total of three bets each).
The flop was JhTd9h. The first two players checked, the third player (who reraised before the flop bet), the first player checked raised and the (very good) player in the middle reraised. The original bettor (who had made it three bets before the flop) then turned his hand over. It was two black aces. He promptly threw it away.
All comments are welcome.
It's not a bad fold, considering the size of the pot and the fact that a good player was driving the action.
However, I don't think I'd be inclined to muck them face up.
y
There will always be more depth to a discussion here when there are no results to cloud the thinking. Similarly, there is even more depth to discussion when Mason and/or David keep their opinions to themselves. How much brain power does it take to agree with an expert?
-Fred-
One thing Iforgot to mention in my first post, and it's something that's of paramount importance, is the position of the three players. Since the guy with the A's has the best position he should be, IMO, more inclined to muck, since it isn't very often that players get frisky with draws in three or four-handed pots when they're out of position.
There are exceptions, of course, but they're not a common as you might expect. When a player starts check-raising and three betting with players yet to act-- particularly only one or two players, since many will cap with a flush draw on the flop if the pot's being contested by five players or more-- that person generally has the goods.
Also note that there are about (I don't feel like counting them) 7 BB's in the pot when the A's muck. It's probably going to cost him at least 3 BB's to get to the river, and maybe more if he's actually behind.
I think he'd have to end up winning approximately 25-35% of the time to make this hand worth staying with, and I don't think that's going to happen. However, if he was FIRST to act, then I think he should be more inclined to gut it out, and at least take a look at the turn.
Wow! Thank god he turned his hand over or this would be another Jim Brier hand. Of course if there was one mistake made in this hand it was for an unknown player to show other players that include at least one very good player that he was capable of folding a big hand. Those that respond that folding A,A on the flop is a good fold do not understand this game. Given the board and the play he must call the bet. Why? Because if he is unknown to the others then they are unknown to him. The first player could have A,J,. After all he limped. Yes I know he was wild so he probably would have raised with A,J but he might have Q,J besides he is unknown to our A,A guy). The very good player could have Q,Q or K,K. In fact that is exactly what I will bet he had. (Although since the limper was wild the middle good player could have had J,J, T,T or even 9,9 but and was trying to isolate before the flop but then again I don't believe a very good player would three bet this flop with a set. Q,Q,K,K are more likely with Q,Q being my most likely read for the very good player).
So what happened already?
Vince
I don't know if it was a 'good' laydown, but it wasn't a bad one.
While he may be ahead now, he has to consider both a) the possibility that he's behind, and b) if he's ahead, what the chances are that he'll be outdrawn.
You also need to consider the size of the pot.
Mason--
As always, thanks for your guidance and counsel. However, the size of the pot was the first thing I mentioned in my earlier post.
If my assessment of the size of the pot is wrong-- and I've been wrong before-- feel free to bludgeon me with a big stick.
Vince,
Excellent points about being unkown. I somehow overlooked that.
= Raider
The face up fold is bad poker. I might fold aces in this spot but there's only downside to telling the world. Oops, I just did.
-Fred-
This is an important point. Ray Zee has made several posts on these forums to the effect that when you show people your hands, you are teaching them how you play. I agree completely.
I also put limper on QJs and VGP on QQ. When I ran probe, AA is ~55%, which coincidentally is the number that popped into my head per David's request below.
And like you I'd've checked the flop. Then I'd've folded if a K,Q or 8 comes on the turn, called a J,T or 9, capped otherwise.
Bill,
I like the check on the flop because of the action of the VGP. But I must agree that against typical non tricky opponents that a bet is the best play. I am a bit surprised about the %55 win rarte I would guess about 40-45% but so goes the power of (A)merican (A)irlines.
vince
Make the flop QhJdTh, and I don't have too big a problem with his fold although, I'd probably still want to see the turn since I'd have to greatly discount the wild player's actions.
In this spot, there's just too great a chance the very good player is drawing (possibly with a pair) and it's hard to credit the wild player for a hand worth his investment. I'd most likely call. Although, this is one of those spots where you should adjust for the fact that even if you're not already beat, you may very well be before it's over.
= Raider
Folding has its merits (though folding AA face-up isn't what I consider good advertising). Two players thought they had strong enough hands to check-raise with. Most players do not check raise with pure draws, usually made hands or pair draw combos. The good player has to be scared of a reraise from the preflop 3-bettor. It is unlikely he has a lower pocket pair, such as KK or QQ, or he probably would have reraised the flop (especially with KK). More likely the good player has a made hand, two pair or better. If the wild player has a decent draw and is willing to bet it strongly AA maybe paying a lot to lose.
However, I usually wait until the turn to see what happens. If a brick falls, and there is suddenly a great decrease in action, I might stick around. The good player could have 3 bet with a pair draw combo like QhTh, hoping the probably overpair might fold. What it comes down to is this: against a straightforward player and a wild one I probably fold on the flop. Against a wild player and a tricky player I want to stick around to see the turn.
It is very possible that the player in the middle was putting a play on the third player, raising him out. He is now heads up with the wild one, whom he may or may not be able to beat. It is entirely possible that the hands were something like:
Wild one: J7 Very good player: overpair, or AJ
Now the very good player has won the pot by reraising.
Of course the wild one could also have KQ. If so, that's the breaks.
William
I agree with the fold although I would never show my hand since my opponents may use this information to start taking pots away from me. In some cases the pocket rockets is looking at a straight which means he is drawing practically dead. In many other cases he will be looking at a set or two pair. Against a set he is playing 2 outs. Against two pair he is playing 3-5 outs. The fraction of the time his hand happens to be best, he will find that he can be easily outdrawn. Any Heart (except the Ah) or any Queen or any Eight instantly kills his hand. Even a King or a Seven could kill his hand. He is being forced to call two bets cold with the possibility of further raising. I believe folding is correct despite being unusual.
Tell me the pros and cons of the aces checking on the flop.
The pros of checking on the flop are that he loses less money when he is beat or gets sucked out on and he gets a free card. But what would he do with a free card? The cons are that he is failing to collect additional money when he probably has the best hand given the betting action and that he is giving a free card to two opponents on a highly coordinated board where all kinds of draws are possible and the pot is large. The other con is that by checking it is unclear where he is at on the hand.
I think the cons against checking greatly outweight the pros and betting is clear to me. If both players fold, that is fine. If I get called in one or both spots than I can assume my opponent(s) are probably drawing against me. If I get called in one spot and raised in another, as was the case here, I can fold with a clear conscience having escaped at minimal cost.
Now obviously this approach will not work against astute opponents who know exactly how I think and can exploit this strategy but assuming this is a typical full tabled line-up of normal opponents who are not mind readers I think it works best in the long run.
"But what would he do with a free card?"
I was just about to suggest that checking the flop may have been a better option for the aces. This is an AWFUL flop for the aces, especially in light of the likely holdings of the very good player who raised a limper from middle position. He is almost certain to have at least a gutshot draw, and could easily have a set or the nut straight. The aggressiveness of the two opponents is another factor favoring caution (to reduce the risk of being outplayed). There is virtually no chance of winning this pot on the flop.
An obvious disadvantage of checking is that you give a free card to likely draws. However, this risk is mitigated by the fact that you have only two opponents (thereby reducing the risk of longshot draws), and that anyone with a gutshot or better draw will likely call your bet anyway. If you are able to wait until the turn to bet your hand, you may be able to deny your opponents sufficient odds for their draws.
MJS
Checking the flop here is nuts. Not only are you giving free cards to hands like 88, 99, QQ, KK, all the pair and straight draw hands, and all the two pair hands, but there are very few cards which can come rescue you if you are already beat.
Are you going to check fold the turn, or call 2+ big bets on the turn and river? I'd rather get check-raised here and fold than fold the turn to a possible steal when a scare card hits, or even worse call the turn and river. The conditional probability that I'm ahead is high enough till I get check-raised, that betting is clearly correct.
- Andrew
Oops, I meant to say 77, 88, QQ, KK. NOT 99.
heh
- Andrew
Andrew,
You are not accomplishing anything by betting if your opponets have Q,Q or 88. They are in fact making a correct call especially with 10 1/2 small bets in the pot already. Besides if a K,Q,8 or 7 fall and there is any action you may now be able to get away from the hand easily.
Vince
Turn strategy after checking the flop:
1. WP checks, VGP checks -- Bet 2. WP bets, VGP raises -- Fold 3. WP bets, VGP folds -- Call turn and river 4. WP checks, VGP bets -- Raise (fold to reraise) 5. WP bets, VGP calls -- Call turn and probably river unless VGP calls WP's bet after a scare card falls.
Turn strategy after checking the flop:
1. WP checks, VGP checks -- Bet
2. WP bets, VGP raises -- Fold
3. WP bets, VGP folds -- Call turn and river
4. WP checks, VGP bets -- Raise (fold to reraise)
5. WP bets, VGP calls -- Call turn and probably river unless VGP calls WP's bet after a scare card falls.
[WP = wild player, VGP = very good player]
Unfortunatly, you forgot the REST of the story. What should you do when you get check-raised?
- Andrew
There are very few conceivable hands here that don't give both players made hands, good draws or pair-draw combos. What's a long shot draw with this flop? 67? That's about it. Both the good player and the wild one seem aggressive, so chances are you are going to check-raised. If that is the case you have two decisions to make:
1. I am ahead and will bet my hand. I will bet and be willing to take on the inevitable check-raises, if necessary, to make these likely semi-bluffing pair-draw combos pay through the nose. I am ahead right now, and I am willing to take action on my hand on the flop. You need to raise me on the big bet street before you can make me a believer.
2. I am most likely behind right now. A free card won't help me much and it may help my opponents more. However, I am willing to do this in order to avoid possibly being semibluffed off my hand on the flop, and to avoid being sandwiched-raised by a strong draw and a made hand. I will feel more confident folding to action on the turn if a scare card comes.
Basically, it comes down to deciding whether or not BOTH your opponents are currently behind to you right now, or if one is ahead and the other is going to drive you into him by raising with his draw. Anyone willing to do a bayesian analysis on this hand? :)
Good question.
Pros - 1) Scary board against two players that thought their hands good enough to put three bets in before the flop.
2) If your behind you are probably way behind.
3) If you are ahead you are probably not far ahead of anyone that might just call
4) You prevent what happened to this fellow, namely getting blown off a potential winner by aggressive opponents play.
5) No fear of over cards.
Cons - The only con is psychological. Namely giving a free card. There is a little fear that a gut shot might fold to a bet on the flop but that is a small likelyhood.
David - You have neglected my responses since you met me. Are you telling me something? Like "Now you know the Truth".
vince.
I would have checked the A,A.
vince
Against non tricky players a bet is clear. Against tricky players, my biggest concern about checking would be a bet and raise on fourth st. that would force me to dump the best hand.
But before going further we should answer this question: If there was no more betting (not because players went all in but rather for the sake of argument), what percentage of the time would the aces win the pot when all the cards are out? This will be more interesting if at first posters simply give a number without an explanation.
~55%
With this flop: {Jh,9h,Td} against 2 random hands Black Aces only win 51% of the time via Poker Probe.
CV
how bout against two hands, in which at least one is likely to hold a Q or a J?
Chris,
He's not against two random hands, though. Punch in black A's against QQ and QJs(the most likely opponents hands; although VGP could have AQ or KQ).
Props for getting probe, btw. Makes things a bit easier...
Bill
"He's not against two random hands, though. Punch in black A's against QQ and QJs(the most likely opponents hands; although VGP could have AQ or KQ). "
Should say "VGP could have AJ or KJ".
How good are the Aces? Given the action when the flop is checked to you, they are certainly better than 2:1, probably better than 1:1 to win the pot.
- Andrew
Given the action I'd give Aces a 10% chance at best.
CV
Given the fact that the players driving the action are in front of the A's (which generally means there's a smaller chance that they're pushing a draw) I'd say somewhere in the vicinity of 35%-- that is, 30-35% of the time he'll end up with the best hand.
However, before making any calculations on whether or not the A's should stick it out, we should bear in mind that they (the A's) will have to pay more to get to the showdown if they're behind, and will probably make less if they end up ahead. In other words, the ol' reverse implied odds quandry.
Probably a little less than one out of three...
ABSOLUTELY nowhere near 50%...
I know you said no explanations, but can AA ever win if the flush card - or an "8" - lands on either the turn or river ?
It seems that he is ducking (at least) 12 cards twice - if he isn't beaten already !
On second thought, definitely less than one out of three...
"Regis, since I'm out of 'lifelines', my answer is ~ 30%."
that he is behind on the flop - with virtually no redraws.
Now I want to see what the others think.
If I had the Aces they would never win! Wah! Wah! Sob. sob, sob...
M.... Well really Vince,
David,
This is an unfair question. I doubt that a definitive answer can be given without knowing more or maybe less about the opponents hands. Chris ran probe and came up with 51% against random hands (I presume). Against selective hands or non -random hands given that it's about 2 - 1 that one or the other of the opponents hit something on the flop I would guestimate that the Aces win between 40-45% of the time if the hands go to the river.
Vince.
One more thing David,
The scenario in which this hand was played according to your side kick had a very good player as the middle position raiser. Thus I am very inclined to check this hand on the flop.
Vince again.
Everyone seems to be answering this question using the fact that you were double check-raised. But the thread of questioning about the hand seems to be around whether you should check through the flop.
So the question becomes, why would one want to estimate the no-fold'em win rate of AA here? If it is to help you decide whether or not to check through the flop, then you can't use the fact that you were double check-raised to help in that estimation.
If it is to determine whether you should call the double check-raise based on pot odds, then it make complete sense to factor in all the stated action.
So which are you asking for? The win rate of AA BEFORE the double check-raise, or AFTER?
- Andrew
When the very good player makes it three bets on the flop, what is he telling us? Could he be telling us that he has the best hand and wants to get more money in the pot? Could he be telling us that while he might have the best hand at that point in time he would prefer that the before the flop three-bettor fold? Or could he be telling us something else? Also what implication does this have on how the player with the two aces should proceed?
Mason, the conditional probability that you are ahead after the double check-raise is pretty close to zero. Yes, this probability is affected by your opponents, but given the very generic description that you've given of the opponents so far has not lent any credibility to the idea that you getting jerked around by a couple of nutcases.
Maybe if you told us that the "moderatly wild player" will check raise a scary board with less than two pair, or if you gave any indication that the "very good player" will put a FPS move on the 3 bettor after the check raise, THEN I could think AA might be good. But your effective odds are attrocious in this situation, and you may as well fold.
You certainly aren't losing money against a "moderatly wild player" and a "very good player" when you fold AA in this situation.
- Andrew
well this is really the crux of the problem isn't it?
I think the answer depends on your (holding the AA) image and playing style. I know its hard but we should all try to accurately assess how we are perceived. if you have been playing tight and folding to alot of pressure, whether its because you are tight-passive or have just been getting ca-ca cards, then I think at the very least you must call the extra 2 bets and even think about re-raising.
If, for what ever reason, you have been playing loose then folding is probably a pretty good option.
unfortunately the pockets aces hero is a new guy so there's not much info to go on.
we do know that the first position player is a crazy guy, so in this case I think the good player is telling us he would rather be heads up against the crazy guy and would very much like it if Mr. pocket aces folded.
No - he is not telling you he has the best hand and wants to get more money in the pot.
Yes - he is probably telling us that he might have the best hand at this time and would prefer the preflop 3 better leave.
No - I do not believe there could be any other reason for his three bet than he wants to get rid of the third player.
The problem for the A,A is that there is a possibility that his hand is dead or may likely be best. Either by the first player or the second may have a K,Q although this hand is highly unlikely for either given your description of the two. He therfore has all three options open to him without a clear favorite decision. He could fold and not be too far off or he could raise and not be too far off. But in my opinion I believe his best option at this point is to call the double raise and see what happens on the turn. Part of his problem is that these players are unknown to him. Ironically from your description of the A,A 's opponents even if he knew the descriptions you assignede them his options and best play would be the same.
vince
Mason,
I answered David's question above with a number - 24% - higher than I think your chance of winning against this raise and re-raise --- which I think is 5-10%.
I put the first raiser on 2 pair, followed by a set, followed by KQ (maybe with Kh), and I put the second guy (the good play/reraiser) on exactly AQh. Your leading question makes me think that the good player wants to get more money into the pot, but also wants Mr. AA out of there so he can play heads up with Mr. Early flake. And with AQh, he has a zillion outs with two cards to come.
Mark
The very good player is telling us he can beat a pair of Aces and probably has at least two pair but quite possibily a set. Even a straight with King-Queen is not out of the question. He is telling us that he may well have the best hand and he wants to make it expensive for anyone on a flush or straight draw to continue on with this hand. If we are holding pocket rockets we should respect the message and get the hell out while we still have some chips to play with.
My opinion is the opposite. I agree that he is telling us he has a very good hand, but I don't believe that he told the truth. Of course I don't have to be correct. You must remember that players who make it three bets before the flop usually automatically bet the flop and the turn, even with a dangerous flop such as this one. If his hand was really terrific, why wouldn't he wait until fourth street to get all these raises in.
I think that Mark the K may have it right. The VGP may have wanted to get the three bettor out of there, but also get the flop raiser to put in more money.
Sound to me like you think the flop 3-bettor has a pair and a draw. But what do you think the first check-raiser has? You can't go around calling raises from the 3rd best hand when you have the second best hand, and expect to make any profit.
- Andrew
That statement may be way off. You need to consider the size of the pot. For example, if the best hand is two pair, your aces should be a profitable call. You will be getting approximately 9-to-1 assuming the (first) check raiser just calls and you could easily have have five outs on the next card.
That statement may be way off. You need to consider the size of the pot. For example, if the best hand is two pair, your aces should be a profitable call.
Really? The no-fold'em data I have seems to indicate that you've got about a 14% chance to win.
% hcmpn Ac As Tc 9c jd Kd -- jh td 9h
903 boards containing Td Jh 9h
cards win %win loss %lose tie %tie EV
As Ac 122 13.51 766 84.83 15 1.66 0.1406
Tc 9c 445 49.28 443 49.06 15 1.66 0.4983
Kd Jd 321 35.55 567 62.79 15 1.66 0.3610
Oh, I see. This is where your mistake is. When you are double check-raised there are 16.67 small bets in the pot. IF the original check-raiser flat calls, then you'll be getting 8.8:1. Of course, he might raise and you'd have to pay up to 4 more bets, for odds of 5.4:1.
But, let's assume that you're right about the original raiser calling the 3-bet. That's a fairly plausible assumption. Let's also make it 9:1 to keep things simple.
Now... The rest of the story.
On page 47 of "The Theory of Poker" you'll find a fairly well written chapter on effective odds. The basic upshot of that chapter is that since you'll probably have to put in another 2 big bets to call the hand down (maybe more?), you shouldn't read the odds as 9:1, rather you should read them as 9:3, or 3:1. Kudos to GD for bringing this up in response to your original post.
You're getting an optimistic 3:1 on a possible 7:1 longshot. Sounds like a money loser to me. This is the classic "slight favorite/big dog" situation.
- Andrew
Actually, he is getting 3:1 effective odds on calling to the river. It might be profitable to call the flop and fold the turn if no ace or board pair comes.
Of course, if you give them the hands you have suggested in your simulation, a board pair instantly kills your hand, rather than helping it. Rather than KJd or other hands like it(a very good player would probably not even raise with KJd here, even to isolate a wild player, IMHO) the good player could have QQ, KK, AQh, maybe ATh or AJ. And the wild player could have J9, JT, etc. So there could likely be one board pair that puts AA back into the lead.
Of course, since we don't know what hands these players have, out of a fairly broad spectrum, we have to assume that the answer is somewhere in the middle. In my opinion it is likely that you can see the turn for one more bet, and decide then whether to call or fold, depending on how scary the card that comes is.
Actually, he is getting 3:1 effective odds on calling to the river. It might be profitable to call the flop and fold the turn if no ace or board pair comes.
I don't think that's a good idea either.
- Andrew
"If his hand were really terrific why wouldn't he wait until fourth street to get all these raises in"?
Because there are a number of cards that could come off on the turn that would prevent him from raising on the expensive street. With a set of Jacks or Tens he would not be able to raise if a Heart, a Queen, or an Eight comes off.
He's telling us that he thinks he has the likely best hand -- a set of tens, I would think -- and that he also wants to limit his competition.
If he had a less vulnerable hand such as the nut straight, his play here could cost him a couple of big bets later. He might be a little nervous about the unlikely flush draw, but since the flush draw isn't going anywhere anyway, there would be no point in trying to drive it out.
He's not afraid of a straight in someone else's hand because (A) the preflop 3-bettor won't 3-bet with cards that make a straight and (B) the preflop limper (1) usually won't check-raise the flop with the nuts (he'd bet hoping to 3-bet) and (2) will limp and check-raise with a lot of hands that aren't a straight: AJ, KJ, QJ, JT, J9, QT and so forth.
If he has the nut straight I would think he would want to get his licks in while he can. There are a number of turn cards that might inhibit his future betting like a Heart, a Queen, or even a King. Similarily with a set of Jack or Tens. He needs to pull the trigger while he still has the gun.
Here’s a hand I saw a friend play recently.
Game: Loose passive 10/20
Hero Calls UTG with Kd 5d
A Middle Raises, all Fold except both Blinds and Hero.
Flop: 8d 6s 4d [ Hero has Four Flush and Gut shot ]
Hero Checks, Middle Bets, Both Blinds Fold, Hero Calls.
Pot is now heads up.
Turn: 6h [ pairs middle card, no help to Hero ]
Hero Checks, Middle Bets, Hero Check Raises.
What do you think of this?
That's how Hero's are mad. They got guts, style, and provide action for those that play from the Valley of Patience. I rate it a 10 if he won, and a 1.5 if he lost.
SPM,...courage under fire, were the weak fear to tread...
Pre-flop, limping in under the gun with King-shit suited is terrible poker and no game is passive enough for this. Even passive players will find raises with big pocket pairs and big suited cards.
The check-raise move on the expensive street with 11 clean outs (6d may not be an out) is interesting and if the opponent is the type of player who will fold an over pair here then it is a good play. A King may even be an out. It really depends upon how much you know about your opponent. The real question is what does our hero do when a blank comes at the river and he has no hand to show down? Does he keep betting?
Jim, why would you rate calling with UTG with Kxs "terrible poker" in a loose passive game? this hand definitely falls in the speculative hand category and there are very few situations where I would make this call. But, what if you are in the cut-off with the same hand and there are 4 limpers to you? do you call? I think calling would be OK.
Now if you have observed that there is very little Preflop raising and lots of people seeing lots of flops then I think you could take a gamble and play this hand UTG based on the past action. my justification would be: granted I'm acting first so I have very little information, but past actions are good indicator of future actions so think I'll go ahead and call. furthermore, I can dump a hand pretty easily if the flop doesn't hit me and if it does there is no one here to make me pay heavily for my draw and I will probably win a big pot if the flush does get there.
Because like I stated in my original post, you cannot be certain someone will not raise with the entire table yet to act. The reason no one may have been raising earlier could be due to the fact that no one had a premium hand pre-flop. Furthermore, there is a big difference between K-5 suited and K-T suited. With K-T suited you have a straight possibility plus a top pair is much more likely to hold up. It would be a stretch coming in with K-T suited or even K-9 suited and a clear cut error to come in with K-5 suited.
Now being in the cutoff with this hand and four limpers to you means that you are almost guaranteed seeing a flop for one small bet. Even then I don't like the call but calling would be okay.
If his opponent is the type that would fold overcards, then I think it's a very legitimate play.
= Raider
Gotta do it once in a while; can't do it too often.
BTW, as Jim says, limping UTG with K5 is brutal regardless of how passive the game is.
Position matters even in passive games. If you catch a good flop (which you will rarely do), you want to have late position which increases your chances of getting in a raise on the flop and turn (and also increases your chances of stealing if it looks like the flop hit no one).
Save these calls for late position.
Shorthanded (5 handed) online 20/40 hand. I am on the button. Two fold to me and I raise with As10h. Both blinds call.
Flop comes Qs 8d 3h
Check to me and I bet. SB calls, BB folds.
Turn comes Js.
SB checks, I check.
River is Ks
SB bets, I raise, SB reraises, I call and get shown 5s8s for the flush. Comments?
You got flush blindness. Error on the side of caution.
SPM,...if they can flush they will call...
it's easy to go on tilt in shorthanded games, especially on line. this seems like one of those hands that could put you on tilt.
i don't see how you did anything wrong. shorthanded, its clearly worth a raise with the straight.and worth a call after he reraises.
it's tuff to take those beats (even though you were behind from the flop on), and combined with another beat, its real easy to go on tilt. so, just relax and take a deep breath ... maybe even quit the game for an hour.
I think the only questionable part is whether you should have bet the turn. Your river play is fine--sometimes you get the fish; sometimes the fish gets you.
-Sean
I think you have to bet the turn.
You should have bet the turn here. In the actual play this would have cost you money but betting the turn is still right because you have been the aggressor all along and he might fold when confronted with a bet on the expensive street plus you have as many as 6 outs if you are called. The Spade flush thing was freaky.
(n/t)
I think you played it right.
In shorthanded games, guys will (correctly) call you with any pair here. Given that he called the flop, about the only hand he could have which he would fold on the turn is something like Ax or Kx.
On the flop, he could have called with:
1. A pair
2. A gutshot
3. Ax
4. Kx
If he had a pair or a gutshot, he will likely call you on the turn. The only hands he would fold would be Ax and Kx and given that he did not 3 bet preflop, chances are that he does not have Ax. I rule out a small pocket pair as I think he would have 3 bet preflop with that too.
BTW, if the river is a blank, you generally call with Ace high as your check on the turn would encourage him to bluff but in this instance, I would fold given the texture of the flop (i.e there are no draws out there did not get there on the turn).
Change the flop to Q76 or sonmething and I would say:
1. Bet the turn; or at the very least
2. Check the turn but call on the river if he bets on a blank card.
UTG raises (weak losing player raises too often)
4 off button raises (Average player) all others fold to me
I'm 2 off the button with AKo (I'm crushing this 15/30 game/up $2400)
Question #1 - Should you play different when ahead versus even or behind?
Question #2 - Do you 3-bet and buy the button or do you just call and keep your hand deceptive?
I decided to just call, A top player in the LB 3-bets, BB blinds fold and we take the flop 4 handed. (Pot is $205)
The board is: J 7 5 r and all check to me. Question #3 - Should I bet and narrow the field or check and avoid a possible check-raise?
I bet and the LB raises, others fold, I call. (Pot is $265)
The turn is a 2, LB bets and I call. (Pot is $325)
River is a K, LB checks Board is J752K
Question #3 - Should I bet now? He may have QQ or AA?
I bet and he calls with AA.
Recomendations:
Question 1; NO
Questions 2; When drawing for a pair against a raiser, try patience, wait until you have somthing.
Question 3; Check the flop, you ain't got nothing yet, when he raised, the situation became the boss, he's got something you don't, FOLD! End of Story.
SPM, ...pushing nothing gets it's true reward, Nothing...
Bob,
I was starting to work on this and noticed the preflop action does not add up. If there was a bet and three raises four-way with the big blind folding then the pot size should be $255. IF there was a bet and two raises four way then the post should be $195. Could you please clarify?
Regards,
Rick
Sorry, My mistake (4 x 45 = $180 + 15 BB = total of $195)
Bob,
So UTG limped because otherwise there are three raisers?
Regards,
Persnickity Rick
Reread - it says UTG raises, 4 off re-raises, I call and LB 3-bets!
UTG raises - That's two bets $30
4 Off re-raises - That means he puts in THREE bets
LB raises again - Making it four bets to go
The confusion seems to arise from using the term 3-bet when referring to the third raise. When I see "3-bet", I think that it means the second raise, not the third.
Bob,
OK. But I'm still a little persnickety and made some corrections based on my understanding of what the action was. You can strangle me if you run into me in the future. The way I read your post there were two raises and three bets pre flop before it got to you, you called, the small blind made it four bets and all but the big blind called. This should make it $250 pre flop. No big deal (I’m less persnickety later in the day).
You wrote about the pre flop play: ”UTG raises (weak losing player raises too often) 4 off button raises (Average player) all others fold to me I'm 2 off the button with AKo (I'm crushing this 15/30 game/up $2400)“
”Question #1 - Should you play different when ahead versus even or behind?
Question #2 - Do you 3-bet and buy the button or do you just call and keep your hand deceptive?”
I might be more likely to reraise (making it four bets and a cap in California) when crushing the game since my opponents tend to get intimidated and less brave. I also think you have to have some capping hands one or two off the button that are not pairs and AK would be it. If I don’t need to buy the button I would restrict my caps to AK and AQ suited against this lineup. But in this spot calling is just about as good since you are already up against two raises (even though the raisers are not too solid).
Regarding the first question, I tend to be a little more aggressive when having run well up to the point of my decisions since my opponents tend to get discouraged and play a bit less aggressively against me and my aggression is more effective. I play a little less aggressive if not having run well as my opponents are less intimidated by my own aggression.
”I decided to just call, A top player in the LB 3-bets, BB blinds fold and we take the flop 4 handed. (Pot is $205) - - The board is: J 7 5 r and all check to me.”
”Question #3 - Should I bet and narrow the field or check and avoid a possible check-raise?”
Since you cold called pre flop I would check here and take the free card. But betting is at worse a very small mistake.
”I bet and the LB raises, others fold, I call. (Pot is $265) The turn is a 2, LB bets and I call. (Pot is $325) River is a K, LB checks Board is J752K”
Question #3 - Should I bet now? He may have QQ or AA?”
If I didn’t see the result I would think you have a thin value bet here. I don’t see why aces would check here and any aces that would check would not checkraise. I would put the player as a slight favorite to have queens and lose the extra big bet.
Whether on not to bet the river is a pure value bet type decision. Your opponent has checked to you, there was no draw, you have a hand, and he has a hand. There is little chance or being check raised based on the action. If you win these bets much more than sixty percent of the time, you are not value betting enough. My guess is that if you didn’t reveal the answer, most of the posters would have you bet the river.
”I bet and he calls with AA.”
I still think betting the river is right. You gambled a bit and lost this time. Sorry about me being persnickety.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, you're right. I just can't add!
When I said the LB 3-bets he actually is 4 betting (DAH)
Now you know why I don't post often :-)
Thanks for your info and trying to keep me straight!
Bob,
I bet you dindn't have any problem adding up all those chips you won in that session ;-).
Regards,
Persnickety Rick
Reread - it says UTG raises, 4 off re-raises, I call and LB 3-bets!
Bob-
This is where the confusion might be. With a raise and a re-raise, LB would be 4 betting.
= Raider
In response to your first question, should you play any differently when you are ahead versus even or behind, my answer is no because there is no point in changing something that is already working well. Now the "book" answer might be yes and that you can be more adventuresome when you are ahead since your opponents may be intimidated by you. Of course when you are badly stuck, you may want to play more conservatively since your image is bad.
With regard to Question 2, I think it would be overplaying your hand to 3 bet with slick against two players who are already committed. I don't believe buying the button is worth all that much in these situations. Furthermore, it could get raised again and you simply don't have enough hand here.
On the flop, I believe you should check and not bet into 3 opponents who payed 4 bets to take a flop having no pair, no draw, and really no hand. You have 6 outs at best and you will not win 100% of the time even when one of your outs arrives. A check-raise is quite likely given all this pre-flop action. When raised after you bet by the solid player who made it 4 bets pre-flop, you are definitely beat but because of the pot odds right now are fantastic so pay the $15 and hope to catch something. On the turn you are getting almost 10:1 to pursue your 6 outer. Agreed that you could hit and still lose but a 6 outer is a 7:1 shot and you are getting 10:1 so there is an overlay here. He might be betting with a pair of Queens here. There are 3 ways he can have AA and 3 ways he can have KK given that you have AK. However, their are 6 ways he can have QQ. You have to call.
With regard to Question 3, at the river I would bet when checked to. Again QQ is 6 possible hands and AA is only 3 possible hands plus KK is now only one possible hand. He will make the crying call with QQ given the large pot.
When the small blind three bets you have to question what kind of a hand he would do that with. Being first to act on all subsequent betting rounds, with a pre-flop raiser and a strong cold caller behind him a three bet could only be aces or kings. I dont' think a raise in these circumstances would be made with anything less. You should fold after the flop.
$20-$40 at the Taj. It’s a full and relatively new table. I’ve been sitting for about 2 hours and have played maybe 4 hands. I’m in seat 1. The button is on seat 4. The newest player is in seat 7 and he’s UTG. He posted less than an orbit ago behind the button. UTG limps and seat 8 raises. Everyone folds to me and I look at AhQc and call. Would anyone raise here? The only assessment that I have of seat 8 is that he’s very aggressive. I’ve seen him raise with as low as pocket 7’s in early position. Everyone folds except the BB and UTG, who calls. 4 handed, $160.
Flop: AcTcJh
BB checks, UTG bets, seat 8 raises. I start putting people on hands. BB-nothing, UTG-weak Ace, seat 8-strong Ace. I don’t think he has two pair or a set. Is calling the best play? I called having a back door flush draw, and outs to a King, and maybe runner-runner house. But that’s only if I believe that seat 8 has AK. I decide to call the turn and see what happens. BB folds, UTG calls. 3 handed, $280.
Turn: Qh
UTG bets out, seat 8 raises. Now I have to figure they both have a King, right? I call the two bets knowing my outs were an Ace or Queen. It get capped back to me? Now what do I do?
Results later…..
Stephen
Pre-flop your cold-call of an early position raiser with AQ offsuit is okay but somewhat marginal. John Feeney wrote an interesting essay in his book "Inside The Poker Mind" where he argued that folding may be right here. Nevertheless, against most opponents I like your call. Re-raising is not recommended because you have two opponents who have come in and your hand is weak if one of them happens to have a real hand.
On the flop, there is $220 in the pot and it costs you $40 to call with the possibility of it getting raised again. If #8 has AA,AK,AQ,AJ suited,JJ, or TT you can only tie in a few instances and you are dead to a King in all other cases. It is unlikely that #8 would raise a flop bet here with KK or QQ. I think you are playing 4 outs here. You also have three cards in a straight zone on the table and the two flush hurts as well even though you have the Qc. I think you should fold here.
On the turn you are almost certainly beat and have no more than 4 outs to a full house which is about 10.5:1 against. To call $80 cold you need to win about a $900 pot which will not happen here. It could even get raised again. You must fold here. Calling was a very bad play. If it gets capped back to you then the pot would have $760 in the pot and it costs you another $80 to call. At this point you are pot stuck pure and simple and must call. But you should have folded much earlier.
Jim:
This is a dumb question but why is it 10.5 to 1? Isn't it worse? 4 outs with 46 unseen cards is 11.5 to 1, no? What am I missing?
SW
When computing the odds I compute the odds against you. From 46 unseen cards there are 42 cards that are non-outs and 4 cards that are outs. This is 42:4 against you which is 10.5:1 against. I then use this figure in comparing it to the current pot odds.
Man, I'm having a problem posting this. Hope this didn't get posted like 3 times...
It seems to me you had 3 opportunities to fold, each one more obvious than the last.
I hope you won this hand, but you certainly weren't supposed to.
= Raider
I realized *after* I called the 2 cold that I shouldn't be in the hand. What threw me off the most was UTG's betting into the raiser. I figured they both didn't have AK, but that seat 8 certainly had AK.
I folded after putting in $80. I made a small joke as I folded the cards by taking the stack back saying, "Oh, if I had known it was going to be capped I wouldn't have called." It got small chuckles.
River: 2c
UTG bet and seat 8 raised. UTG called and shows K5o and seat 8 shows KQo, flopping the straight. It just showed me that it doesn't matter what the limit is, some people play any two cards.
Stephen
Pocket AA in the little blind, I raise with at least 5 callers, FLOP 7Q4 rainbow.
I bet, there is a raise, I re-raise, 3 way action, TURN 7,
I bet, the Q raises, trip sevens re-raise, I make a crying call, I'm wiped cream for sure, River A:)
A flash flood on the river, only the trip sevens make a crying call!
SPM,...AA from Any2card Town, even aces can make a big catch-up on the river...
why bet the turn?
For Value.
While this business of checking because you are either way ahead or way behind has some merit, it should not be used at the cost of other good things such as betting for value.
Also, the principle has less application here because of all the raising on the flop i.e. you wouldn't expect the 7 to have hit anyone's hand so in most cases you will be way ahead but your opponents wont know it and will call or raise (as Mr. pair of Queens did here).
... for the newly christened VLG gambit here. Although technically since this is a turn decision, a new name is probably in order. (hint-hint) :o)
You put in 3 big bets with 2 lousy outs...
And you didn't even check raise the river?
= Raider
Even a weak 7 is smart enough not to bet the river. You lose a bet if you check.
SPM,...able to leap tall odds with a single card...
I think you've got a clear fold on the turn. However, I like the lead bet.
The flop action makes it seem likely that the only hands out against you are a Q(the raise/caller) and most likely a draw or possibly a set(the call/caller).
Thus, I'd bet into the field on the turn w/ what I think is the best hand.However, when you are raised and then re-raised you have a clear fold. The re-raiser has to have atleast 7 to three bet. Muck your aces quickly. You are playing to 2 outs and got lucky.
Yes! I did get very lucky.
SPM,...able to leap tall odds with a single card...
I kind of got in the way of Mason's original question below, plus my subquestion may have been misconstrued. So lets start again. I am leading to a concept that is very important so bear with me. For now please answer this survey with a percentage only.
The situation: Vegas 30-60 Holdem. Loose player, but not an idiot, limps in middle position. Excellent player on his right makes it 60. You are next with two black aces and make it 90. Both call. Flop is Jh Tc 9h. Both check.
Question: At this point, before you have acted but after they have checked, what would your approximate chances of winning the pot be if the hand was dealt out? (It is dealt out not because of checks or all in players but simply because I decreed it for the sake of this hypothetical question.)
34.8%
23%
napkin calculation says 31.5% chance of winning.
72%
45-50%
Vince
60%
15-20%
A much lower chance after I re-read the problem.
28% before the checks, 36% after the checks.
In 80-160, I would put them both on J9 offsuit. (See High Stakes board if you don't get the joke.)
-Abdul
Abdul, your views on the following please...
Given that the 3 bettor is going to bet this flop 99% of the time regardless of what he has and given that the other 2 players know this and given that this is not a multiway pot, I would say that:
1. Checks by the other 2 players does not necessarily mean that they did not outflop Aces.
2. On the other hand, a bet by one of these two players almost always will signify that the bettor did not outflop Aces.
In other words, if I held AA, I would be happier if the guy to my right bet the flop (I could raise and I could be more confident that he does not have me beat and is likely betting AQ/AK or more likely QQ...I discount KK because he did not cap preflop).
Thus, I question how you arrive at a greater percentage for the Aces to hold up *after* they both checked as opposed to before.
BTW, the asumptions outlined above apply to the typical player. A very good player may well bet JJ here into the 3 bettor and try and get more action that way as opposed to the hackneyed checkcall flop, checkraise turn routine.
Just out of curiosity, what wheight should we give this class of scenarios when we are actually computing EV? In particular, what would your probabilities of:
P(they both check call, or check fold)
P(one bets)
P(one check-raises)
Since the sum of the three probabilities must sum to 1, I'll guess that the final one would be at most about 25% of the time.
- Andrew
Both Check call: 25%
Both check fold: 10%
One check calls one check folds: 25%
One bets: 25%
One (or both) Check raises: 15%
vince
I suppose it depends so much on what your assumptions are on what the player in the middle initially raised with preflop.
In arriving at my 23% ultimate success estimate for Aces given this flop, I assumed that the player in the middle would have outflopped Aces approximately 50% of the time.
Here are the rough calculations:
I assumed that he would raise preflop with 99-AA. AK, AQ, AJs and half the time with KQ.
I also assumed that he would cap preflop with KK and bet QQ on the flop given his overpair and straight draw.
Accordingly, given the board and our AA, Bayesian analysis yields the following results for the player in the middle:
99 (3)
TT (3)
JJ (3)
QQ (0) Because he would have bet the flop with his overpair and open-ended straight draw
KK (0) Because he would have capped preflop or bet the flop given the lack of an Ace on the board
AA (0) Because he did not cap preflop and because there is only 1 combo of AA left for him to have.
KQ (8) I am assuming he would raise approximately 50% of the time preflop with KQ
AK (8)
AQ (8)
AJs (1)
Out of these 34 combinations, I have player B outflopping Aces 50% of the time (i.e. 17 combinations).
Obviously, many of my assumptions are debatable.
It's a 3-way pot on a straight-flush board with a bloated pot. At least one opponent is assumed to be intelligent. It would be somewhat suicidal for either opponent to check two pair (or a set), if the 3-bettor takes a free card much more than your proposed 1% of the time. In the 3-bettor's shoes, I would likely take a free card with AK, for example. KQ is the main hand I'm expecting when I see a check-raise here, though various straight+flush draws and pairs with flush draws might be inclined to do it too.
-Abdul
if you were the second player in this situation (pre-flop raiser, post-flop check re-raiser) would you check re-raise with QQ, one of them a heart? spitball
skp,
I greatly respect your thoughts on all poker problems. My game has improved a lot specifically from reading your posts and essays in the last year.
Yet I see a disturbing pattern. You almost always seem to assume that other players checkraise/slowplay big hands, as in "If the bettor actually had a set, he would probably wait till the turn to pop you," as well as situations like this where you seem to think everyone always checks to the raiser.
You do this in spite of the fact that many good players do not play this way. For instance, many posters on this forum advocate often betting out with big hands in order to be able to three bet, as well as not risk free cards. I'm talking about people like Jim Brier, Badger, and if I'm not mistaken you at least in some instances. Additionally, even in HPFAP, S&M advise not checking to the raiser: "Specifically, resist the inclination to check to the before-the-flop raiser" (page 63, in "The Free Card"). You'll agree that we can assume that most of our opponents at the $30/$60 level are at least aware of this advice, even if they haven't read the "hold'em bible"?
I'm not saying that your thinking in these cases doesn't have merit. But it seems to me, and I of course could be mistaken, that you are taking these assumptions too rigidly.
David
David,
One of the things that I consistently do (almost to a fault) is bet out my big hands (rather than slowplay/checkraise) so I am well aware that the generalizations I make do not apply to many players. That said, I think they do apply to the typical player and I was careful to add that proviso in my earlier post.
Also, in this hand, there was a 3 bet preflop...not just a raise but a 3 bet. IME, in a 3 way pot, the 3 bettor in last position will almost always bet and the typical player knows that and will typically go for the checkraise with a big hand.
BTW, thanks very much for the nice words.
.
24%
40%
William
40%
William
45%
CV
David, I didn’t get involved in Mason’s thread and I’ll pretend as if I didn’t know what happened later in the hand from his original post. This is a very quick “back of the envelope” type calculation.
This is a bad flop but by no means hopeless. With only two opponents, the flush draw is probably not out and if it is out it is probably held by the limper. Two pair is possibly held by the limper and he would be just as likely to check raise as lead out. The raiser could have a set and wants to slowplay for a round but is more likely to hold AK or AQ and does not want to bet into the reraiser at this point.
If a king, queen or eight or to a lesser extent seven comes on the turn or river (without another king or queen giving you an ace high straight) I would estimate that the aces will lose about 75% of the time due to someone making a straight. Since this figures to get there just over half the time (I’m discounting the seven), the aces will lose 40% of the time with this scenario. I would also guess that a made straight could be out another percent or so.
A running flush is about a four percent chance but a heart will only be there about one quarter of the time so add a percent. The flush draw should be there about five percent of the time and will get there one third of the time so let’s add two more percent. The aces now lose about 44% of the time to flushes and straights.
I would think that the aces are up against a player holding a set who decides to slowplay about eight percent of the time; however, he has clean redraws to the ace. So lets say the aces lose this way another six percent of the time. We are now at 50%.
Two pair is possibly held by the limper and he may go for the checkraise or slowplay here. Since the aces have redraws, I would say he loses another 5% of the time here. So we are now at 55%.
I would think that kings or queens would lead into the aces so I’ll discount this hand and not worry about them spiking a set.
I’ll estimate all other ways the aces could lose at about 5% or so. But I’m just guessing. Now the aces lose about 60% of the time.
My final answer: I’m guessing the aces win about 40% of the time. Of course, after the subsequent flop action described in Mason’s post, aces will win far less often.
Regards,
Rick
40%
Same answer as before:
Certainly better than 33%, probably better than 50%.
If forced to come up with a hard number, I'd pick .45*.33 + .55*.5 = .4235. Reducing precision back down to the original level, we get .42 as the final number. So I pick 42%.
- Andrew
35-40%. With this flop, you probably win 40-45% time heads up vs. the excellent player (assuming he's raising with a group 1 hand) and about 90% vs. the loose limper (assuming he opens with any hand on the chart, including 56s).
my answer to the survey - 25%
The purpose of the above survey was not to get the answer. Rather it was to make sure that most of you agreed that the chances for the aces is at best only a little over 33%. Now why is that important? Actually in many cases it is not. But in this particular case, you combine this statistic with a few other things, most notably that it is quite unlikely that anyone who has a decnt chance to beat you will fold on the flop AND the fact that your bet on the flop will not result in a free card on fourth st. ( especially since you yourself will usually bet if they check.)
So what does the flop bet gain you? $60 when you win the hand plus getting out very longshot draws. But it can cost you the following: (a) At least $30 when you wind up losing, as you usually will (more if you get check raised either on the flop or on fourth st.) (b) a chance to win the pot you normally wouldn't when you check on the flop and then raise out the first guy if the second guy bets. (c) An opportunity to collect a big bet or two by inducing a bluff or gaining a call because of your flop slowplay.
Put another way: When players check to your pretty good hand on the flop, there are several possible good reasons to bet:
(1) Your hand is a big enough favorite that you gain a lot of equity if they all call.
(2)You get players with a small chance out.
(3)A check raise lets you get out cheaply with little chance of folding a hand that would win.
(4)You will seriously consider checking on fourth st. even if you are just called on the flop and then checked to, even if a rag falls.
But this particular hand gives you none of those reasons (assuming decent opponents). A check, on the other hand gives you deception and may increase your chances of winning the pot. The one major problem, as previously noted, is if your checking on the flop makes it a lot more likely you will face a double bet on fourth st. while you still have the best hand. Against some players this could be an overiding concern that might swing the best play on the flop to a bet. That being said, I believe that checking the flop is at least a viable alternative and is probably right more often than not.
Henceforth the above play, checking a good hand on the flop in last position, because none of the above four reasons to bet exist stongly, will have a name. The play will be named after the guy who advocated it in the face of opposition from players as skilled as Jim Brier, Andrew Prock and others. It does not have to be the correct play in all cases but if it tends to fit the situation above, whether it be right or wrong, it will be known as the
VINCE LEPORE GAMBIT
No one will be allowed to call it anything else (except for abbreviating it VLG in posts that refer to it often.) It will go down in poker history as one of the most interesting and astute plays ever devised (and will show I don't ignore my buddies.)
A wonderful and instructive post.
I like everything about it, especially the new name.
Not that it probably matters much to your arguments, but here are the true percentages vs various starting hands.
When both Opps will play only Group I 41.8%
When both Opps will play only Group I with AKany 48.6%
When both Opps will play only Groups I II 31.7%
When both Opps will play only Groups I II III 32.1%
When both Opps will play only Groups I II III IV 25.6%
When both Opps will play any two cards 10 or higher 32.7%
This would be a lot more helpful if you did:
When limper will play groups 1-6 and other raiser would play groups 1-2 in this manner.
ditto but 1-3 for 2nd player
And some other like that.
>This would be a lot more helpful if you did: >When limper will play groups 1-6 and other raiser would play groups 1-2 in this manner. >ditto but 1-3 for 2nd player >And some other like that.
I agree with you.
But the snag is that to have a matrix of lots of combinations would probably take a few weeks to calculate ( with PCs ) instead of a few hours.
How you get your figures?
CV
It’s not a secret or anything, but to explain exactly how would be as tedious to read as it would be to write .
A good start is to first get a program ( I think there’s some public domain ones ) that given two hands and a Flop, will return the wins, loses, and ties.
Once you do that you’re sort of in the position of a sculptor who, when asked how he carved an elephant, replied:
“I get a big stone and then carve away anything that’s not an elephant.”
try not to cry :o)
I have Arrived! But David, how did you know that my true last name is GAMBIT. Anyway, "sometimes even a blind squirrel finds an acorn". Thank you, oh Omnipotent Oz.
Vince
Inventor Of The VLG
Way To Go Vince!!!
I do this often, but when I do it, I mentally call it something else - "playing like a wimp!"
Nothing against Vince. I just feel like Im playing scared when I do it. Of course, being scared is like being paranoid; "it isn't a bad thing when they really ARE out to get you!".
David
"playing like a wimp!"
It really isn't when you think about it. It is thinking "what is the best tactic to apply given the current situation". Even though this play cannot be considered "aggressive" it is not a matter of being afraid or "playing like a wimp" as you state. I would make this play only because I believe it would result in the highest EV for the situation not because I was afraid to bet.
vince
..We're not defending our family name here, or our great nation. We're playing poker. And whichever play puts (or retains) the most chips in our stacks over the long run is the play to make.
I don't mean it as an insult or anything. I just feel like when I check in this kind of situation, I am waiting to be shown what is happening by someone else. I usually try to take control of the hand if I think I have a good one. I assume the corollary to this question is that if it is checked to you after a rag on the river, do you then bet it? And do you assume anyone will call at that point?
I would be more inclined to make this play on the turn, when I would expect a good player to drop the checkraise on me. That way, I get to see the river for one small bet (assuming I don't get checkraised on the flop and they try for the checkraise on the turn, "confident" that I will bet the turn) instead of giving up a small and big bet and not even get to see the river(as I would be checkraised on the turn for certain if beaten, and likely have to fold).
David
"I would be more inclined to make this play on the turn, "
There certainly are reasons to make a similar play to VLG on the turn. But I believe that if you go back to my original answer and David's discussion where he labels this play VLG you will see that the VLG is a flop play only. When you decide to check a good hand on the turn you do not need as many reasons as you do to check a good hand on the flop.
vince
Yes, the VLG is not used if you think you would probably take a free card on fourth st. had you bet the flop.
The correct response is 50% exactly. Either you will or will not win the hand;hence 50-50
40%
20-25%
Pocket Q's leave 8 outs. K's 4 outs. (or just 1 of either).
Runner Runner flush or Flush draw I give addition 5 outs.
made straight or low straight draw I give 2 outs.
2 more for 21 outs (2 pair by loose player lets say).
I give u 1 back for running full house.
10%
Loose non-idiot may haven made straight or two pair or flush draw. But I doubt he has a set because he would would likely have raised. Good player may have a set or be open-ended with QQ or have a gut-shot with KK or may have a made straight. So, I think our hero is hurting now.
-Michael
A shorthanded 15-30 Game. There are six players. It has been playing neither very tight nor very loose.
I am third to act with 88. UTG calls, the player in front of me calls, I limp with 88. The button folds. The small blind calls, the BB checks his option. Five of us see the flop.
The flop comes 8h9hKs. Both blinds check, UTG checks the player on my right bets, I raise. The small blind, a solid player, calls two cold. The BB folds, UTG, who had only been in the game for a short time and who's play I could not yet rate, also calls two cold. The player on my right promptly 3-bets. I cap. (I cap to put as much pressure as possible on the two early players at least one of whom I assume has to be drawing to the flush). Everybody calls.
The turn is the Jc. Everybody checks to me. I bet. SB calls, UTG check-raises. The players on my right mucks. I call, SB calls. The river comes 3h.
The SB bets out, UTG just calls. I know I am beaten, and fold.
The SB shows J2h, UTG shows 7-10. SB takes down a large pot. The player on my right claims to have mucked 99 on the turn, fearing that I had a bigger set. I believe that he was truthful about this.
I am not really looking for feedback on the way this hand played out, I thought it a most interesting hand and wanted to talk about the mistakes made by any of the four players in the hand. I don't believe 99 should fold. Regardless of the blind structure ($10 SB), I think the SB made a bad preflop call. It's 14-1 pot-odds from his position. I don't think that is enough. Obviously calling from UTG with 7-10 is bad poker. Should either pair have raised preflop? Interestingly enough, If 99 raises, I likely muck my 88. I don't believe 88 to be a raising hand in this situation. I think the check-raise by the UTG on the turn is poorly thought out. Shouldn't he simply bet? It is likely he will be raised by someone behind him, This will put additional pressure on a not-nut flush draw, while adding value to his current holding.
Once the flop comes, set over set, with an open-ended straight draw and a medium flush draw both in the hand, I think it interesting how the hand would be handicapped. 99 would win the most often, followed by the flush draw, then the straight draw, then 88. But with both draws in the hand the odds are about 55% that either draw wins. Well enough babbling, I thought it a situation worth discussing.
Matt
It was insane for the player having pocket Nines to muck his set on the turn. If you held KK or JJ you almost certainly would have raised pre-flop and not just limped in. He must realize his hand has a bunch of outs to a full house or better which beats a straight if anyone has one. Set over set is simply to rare a situation for him to be assuming this. Furthermore he should have raised pre-flop with his pocket Nines in a shorthanded game like this.
The small blind's limp was reasonable pre-flop. There is $70 in the pot and for $5 he can take a flop and see 3 cards. These are pot odds of 14:1. His flush possibilities along with hitting two pair, trips, a full house, or better make calling a decent play here.
I believe a medium pocket pair is a raising hand pre-flop in a shorthanded game with only 6 players. You want to drive out the remaining players and get position over the limpers. I agree that having made his straight the UTG should simply bet his hand but it really depends upon where a future bet or raise might come from. The idea of course is to put maximum pressure on the flush draws.
Good Post.
Good post. I know we talked briefly about this hand..
The player on my right claims to have mucked 99 on the turn, fearing that I had a bigger set.
I still don't buy this. Nobody's THAT naive! And if they were, they should never admit to it...
I think the SB made a bad preflop call. It's 14-1 pot-odds from his position. I don't think that is enough.
There ain't many hands I'm throwing away at 14 to 1. 72 can start to look attractive at those prices...
I believe you played this hand very well, but did you consider just calling the re-raise on the flop (would have no affect on the outcome of this hand), and raising the turn if a blank hits? The fact that you lose $30 less is irrevelant since it's only hindsight, but I do sometimes find this to be the better play (but not always). After calling two cold the first time, nobody's going anywhere for another two on the flop anyway. Now, if the turn blanks, you can raise again and charge any draws a double big bet. You just have to be very sure the player on your right will bet again.
Again, this has little effect from your point of view, since you still lose 2 on the turn and eventually the hand. The fact that you would have saved 2 sb on the flop, might be important if you had AA, but not with a set. It's very late for me, so if I overlooked something I apologize.
Kevin
Thanks Kevin and Jim:
I agree it is absolutely maniacal to muck a set on the turn. There is simply no way I have KK or JJ. The gentleman on my right simply played poorly.
I am curious, do both of you agree that with the two limpers to me I should raise with the 88? And do you agree that folding preflop to a raise by either player in front of me is correct? I would consider 3-betting,(and I do make this play on occasion), but am unlikely to simply call with this hand. 3-betting can likely get me heads-up with the raiser in front of me and I have position. Thanks for the responses.
Matt
I think raising limpers with a medium pocket pair is right in a shorthanded game. Whether or not you cold-call a raise depends upon what you know about the raiser. I would tend to fold against most opponents. Against others I might 3 bet to isolate them.
Maybe Jim can elaborate if he sees this post, but I don't see too much wrong with simply calling behind two limpers with 88. Your position doesn't fully make up for the fact that you'll likely have to deal with overcards and if the limpers play well, it may become very unclear how to proceed since a raised pot will now likely be offering odds for a variety of hands. In addition, there are still 3 players (Button, sb and BB), yet to be heard from pre-flop.
I agree with everything Jim had to say about 3-betting with 88 in this spot.
Kevin
Just for fun, let me see if all my following of Jim Brier's posts have given me a decent line on his thinking.
I anticipate he'll say that you should still raise with 88 regardless, since it is likely the best hand pre-flop...
Kevin
I think I agree with everything Jim and Kevin said, but I'll elaborate on a few additional points. Regarding the small blind's call before the flop, he should call with almost any 2 cards. 14:1 is probably enough just based on flush possibilities, and when you add in fluke two pair/trips, it makes even a piece of cheese like J2s playable. I think HPFAP recommends literally any two cards in that situation, but I would still dump the trashiest of offsuit hands in a multiway pot. (Ironically it would be more correct to play a trashy offsuit hand in a shorthanded pot, if you expected that you could steal the pot often enough to show an immediate profit.)
Regarding 99 before the flop, 99 definitely should have raised. With your 88, you should either re-raise or fold, depending on how tight the raiser is from that position. I would never just cold call in that shorthanded situation, because you don't want to let overcards in cheaply.
Regarding the flop play, it's probably ok to refrain from capping in order to get someone to bet into you so you can raise the turn, although if the cap convinced 99 that he was beaten (by a limping KK??), then obviously it accomplished a lot.
-Sean
I think UTG (aside from his preflop call) made a good check-raise on the turn. He had a made hand and the two players to his left were raising and capping on the flop.
I don't like your capping on the flop, just my opinion. the reason is that when someone re-raises on the flop and you have a very strong hand, like a set, you have an excellent opportunity to trap them for an extra big bet on the turn.
you also know that there is either a straight or flush draw out there and maybe even both. waiting until the turn to pull the trigger in this case would have been better because you suspect both the drawing hands are on your left and there is a good chance the person on your right will bet into you if you only call his 3 bet. if a scare card does not come on the turn you can now force the drawing hands to fold or call 2 big bets when the person on your right bets into you.
Hello all,
Well, as the title says...I was the SB in this hand and am happy to see that everyone agrees that my pre-flop call was O.K. (Matt & I debated this for quite awhile) My thoughts through out the hand went as follows.
Pre flop my thinking was along the lines of Kevin's post "any two will do, get em in the air"
I liked the flop but with a bet and a raise to me (with Matt raising) I immediately put them both on at least top pair with a "good" kicker as either player would have popped it preflop with big slick. When it came around re-raise, then capped, I kept the limper on King good kicker and I knew Matt had limped with a pair and hit his set on the flop. ( I've known Matt for waaaay to long :-) ) It was the UTG player that worried me the most, as he was most certainly on a draw and the only straight draw possible would have him on Q 10. (pardon me for not including 7-10 in my analysis!) if he was on the flush, he was at best reducing my outs to 7 and at worst had me drawing dead.
I actually took some time before I called. My thoughts were as follows. I "knew" Matt had a set and I had to decide if it was worth the flamethrower of heat he was WITHOUT FAIL going to make me endure to see two more cards. I knew that if I decided to call here it was more like a $90 decision rather than a $30 one. I knew I had the odds.....but was I drawing dead? As Matt had stated, the UTG was new to the game so no help there. I guess I just decided that I liked my odds and I was gonna see it to the end.
The turn went almost as well as I could have imagined. Matt bet it like he was supposed to and when the UTG check-raised, I knew my draw was live.
The River came as it was supposed to (LOL) and I took down a $500.00 plus pot!
My real question has always been with my call of the additional two bets on the flop. Looking back on it I can certainly justify a fold. I was drawing against a made hand with a weak flush with another player just calling along... would you have folded? (take if as a given that Matt had the set)
Hope to hear all your thoughts
Thanks,
Blackhat
BTW -- Don't worry Matt your money's always good here :-)
There are two things that strike me about this hand.
The first being that everyone seemed so certain of what others could "NOT" have. In short handed games that are not specifically loose, I think it's sometimes correct to limp with your better hands. This would include AKo, big suited aces, and KK, but this is off the subject.
The other thing that strikes me about this hand is that (IF) you were up against another heart draw, your flush had a very good chance of losing. Given that you hold the Jh and the 9h,8h are on board, there's almost no other heart flush a good short handed player would have that doesn't beat a J high. I'm not implying you should have folded, just that it's something to consider when assessing your implied odds, since there was also the slim chance you were drawing from 5 to zero outs against a set AND another heart draw. So I think your first decision on the flop was the most critical one (I'm curious if you considered making it 3 bets yourself?). After that, it's a no brainer since you seem to be getting sufficient odds for the rest of the hand.
Kevin
Kevin,
To answer your question about weather I ever concidered making it three bets on the flop. No I didn't.
Although I'm able to bet a draw, I don't think this is a situation where it's warrented. I'm out of position, I have not one but two other players betting it, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I do NOT have the nut draw. I was very willing to simply check it till I got the card I needed.
Thanks,
Blackhat
Blackhat:
Back to the content of the original post, the question states to evalueate each players action.
Now that we know you were the small blind, I am interested to ask as whether you would have seen the flop if faced with a preflop raise? I personally suspect you would! If yes, I think it would have been week play on your part.
However, since the two players holding (presumably) 99's and 88's let you see the flop for only 1/2 of the small bet, you played your hand the best of all of them. They erred for not raising the preflop play. Particularly, the player holding 99's. His preflop raise may have force the par of 88s hand out. In my view (just as Jim Brier stated above) is where the 1st and the biggest mistake was committed.
(In passing, the guy making his straight on turn should not have check-raised his hand against that type of board. Especially so since he held only the bottom straight and in the view of the flop action he had witnessed.)
In any case, good winning for you. Enjoy!
Ivan,
No I would not have seen the flop if it was raised to me. (BTW - why do you have the impression that I would have?)
It was 14 to 1 on my $5.00. I have to play alot of poker to get those types of odds and I try to make sure I give myself a chance to win when these types of situations come up.
Thanks,
Blackhat
Blackhat:
Actually, I did not have an impression that you would cold-call a raise. I just asked a question to satisfy my own curiosity.
Now that we have all the answers, the guy playing a pair of 99s played it weakly and likely cost himself the pot (depends what the player with the straight would have done). IMHO, you played it correctly and therefore deserved to win.
Thanks for the reply,
Ivan
My opponents are playing too loose at 5 handed 10-20. I've been showing them mostly the goods. I raise UTG with KTo, roughly my minimum hand for the position. Upon reflection I would tighten up a notch since these jokers were cold calling with junk at times. The button and the small blind call.
Flop = Kd 8s 4c. Sb checks, I bet, both call.
Turn = 5c. Sb checks, I bet, button raises and SB cold calls. Your move.
-Fred-
sounds like he smooth- called the flop to me. you are trapped here. probably best to dump. if he dosen't have a set (most likely given the board), he's hit his gut shot. and if he dosen't have either of those, he probably has you outkicked. like every other situation, it depends on how he plays, but it is clear to me that you are most likely beaten.
My interest is in your statement "I would tighten up a notch since these jokers were cold calling w/ junk".
Why tighten up when they are calling w/ such weak hands. K9 is a monster if you're playing against K8 or 97. Seems like I'd be more inclined to put some more bets w/ weaker hands if I knew they were going to be playing pure junk.
As for the hand, I'd probably call and check-call the river since I very well could be up against a worse K w/ a club draw doing the raising or a small two pair which I have a good draw to beat. If the button just gutted a straight, he just gutted a straight, more likely he just hit a second pair.(But I'd still make him show me the two pair on the river). I'd fold if a scare card hit and the "new country heard from"(SB) fired off a bet.
Any comments?
Why tighten up when they are calling w/ such weak hands. K9 is a monster if you're playing against K8 or 97. Seems like I'd be more inclined to put some more bets w/ weaker hands if I knew they were going to be playing pure junk.
Right, it's a monster heads up, but you don't really want to go wading around in 3 or 4 way pots with hands like K9o, especially when you're out of position. Unless you're an expert and can read hands tremendously well, I would be inclined to advise you to dump the weaker hands. It's ok to take on loose players with seemingly weak hands heads up, but you don't want them in 3 and 4 way pots.
That having been said, I still think KTo is ok from the cutoff even against loose competition, but I wouldn't go any looser.
-Sean
"My interest is in your statement "I would tighten up a notch since these jokers were cold calling w/ junk".
Why tighten up when they are calling w/ such weak hands."
The steal equity goes right out of every situation when you are faced with too loose callers. If I can be assured good action with big hands then this is the game I prefer. Trying to chase out too loose callers when I miss the flop is something I try to avoid.
-Fred-
Despite the fact that the game is shorthanded, when someone pops you on the expense street especially with another player in the hand who cold-calls the raise, your top pair is almost always beat. You will frequently be playing with no more than five outs, sometimes three outs, and occasionally you will have no outs. In general I would fold.
“Fred”,
You wrote: “My opponents are playing too loose at 5 handed 10-20. I've been showing them mostly the goods. I raise UTG with KTo, roughly my minimum hand for the position. Upon reflection I would tighten up a notch since these jokers were cold calling with junk at times.”
Remember that UTG is one seat to the right of the cutoff in a five-handed game. If they are calling with junk, then this is strong enough to play although I agree that is still a minimum hand. The big thing is that they don’t three bet you too often, or if it does it means pairs or an ace. Then the hand plays itself.
” The button and the small blind call. - - Flop = Kd 8s 4c. Sb checks, I bet, both call.”
You can’t like being called on both sides, even against these players.
”Turn = 5c. Sb checks, I bet, button raises and SB cold calls. Your move.“
You mentioned that you have been showing them the goods so they have to perceive you as someone who has a hand when he bets. If you were against a single opponent or maniacs you might have a close decision. With a raiser and a cold caller, I think you should bail. Even junk turns to gold once in a while and you are probably somewhere between drawing dead or near dead to drawing to five outs.
Regards,
Rick
Rick-
As always, well put. I think you can make a strong case for betting the flop and then checking the turn, with the intention of check-raising if it looks like you're going to the river heads up (i.e, the player inbetween doesn't call). If he does call, then you might just want to call and call again on the river.
I'm pretty sure this is the way I'd have played it. I can't see much percentage in lead betting the turn unless your opponents are total fish.
I haven't looked at the other responses yet, especially Jim and Rick, but I'll take a flier on this.
I will be the first to admit that I don't have a great deal of experience in a 5-handed game. When the LL games get short-handed, I usually head home. Let's have a look at what possible hands the button might have.
AK or KQ- Unlikely because he would probably re-raise pre-flop to attack the blinds.
KJ or KT - Very possible, given the lack of re-raise, but statistically less likely because you also have a King.
Pocket Pair - Would he re-raise with ANY pocket pair pre-flop? Certainly with TT or higher, but could be lurking with something like 77.
Made str8? - Not likely he would cold-call a raise short-handed with 76, so I would discount that.
Big club draw - Could have cold-called with something like QcJc, and now he's semi-bluff raising. You would have a tough call if you had raise pre-flop with something like Ax, wouldn't you? You didn't say in your post if your King was the Kc. Is it possible he called pre-flop with Kxc? He might wait until the turn to pop you, figuring his King was huge regardless of suit or kicker.
Pure bluff - Well, needless to say, you have him punished here, and if you knew for sure he was bluffing you would smooth-call, and then check the river to induce a further bluff.
Set- You're drawing dead, obviously.
Looking at the various options, I would think you have a more than reasonable chance to take this down. I would call his raise, and then check-call the river, but expect to win the hand only about 40% of the time. If you are going to compete in short-handed games, I would think you could not gain in the long-term by laying down top pair, reasonable kicker, to one raise.
To be honest, going back to Square One, I wonder if KTo is even worth a raise in a 5-handed game UTG? Would there not be better opportunities, or is this just flawed Full Game Thinking?
Hurrying to get to our office Christmas lunch this morning, and I missed the fact that the SB cold-called the button's raise. Heads-up, my analyis above seems more reasonable, but when the SB cold-calls, after also calling your pre-flop raise, I think you're toast here. I would not be inclined to put in two more bets to finish with the Silver or Bronze medal. Go for the Gold only. Dump.
Call if the button would often semi-bluff if he hit a club and/or straight draw and also if the sb is a weak caller. Otherwise fold.
Thanks for the responses. I mucked but didn't like it. I thought it was pussy poker at the time but now I see most agree with my play and that is a comfort.
The river paired the board low, no club, and the SB did not call the button bet, likely on a failed draw.
-Fred-
I would like to give the benefit of my experience from a recent poker experiment to my fellow forum readers.
I decided to try playing more aggressively than I normally do in order to learn more about my game.
Introduction: SmoothB is a tight player who has been curious as to whether he may not be playing aggressively enough.
Experimental: Subject was placed in a tough 7 handed 10-20 game populated by regulars of the subject's acquaintence.
I played in this game for a while. I noticed that the game had become very tough - most hands never went passed the flop. No more than 3 people ever seeing a flop.
It also occured to me that people were playing a bit too tightly. It seemed that nearly every time there was a raise preflop the raiser would win the pot right there. Alternately, if the preflop raiser got a caller, that caller would dump on the turn nearly every time unless a face card hit the board. People would occasionally chase the odd flush here and there.
The game was also rather passive. No raising. Lots of bet-fold or bet-call type activity.
The subject's first inclination was to play tightly for a while. But then the experiment began.
Results to follow.
-SmoothB-
this doesn't sound like a very tough game. One time I played in a tough game. It was tough because there was alot of pre-flop raising and many hands were showdowns at the river with non-bullshit hole cards (given the nature of the game). I left the game down $40 bucks and I've never been happier to leave the table stuck.
It does sound like you made a proper assesment of the table and made a very good change in your style and strategy.
Ok, I guess you are right - the game wasn't 'tough' if the correct strategy was applied. But it was very tight - and would have been very tough if you didn't adjust.
I don't want to sound like I have never experimented with varying my game before. I certainly have. I always try to adjust as appropriate. I just wanted to post the results here.
I've only been playing for a year and I have to confess that I succeed mainly from good game selection. I always play in the best game I can find - even if it's only 6-12. I can make a lot more money in a great 6-12 game than a really tough 40-80 game.
Anyway -
-SmoothB-
I decided that, given the nature of the table, I would raise preflop with any hand I deemed worthy of playing no matter what position I was in. Note that this means that if I didn't want to raise with the hand UTG, but might consider limping with it, I would fold. I still played tight, I just raised with every hand I came in with.
Because the table had become so tight, and since we all knew each other and knew each other's tight reputations, people were folding AQ type hands for a raise from early position.
Here are the results:
Phase I
First several times I raised preflop I won the hand right there. Hands I raised with ranged from 99 UTG to KT offsuit after a limper. The players in the blinds when I was on the button were weak. SB was far too tight in the blind and folded every time I raised. BB was the worst player at the table and would nearly always call the raise but would nearly always fold on the flop if he didn't have at least a pair. And he wouldn't bet a draw or bluff.
I won a lot of hands without a showdown. In one hand someone called me down to the river, suspecting I was full of it, and beat my AQ nut-no-pair- with his pair of pocket sevens.
People began to catch on. Next hand of import was KK on the button. I raised the weak player in the BB. He called.
The board was unimportant - he called me down to the river with JJ - never even putting a bet in when the flop came 9 high!
So it appeared that I really was playing solid after all.
BTW at this point I am up 720 bucks and running over the table.
But this is the hand that really clued people in.
Phase II
I had K9 of diamonds in mid position and raised with it after 1 limper. Limper was stuck and on 'weak tight' tilt. Person who just came into the game had to post and she completed the bet without looking at her cards.
Flop came Ad 7d 7s. I flopped nut flush draw and my preflop raise might look like I was raising with a big ace. Limper bet, I raised, late position poster said 'this is a really bad call' and called both bets. Limper sqeezed his cards really hard, thought for a full 30 secs, and said 'good hand'.
Turn and river were blanks. On the turn she hesitated b4 calling so I thought another bet on the river might get her to fold if she didn't improve whatever she had.
She turned over A2 offsuit and took down the pot.
The limper was furious. Heh heh. *Blush*
Now I was busted. I knew I wasn't going to get away with this anymore.
Phase 3
While this was going on some things at the table changed. The table had become a lot less tough - a couple of tight players had cashed/busted out and 3 calling station types had come in. (One of them was the A2 from before.) Everyone at the table had seen my antics and knew I was trying to run over the table. So I immediately changed back into SmoothB mode in no time flat.
This is actually where things started to go south for me!
I reverted to my regular tough game. Table was still 7 way but there were more people seeing the flop. I stopped raising with ace rag type hands - stopped playing them altogether.
For some time I still got called down with some marginal hands - no one had noticed I had switched back into SmoothB mode. People also started to play back at me a little - or so I thought.
Example - I limped in from early position with QJ suited. 3 callers.
Flop came KT8 with 2 clubs. I bet into this field and got 2 callers.
Turn brought 9 of clubs making board KT98 with 3 clubs. I had the nut straight. I have to bet it here - people are calling me with weaker hands than normal and I have to bet my hand for value, even into the possible flush. One caller, one drops.
On the river another T falls making the board KTT98 with 3 clubs. The nut straight is pretty darn far from the nuts but I figure I'll get called with a lot of hands worse than mine, so I bet for value.
I got *RAISED*. Now I was forced to call because people had started playing back at me and it was possible that this guy only had a T or a K. But the key thing that I didn't factor in was that this was a weak player who was afraid to bet his hand - he would hardly ever raise on the river without the nuts. I should have factored this in. I called and got shown, sure enough - J9 of clubs for the straight flush.
That wasn't fun. Then another hand came up -
I got AQ suited in mid position. Everyone folded to me, BB called.
Flop came down A 8 4 rainbow. BB bet, I raised, he 3 bet it. I just called. I thought he might be playing back at me - but I should have really thought more carefully - this was a really tight player who wouldn't 3 bet the flop without 2 pair or better. A second ace hit on the river to fill up his A4 offsuit.
Now, I knew this player, and I would have folded on the turn if this had happened on any other day. I just know that if he 3 bets the flop he has top pair beaten.
Now I started to suspect that I was getting played, so I called a bit more loosely that I'm used to. I am normally not afraid to throw a big hand away when certain people bet or raise on the river. I've thrown sets, straights etc. away especially if I know there will be another caller. Sure enough, I can't remember the last time I was wrong when I made one of these big laydowns.
Now I've been on a run of bad cards - starting strong but never flopping and never making my hands hold up. I'm down to even now. Plus I have managed to put the whole table on tilt so there is a lot of action - which is great since a lot of it is targeted at me - but unfortunately the cards aren't hitting me. Swings are huge.
Last few hands -
I get 2 black kings in mid position. 1 limper, I raise, person who made the straight flush against me calls, BB reraises, I cap, straight flush man calls both cold. We see the flop 4 handed. (Another person was along for the ride.
Flop is T 7 2 rainbow. Beautiful! BB CHECKS, I bet, call fold call.
Turn is 9 of diamonds putting 2 diamonds on the board. Check bet call call.
River is 6 of diamonds. Yuck. Board is T9762 3 diamonds. Well, if anyone was drawing for anything it got there. BB must have had AK - he checked. I checked. SF guy bets AK calls (?) and I make a crying call. He turns over J7 of diamonds for runner runner flush. (Note - same hand (J7 suited) that he made the SF with.
Now my ship is sinking fast.
I get 33 in the BB. 3 callers no raise.
Flop comes J T 3 rainbow. Flopped a set of threes. I bet and get one caller.
Turn comes offsuit 8. I bet and get raised. I know this player and it is very possible that he called with a gutshot straight draw heads up. He bluffs a lot but usually only on the river. I just call.
River comes another 8. This guy isn't too bright - he'll bet again - so I will checkraise. I check, he bets, i raise, he 3 bets it, I just call. He turns over T8 full - middle 2 pair beats bottom set again.
Last hand - I have AQ of hearts in mid position. Raise 1st in. Button, BB calls.
Flop comes Q 9 4 with 2 hearts. I have top pair ace kicker and nut flush draw. BB bets, I raise, button 3 bets it, BB calls, I cap - it is possible that the button has AA or KK but I am betting for value here even if I don't have the best hand right now. I am sure I've got the goofy guy in the BB beaten.
Turn comes 6 of hearts. I now have the nut flush. Goofy kid in BB bets out again, I raise - BB seems to be in love with his hand and he isn't folding for 2 bets now. He calls 2 cold. Now I strongly suspect he has a set. Goofy kid raises all in, I cap it, button calls 2 cold.
River brings another Q.
Now I really don't like this card at all. With all that action I have to believe that one of these guys had a set or top 2. Sure I would have loved to see 2 Q's on the flop - giving me trips - but now I don't like it.
BB is all in. I check. I know the button is going to bet and I know I'm beaten. I call. Button turns over 99 for 9's full of queens. BB wins main pot with Q6 offsuit. He 3 bet the turn with the worst hand. I love it.
Anyway, I learned a TON from this experience and will do it again even though I lost 800 bucks. After being up over 700 - ouch baby - very ouch. But heck if the cards were hitting me like normal I would have been a big winner from all the excess action. I made money and learned how to put the table on tilt. Both good things.
-SmoothB-
Just one comment,
You mentioned that you were "busted" in the hand where you raised with Kd-9d and lost to the poster who blindly called your raise. It doesn't sound like you were busted so much as you were the victim of a bad play on her part where she got lucky with a really good flop. besided representing a big ace with your betting action you also represented Kd-Qd. better luck next time.
SmoothB:
Your post reminds me much of very similar experience I had while palying Hold'em 10-20 game at Binion Horseshoe, in late November. The game stated around 11:00 am, and most of the players were local senior citizens. The game was exceptionally tight-passive, just what you have described above.
Realizing the nature of the game, I quickly turned into semi-lose aggressive player and played aggressively many otherwise questionable hands. Within couple of hrs I was ahead nearly $600, just by siezing the opportunity of the weak-passive, one-dimensional game. Well, shortly about this time two guys busted and the third player quit the game. The three new players who joined the game played very lose-aggressive poker. Within 15-20 minutes we lost another 2 original players. With the another two replacements, the table suddenly become very lose aggressive, and you could not see the flop without 3-4 bets.
However, I felt I was being dealt much better cards now than before these new players joined the table, but the flop, turn and river card were not hitting me. I started sliding down with my winning. The game as now played less resembled poker and more something like 7-card lottery. As the texture of the game radically changed, I had decided to continue playing for a while, see what happens, but will not play beyond the point where my sliding losses exceede 20% of the session's winning. Indeed, shorthly thereafter I walked away from the game that was no longer fruitful for me. Most of my winning $$ stayed in my pocket.
What puzzled me is that even I was getting much stronger starting cards in this transformed game, eventually they would amount to 2nd or 3rd best hand and thus end up costing me money. Once I felt strongly that the game change became irreparably detrimental to my bankroll, I walked away from it - while still ahead. Yes, good starting cards posed strong temptation to continue playing, whereas now I seemed to be hopelessly losing. It really takes personal discipline to act on your reading of the shifted situation Which is to say that every type of game is not necessarily conducive to one's winning. Play in the "right" games, and (try to) avoid lose-aggressive games on your off-days/off-hours.
SmoothB-
I read this post with interest and think it serves very instrumental in the thinking of certain concepts. Here are my honest (hopefully, not too brutal) comments.
I decided that, given the nature of the table, I would raise preflop with any hand I deemed worthy of playing no matter what position I was in.
This seems reasonable when first in, but I don't know that I would continue this strategy after limpers. There are hands that you would simply be giving up too much by folding, yet need the additional odds of other callers. Especially if it's the type of hand that would likely have you dominated by a single tight limper.
Hands I raised with ranged from 99 UTG to KT offsuit after a limper.
It's almost never a good idea to raise a tight limper with KTo. This is simply a poor play.
The players in the blinds when I was on the button were weak. SB was far too tight in the blind and folded every time I raised. BB was the worst player at the table and would nearly always call the raise but would nearly always fold on the flop if he didn't have at least a pair. And he wouldn't bet a draw or bluff.
Then I think you should raise first in, with any 2 cards, right up to the point before it becomes totally obvious of what you are doing.
BTW at this point I am up 720 bucks and running over the table.
It's important to realize that the majority of this $720 is due only to positive variance. Even if you've been playing to a +1.5BB/hr edge for 8 hours, it's easy to see that $480 is pure good luck. Therefore, you shouldn't let this go to your head, but at the same time, be prepared to make the most out of this winning table image and use it to your advantage.
Now I was busted. I knew I wasn't going to get away with this anymore.
I'm keeping my comments on the general theme of your experiment, so I won't go into detail about this particular hand. Suffice it to say, I don't like the way you played it. Particularily raising (or even playing) K9s from middle position. You're not SUPPOSED to get away with this profitably, regardless of [how] you got caught!
As for the rest of your post, I believe you were simply overcome with a severe case of paranoia which eventually led to the downfall of your session/experiment. When caught bluffing too frequently, you should be more inclined to thinly bet for value. When your appears too tight, then you should be bluffing more and robbing them blind. In other words, the expert player is able to exploit and make money by using whatever image he happens to have at the time.
btw- I don't think you should experiment in a live game. I think you should have already thought a lot about which are the most profitable plays given a set of players and/or circumstances, and always make them!
Hello,
Here is an interesting hand against a loose and aggressive opponent.
I hold KhQh in middle position and I limp first one in the pot. The loose aggressive player (LAP) limps two to my left. SB folds. BB calls. $55 in the pot.
The flop comes the 5s 8h 9s. Both blinds check and I bet my two overcards to take the pot right there. LAP calls. Both blinds fold. Pot is now $85.
Now the turn brings the Kc. Board is now: 5s 8h 9s Kc I hit one of my cards and I bet the turn. Now LAP raises. I sure put him on a king at this point. He is the player that would have raised AK before the flop. I reraise him. He calls. Pot is now $265.
River is the Th. Board: 5s 8h 9s Kc Th. I bet. He calls. I show my pair of kings and he mucks.
He probably had a KJ or K7 or K6 for top pair and gutshot draw on the turn.
Any comments welcome.
Carlos
Pre-flop, I think you should open with a raise from middle position with King-Queen suited. You have a good hand and can drive out the remaining players plus get position over the blinds if they choose to play. It also makes it easier for you to pick up the pot on the flop with a bet when the board misses you since you were the pre-flop raiser marked with a good hand.
I like your bet on the flop with your two over cards and backdoor Heart flush draw into 3 opponents who have shown no strength. When the LAP calls I would assume that he has some piece of the board, at least a pair but maybe a draw. Now on the turn when the Kc comes off, I like your bet but I think you should just call when raised rather than 3 betting on the expensive street. You will find in these situations that players will frequently have two pair with the turn card giving them their second pair.
carlos,
I like almost everything about your thinking and play here. You got maximum value and did not show undue fear of a set. I would think he had king little suited as a loose-aggressive might raise with KJ offsuit against one middle limper.
Regards,
Rick
"I would think he had king little "
Hey Rick, do you think if he has chicken little he should fold or fry?
vince
.
I read the post too quickly and thought the flop got checked through. With your opponent calling the flop and then raising the turn, the chances of being up against a set or two pair is much more likely. So I would probably just call the raise on the turn and check and call the river against this type of opponent. - Rick
20/40 game - 9 handed
I am 3 spots after the BB.
one guy calls.
I call with Ad9c (questionable, I know, probably zero ev).
Button calls, blinds call.
5 players in
Flop is As2c3s
SB checks, BB bets, one guy folds, I call, button folds, SB folds...now it is heads-up.
Turn is Ad
BB bets.
Although I did not raise, I think I should have raised on the turn.
If I get reraised, I know I'm a loser, and I can muck.
If the BB is on a flushdraw, I need to make him pay now.
If he has an Ace (without a full house), he is likely to just call, fearing I have a full house. If he hits his full house on the river, he will probably check/raise.
I would plan of course to just check on the river, unless a 9 or an A shows up.
so, a raise in this spot seems like a much superior strategy than just a call...the only way a raise is worse than a call is if the BB would have checked a Ace with a higher kicker on the river. (if he reraises or bets on the river, I fold).
any thoughts?
ya..don't even think of folding for starters
i agree. planning to fold at all with this hand is really weak poker. just check and call if youre truly worried. you could be beat, but you have a couple outs on the river including possibly 3 9's and you may also be way ahead. BB might have the case ace with a weaker kicker. you should probably raise on the turn.
your mistake was limping in with A9o in middle position --what a terrible play!-- so you need to see the hand through now that youve gotten yourself into such a mess.
good luck.
you should have raised on the flop. if bb reraised you might have a better idea where you are on the turn. since he saw the flop for free he may have even had 32 in which case on the turn his hand would have become worthless and he may have made a desperation bet/bluff into you, another reason a raise is good on the turn.
Limping in with Ace-Nine offsuit is a mistake but only a small one. It is vastly superior to limping in with King-Eight offsuit as in the post above. On the flop, when a player leads into a large field (3 or more players) this frequently means top pair although with this board he could be betting a draw. I would raise on the flop with a top pair of Aces and a decent kicker given the absence of a pre-flop raise by anyone. Having failed to raise on the flop, you should raise on the turn since your hand is probably good and you want to make him pay if he is on a draw. If re-raised you will simply call. Folding would be criminal.
why is folding on the turn to a three bet (he bets, I raise, he reraises) criminal?
Unless he is on a pure bluff, what could he be three betting with? It would have to be better than A9.
If he has a full house, I have 3 outs, and its not worth calling.
If he has a straight, I have 10 outs, then its worth it.
I'd say its pretty close to zero ev to fold to a 3 bet.
Because at that point there would be $240 in the pot and it would only cost him $40 to call. Assuming that the big blind has an Ace let us go through his possible holdings: A2(3 hands),A3(3 hands),A4(4 hands),A5(4 hands),A6(4 hands),A7(4 hands),A8(4 hands), A9(3 hands),AT(4 hands),AJ (4 hands), AQ(4 hands), AK(4 hands). Now having A9 you beat A4-A8 or a total of 20 hands, you tie another A9 which is 3 hands, and you are losing to A2,A3,AT,AJ,AQ,AK which is a total of 22 hands. But in the 22 hands you are losing you will catch a Nine at the river and win 7% of the time (3/44). In other words your hand rates to be good about half the time and the other half of the time you still have 3 redraws to win. If he is betting a lower full house like Deuces full or Treys full then you still have 7 outs to win which is less than 6:1 against. If he has a wheel you have 10 outs to win making you a 3.4:1 dog. Now you are getting 6:1 to call and stay with the hand. Folding would not be just a crime but a felony.
well, you make a strong argument and have convinced me.
There were two times you could have folded this hand.
1. Pre-flop and 2. ON the flop.
6 handed - 20/40 game.
a player who others gives a lot of respect to limps in after UTG folds...anyway, the hand doesn't matter much, except that the guy turned over Kh8d (the winning hand).
given that this is not too unusual of an occurrence, i.e., assuming the guy doesn't just do this once in a blue moon, and doesn't do it all the time either, just every so often....can you say anything about his play?
Limping in early with King-shit offsuit even in a six handed game is rotten poker. I would say this guy learned poker in a forest. If he is doing this kind of stuff on any kind of regular basis he cannot be a winning player. I refuse to believe it.
To answer the first poster's question, I have a bigger problem with the fact that he open-limped with K8o than the fact that he played it. I'd think a raise would be a bit too loose in general (I'd want to have at least KJo to open-raise from 3 off the button), but if there were tight players in the blinds and tight players left to act after him it would be more justifiable, because at least he's adding the equity in stealing the blinds.
Regarding Jim questioning whether or not this guy could be a winning player, while I agree that limping there with the K8o is a bad play, it wouldn't surprise me if the guy could still be a winning player. In general, I would think that A9/KJ/QJ should be the minimum offsuits to open with there, UTG in a 6 handed game. Now, let's say that this guy is a bit too loose, and uses my standards half the time, and A7/K8/Q9/JT the other half. That's only 8 extra offsuit hands, or 96 combinations, and he's only playing them half the time, so he's only added 48 hands. As long as this guy plays well after the flop, these hands shouldn't cost him more than a fraction of a small bet, and they might even be break even or marginally profitable, especially if his opponents play very poorly after the flop. In other words, while these hands will probably lower his win rate to some extent, it's not necessarily a big enough mistake to turn a winning player into a losing player.
To put it in numbers--let's say we have a player who beats a game for 1.5 small bets an hour, or $30 in a $10-20 game. If he adds 48 combinations to his repertoire, and each of them cost him $2 per hand, he's only playing about an additional 3.6% of his hands, or about 1.5 more hands an hour, assuming 40 hands dealt per hour, so he's only lowered his win rate from $30 to $27. Assuming I did the math correctly, he could add 5 hands an hour at a loss of $2 per hand (that should be about 160 additional combinations), and still beat the game for $20 an hour.
I just pulled these numbers out of thin air, but it would surprise me if a hand like K8o would cost a decent player more than 1/5 or 1/4 of a small bet from 3 off the button.
-Sean
My Hand: KK
My Position: 1 off Button
Action before me: 4 off limps, 2 off raises
Players to Act: behind me, including all blinds. (3)
Action taken by me: I 3-bet
Action after I act: button & bb call, + 4 # 2 call (5-way)
Flop: Ad 3d 6c
Action on the Flop: BB & #4 check, 2 bets and I just call!
All others fold. Now heads up. Fourth Street: #2 bets and I throw my two kings in face up (Attempting to show how clever I am and how unlucky I was to be outdrawed on the flop) Stupid!
#2 hesitates and then couldn't resist showing his pair of tens, I said great play, while steaming inside at my double stupidity!
Comments: I should have raised on the flop right?
And if he called and checked on the turn, should I fire the second barrel
or check behind him and call on the river if he bets.
Check behind him on the river if he checks?
All comments appreciated!
This is one of those areas where it helps to know your players. Showing your kings could be bad and good. This may show others you will lay down a pair if one over card is on board. On the other hand if you do lay down a pocket pair every time there is an overcard people will run right over you even when they don't have the goods. I never would have shown my tens if I was the other guy unless I thought somebody folded aj or aq. This was a stupid show by your opponent.
In terms of how you played the hand, I am not sure on this one. Button cold called 3 bets and BB called 2 bets. Depending on the players this may be a warning signal that an A is behind you. I probably would have mucked on the flop. The only other option is to raise. Just calling will get you no where fast, besides if you raise you may win it right there.
I believe that in limit hold'em, it's best to never show your hand, period. In pot or no limit it's different because you can break a guy for all his money if he happens to misread you for even a single moment. This is never the case in limit poker. Always keep 'em guessing I say.
A raise on the flop by you might win you the pot right there, but what if you are re-raised? Do you throw away the winner there anyways? I think given the size of the pot your flop call is OK. Then when it's heads-up with one opponent you must pay off any ace.
Of course there are many ways to play this hand and alot depends on your reads on your opponents. You would think with all the preflop action "someone" has an ace here. What the heck were all your opponents playing, paying 3 bets to see the flop then folding to a single bet on the flop?
I've learned from this great board to NEVER show my hand unless required to win the pot. This includes never showing successful bluffs, brilliant laydowns, etc. Your opponent made the same mistake. He should have quietly mucked his hand and complimented you on your nice laydown, as he stacked his win. Showing the table you can make tough laydowns will encourage your opponents to put moves on you. Don't show your hand to anybody!
Do you think your opponent sensed you had no ace? He knew his only chance to win the pot with his TT was to bet his hand.
Lessons learned from these hands make us all better players, thanks for sharing.
I think you have a clear fold on the flop and I would never show my hand. One player called 3 bets cold behind you. Two other players, the big blind and the limper, called 2 additional bets, and of course the raiser called your re-raise. Someone must have an Ace and you are playing with two outs with insufficient pot odds. Furthermore, there is a two flush on the table which may kill one of your outs if you do not have the Kd. It also creates redraws against you if by some miracle your hand is good or you catch one of your two outs.
Geesh. It's a tough spot, but I'm not sure folding KK in a 3-bet, 5-way pot after everyone checks to the first raiser who bets, is so automatic. Even with an ace on board. Mostly because good players tend not to call 3 bets (or 2 back to them) with most hands that could have an ace, and the bad players who would, may also call with many hands that do not contain an ace.
I do agree that if you ever do make this fold you better a). Know your player well and b). NEVER show that KK lest you be chewed up and spit out.
I probably overstated this as usual. But I don't see how it can be too far wrong to fold here given all these opponents. It seems extremely unlikely that with all these players paying multiple bets to take a flop that no one has an Ace. Another thing I look for in these situations is whether or not I have other outs even runner-runner. For example, if one of my Kings is the King of Diamonds I might find a call here.
the way i would usually play it if i read the bettor for not neccessarily an ace i would raise on the flop (muck to a reraise) and then muck if bet into on the turn. if checked to on the turn i would check behind, and then on the river i would call a bet. if checked to on the river i would hopefully have enough info to decide whether to value bet (which i probably would).
brad
In case you did not receive my response to your E-Mail I have posted my assessment of your analyses under the "The Math" post from Thursday, December 7. This was part of the "When to call with Axs" thread.
I am in SB with QTo. The BB is a horrible player and will call any raise with almost any two cards...well, ok maybe he'd fold 52o, but he'd call 52s.
Everyone folds to the button. The button is a slightly below average player, who is currently loosing. Sometimes he can get overly aggressive, other times he plays an ok game. Today, I don't really see any indication of craziness.
He raises.
I have QTo in the SB, I know the BB will call about 95% of the time, and raise about 1% of the time (when he has AA or KK).
Should I call?
It's close, probably doesn't matter either way.
-Fred-
I don't think your giving up much folding to a raise here. You are out of position and holding a (likely)dominated hand.
If you think the button is the type to steal with anything, because the BB is a horrible player and he (the button ) perceives you as tight, then if you come in you should raise to give the BB a chance to fold to 2 bets cold and go heads up with the button.
You said the button is losing, he will either tighten up (and thus likely has a hand here) So you would fold. Or he is on his way to tiltland. Raise!
You haven't told us what the button will steal with and whether the bb will cold call if you reraise.
Against a player who will steal with any pair, any ace and any two cards above a seven I think you should usually 3-bet in the sb with QTo. If his raise represents a higher quality hand or if the bb will always call I'd fold.
If your read of the other players is good or even close in this situation then your play is dependant on your image and ability to manipulate the opponent on the button and whtehtr you bleive the button will call two bets. My guess ist that if the BB will call 1 raise 95% of the time he will call 2 bets a fair number of times also. Maybe as highas 50%. Seems he has defenditis. If it weren't for the BB's calling frequency and if you had a strong image plus good control over the below average button I would say raise. Let's stop ther for a moment. How would you respond or feel if you three bet and they both called. How would you like your Q,T? I think just the fact that you raised and both called would make your flop play very difficult unless you flopped a monster.
Now let's look at a call. I don't know what level you were playing but I play a lot of 15-30 so let's use that. What you don't want to. Tough. Next time tell us what level you were playing wise guy. So you are in the SB facing a $20 call, There is $55 in the pot when you need to make your decision. 2 1/2 - 1. Hardly a great sum to get involved with. But wait. You have a virtual calling station in the BB. Not much chance he will raise and if he does he may as well turn his hand up. So now you can figur that ther is $70 in the bot making it 3 2/3 - 1. Still not great but with the read you have on these two especially the big blind even though you will give up lot's of position your path here is clear. Call.
One other thing. If the flop has an A or K and/or no Q you should bet the flop against these two opponents and probably fold to a BB raise.
Vince
Vince,
Faagetabout the raise for a moment. How would you play this in a 20/40 structure?
Regards,
Rick
PS: What is the proper (or should I say best) spelling of the word that sounds like faa-get-aa-bout-it said really, really fast? Remember, I'm only half-Italian and my forebears were broke in the Northern, more civilized part of the country.
Rick,
I used the 15-30 (30-60) structure for my original answer. In 20 -40 structure your odds go down to 7-3 and possibly 11-3. I believe that I still call a poor player on the button if and only if I am 90-95% sure that the bb will call as the situation suggests. Even though Q,T is not a bad hand against a button raise IO refuse to give poor players even a small advantage if I can help it. So without the help from the BB I fold, I may reraise if the BB is the type that tosses at a minutes notice but I'd have to be sitting there to know for sure.
Vince.
P.S. Look, you spell it almost like you say it: Forrgettaboutit! "faa-get-aa-bout-it" looks like a Christmas Carol to be kind or to be honest, a sissy boy's way of saying it. And we both know that "Goodfella's" ain't no sissy boys. Must be that other nationalaity mixed in you.
Rick,
As usual, Vince is wrong when it comes to matters of language. You've got to listen to the way it's pronounced. So, think back to when you lived in Rhode Island--well, that's not much help because you lived in Newport. Think about the times you visited Providence. Now, "forget about it" has three T's and one R, but the T's sound like D's and the R is missing. The closest sound is probably "fah-ged-a-bow-didt." Accent on "ged" and the "bow" is pronounced like the word which means to bend at the hips. Even though I said the T's are not really pronounced, there's a slight hint of one at the end of the final syllable.
Now, one question: how can this word be pronounced: "ghoti"?
John
John,
I just want to know how to spell it. Anyway, I miss Rhode Island but don't have time to check out that real East Side flavor we used to love from that "Providence" TV show on Friday nights. Has Haven's Brothers, Lupo's or Olneyville New Your System Hot Weiners even made it on the show? If not it is a bunch of crap.
Regards,
Rick
PS: Is the answer to your question Gotti?
Rick,
The show is crap, but the intro makes Providence look nice. You already knew how to spell "forget about it." And, the answer is "fish." The "gh" is pronounced like the "gh" in "tough." The "o" sounds like the "o" in "women," and the "ti" like the "ti" in "commotion."
John
PS. the owner of Olneyville New York is working on a website, but doesn't quite have it up and running yet. He said he may be filling orders for delivery anywhere.
15/30 or 30/60 - it's an obvious call - I think 20/40 or 40/80 - is where I think its marginal.
Doc,
Without looking at the other responses, i think this one is close. So against these opponents, I would call in a 30/60 type structure and fold in a 20/40 stucture.
Against a big blind who will lay down some hands, I might three bet rather than call in the 30/60 structure. But I would really like a little more high card strength or a pair for this play (perhaps KT or A8 or 66 and better).
Regards,
Rick
10-20 Hold'em game with 3 solid players, 3 semi-solid and 4 gooses in the game. Two gooses call in front of me(I'm in Middle Position)and I raise with AKh Solid player in cut-off cold calls(1st hand of night for him)and SB(Solid) calls. BB calls and 2 gooses call. 6 players for $20(120 in pot)Flop comes A86 rainbow. Two gooses check and I bet. The cut-off raises and the SB just calls. A neon light goes off that I am beat by the SB or at best tied. Two gooses call and I toss another 10 in the pot.$240 in pot. The turn is a King. The SB checks and the two gooses check. I bet my top two hoping I jumped ahead of A8 or A6s. The cut-off makes it 40 and the SB makes it 60. The two gooses fold and it is up to me. I know I am up against a set and probably set over set but I'm thinking I could possibly have 6 outs though not likely and the pot is now 360 and I have 40 more to call and 60 more if the cut-off caps it. What's your play and why. What do you put the cut-off and the Sb on. BTW, both players are capable of making plays but they both respect my play and know I'm a winning player. I'll post results later.
Russ
Wow, this is a tough one. I think you should have checked the turn though. It's possible the cutoff is making a move on the pot and the SB might be on to him and re-raises which may slow him down and you get to the river for only forty bucks. As you say your hand does have outs and you just can't fold top two pair given the size of the pot can you? If I'm against a set I guess I lose alot of chips here.
Interesting hand. Your biggest problem was that you allowed yourself to be taken out of the lead. A fatal mistake. You broke the number one rule I always try to impose on myself. KEEP THINGS SIMPLE!
Consider the following scenarios:
1. The flop continues (as it should have) with you following through with your hand by making it 3 bets. Now say the cutoff caps and the sb calls another 2 cold. You getting a better feel for the hand yet? At least slightly more confident about the possible hands out now? Could you muck the turn with a little more confidence if you had to?
Or...
2. You 3 bet the flop, but this time the cutoff just calls. Again, what the sb does is very telling. But more importantly, the turn becomes simpler to play. If sb checks, you bet. If he bets, you raise. Isn't this a much simpler way to play poker?
If sb checks, you bet, cutoff raises and sb re-raises, you have a simple fold. Remember you were a pre-flop raiser. Assuming your raises are to be respected, you could easily have a big set or AK, and if they can't beat that, they'll probably tell you in the form of calling. More importantly, is that when someone does have AK or 88 beat, they oughta tell you this as well. Next time you should find yourself in a raised pot holding highest pair with best kicker, keep it simple. Ok?
Robert,
Nice post. You are right: The one extra small bet is worth so much information. I tried to think of what hands these players could have, and it was difficult even now (with any certainty) the way the hand went. With the extra info I would have a much better read.
Mark
Based on the way you described the hand, I would put the SB on a set. When a solid player check-calls two cold with no real draw on the board (other than a straight draw with 97s, which a solid player could conceiveably call a raise with in the SB with multiway action, but that's a slim possibility), you're right to hear alarm bells going off. The cutoff, being solid, shows no fear of the fact that he's raising you, who raised before the flop (and there's an A and K on the board), with a solid player who check-called 2 cold on the flop left to act. So, I'll give the SB 66 and the cutoff 88. The only way I see you in the lead is if you've described these players incorrectly, one or both were on tilt, or you all have AK. If you're behind, you can't expect to make too much on the river because they'll know when the A or K hits that AK would have made an over-full, and shouldn't give you too much action if you're solid. Against players who aren't quite so observant, and would put in several bets when the A or K hit because "I have a full house", I would be inclined to call with my 4-outer because of the implied odds of hitting, but against solid players, I'm more inclined to fold.
Since they know you're a winning player and respect your play, if you decide to continue with the hand, you might want to consider capping it yourself to see if they'd lay down an underset. They have to be afraid that you have AA or KK yourself, and if you're going to call anyway, it only costs an extra big bet to cap it.
As you described the hand and the players, my order of choices would be fold, re-raise, and call.
-Sean
Pre-flop you need to realize something. You raised with a bunch of players in the hand and no one re-raised. Therefore, it is unlikely anyone has AA,KK, or even QQ. When two solid players cold-call your raise I would not put them on AA or KK since they would 3 bet with these hands usually.
When raised on the flop, you must re-raise. You have the top kicker with the top pair and you should play your hand as good. Even if you are tied by another AK you at least make all the other players pay through the nose to continue. I think it is premature to put someone on a set of Eights or Sixes.
On the turn, when you get raised and re-raised you will frequently be up against a set but it won't be Aces or Kings based on the previous action. You have 4 outs which is about 11:1. The pot rates to get well over $400 if you hit your hand. I would stay with this hand because of the combined possibility of your hand being good coupled with the fact that you have outs if it isn't. I would think either the cutoff or the small blind has another AK but one of them may have a set, especially the small blind.
Russ,
I did not raise on the flop, I just called. I raised when you bet the turn and then the sb reraised. Whether I should have raised on the flop is a good question. I definitely think the sb misplayed his hand pre-flop by not reraising.
Mike
I might have misplayed this hand. What do you think?
10-20 Holdem and I'm ready to go home with a small win. (my opponent may have sensed this)
I'm dealt AK under the gun and open raise. One caller two seats down (who is also in early position) and thats it. Flop comes 2 handed.
Flop is 953 rainbow. I bet, opponent calls.
Turn is another 5. I check, opponent bets, I say take it down. :o(
My analysis: I was against the loosest player at the table, who I know is capable of of holding 99 here, as well as A9s, A9o, A5s, A3s, 55, 33, and actually a whole host of weaker hands that you and I wouldn't play in early position let alone to a raise. This opponent also like for you to bet his hand for him. (Earlier in the session I had played top pair excellant kicker against him agressively only to loose to his slow played trips.)
However, I know my check on the turn was a sign of weakness and if he read my preflop raise as big slick or AQ then he may have taken a (very successful) shot at me.
Is it worth the probable 2 big bets to call him down?
Well since I screwed up my own introduction, maybe I can get this right.
Generally but not always, when I have AK against a single loose/passive opponent who is difficult to put on a hand, I will usually continue to bet until I'm given a reason to stop. The exception is on the river where I might also bet, but may check and call, unless I can be quite sure I'm beat if he bets.
Yes he could've had A9,A5,A3, or a set. But more importantly, he could have a hand like 87, AJ, AT, KQ, QJ. Can you think of any more? Your check on the turn gave away the initiative. Even a weak player can sometimes find a strong bet when he holds position over someone who has just checked to him.
You must bet the turn and not check. When you check you are saying "I have nothing. Just bet me out of the hand." The point is that you have shown all the strength and are the one marked with a good hand. Everyone knows that the flop bet means nothing but a bet on the expense street becomes serious and gives your opponent something to think about. Give him a chance to fold. If he calls and a blank comes on the river then you can check with a big Ace to show down. There would be no point in betting the river as well unless you catch something because if he calls the turn with a pair, he will call the river as well usually. This is why someone like David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, Ray Zee, Roy Cooke, or Bob Ciaffone needs to write a book on how to play over cards. The play of over cards is one of the most common and difficult situations in hold-em.
why don't you write it Jim. Your advice is sound. I'll buy it seeya
A friend of mine has been raving to me for the past 6 months about the 2+2 hold'em forum web site. Since we're coming up on the 21st century I figured what the heck, and finaly broke down and bought myself a computer. This is my first day checking the forum out. I am immensely impressed with both the format and number of knowledgable players who frequent this internet site. Like I said, I'm new to computers and the internet in general, so if I make some faux pas in the beginning, please bear with me. I'm looking forward to reading and participating here. Thanks.
Robert
Hey Robert,
Welcome and thanks for giving me an opening.
We recently had a lively discussion on two forums here about a famous hand Johnny Chan once played. I copied it over to RGP, removing all mention of Chan, hoping to generate some objective response.
What a joke. Only one worthwhile reply. When you consider that Abdul usually posts his sample hands both places, and that David puts most of his intelligence measurement nonsen-, er, theories over there, 2+2 is the place to be. And as you say, the layout/format here is tremendous.
Now, if only we could get Daniel N. and Lenny Martin to post more often, and Erik Seidel and Annie Duke to at all, we'd really have something...
Bill
It appears that I've already made my first faux pas. I am at a friend's house and he pointed out to me that this wasn't the place to introduce myself. So please accept my first apology all. Maybe not the last, but I'm a quick learner. Really.
"I make some faux pas "
Sorry but the main dish we eat here is frog legs. Ray Zee sends them down from Montana covered with Bear grease. Besides ain't them faux's an endangered species?
Vince
Shut up and deal ... errr, post. ;-)
Robert,
No paux pas at all: And if your post below is any measure, please keep posting here!
Mark
robert,
welcome and i hope you learn alot and do well. you will find alot of help and great info here as we have the best crew of top thinkers around. there is quite a bit of joking and fun so dont take too much personally as then you will suffer. most posts that are interesting to more than just yourself are the ones that get the best responses, but most get some answer. even though you put your post on the wrong forum no big deal as it wasnt intentional. my big pet peeve is when someone breaks the spirit of the rules just to seemingly benefit themself at the expense of the others. poker players are a selfish lot(myself included) so some is expected. also some wont put a name to their posts that can identify them again so take those posts with a grain of salt and consider whether its a worth answering them. you will get to know the various personalities and get to like and hate some. mostly like. ill tell it like it is from my view as im freerolling here. if you like fish and bears you are okay with me. good luck.
Hi Robert,
Have fun & welcome Mark
Ain't the VLG basically a reverse-implied odds sitcheeation?
Is "Gambit" the correct term for something that is likely the correct play?
In VLG scenarios(decent opponents, etc.), when the turn is a blank and it's bet, raise to you, is three-betting usually the best play?
Not really
It's too late now
Not usually
Would 3betting the turn be more likely to give you a free showdown in situations were you might fold the winner on the river when bet(or even 2bet) into, like bottom flop card pairing, or doesn't that happen often enough to make it EV+?
I don't think so and I'm not even sure of the question.
vince
Vince,
The new hat is ready!
John
John,
Tell Mary to mail it to me pronto. I'll pay the postage. I'm leavin for Vegas on saturday.
vince
A gambit in chess means a move designed to give up a material advantage (e.g.- a pawn) in order to secure a positional advantage. The Vince Lepore Gambit in this situation is that you are giving up collecting extra bets on the current round if you have the best hand in order to better position yourself for winning the pot on a later round.
Three betting on the turn is almost always better than calling. The question is whether it is better than folding.
You distill things correctly.
In Mason's hand; AcAs, JhTd9h flop checked all-around, then a bet and a raise to you after a blank on the turn, I think 3 betting is definitely the best play.
In a general VLG situation I also think it's a good play, depending on a combo of your likely having the best hand, being checked to if the river blanks, being able to fold safely if the river's scary and it's bet, etc.
Sorry Bill but no. Most VLG situations occur with hands that will fold if facing a double bet cold on fourth st. If you are against players who will often put you in this spot if you check, you are better off betting the flop. There are of course many hands you would check the flop and then three bet (including this hand if an ace came) but those don't usually fit the definition of a VLG. To reiterate, that definition is:
To check a good hand on the flop in last position when:
A You expect no one to fold.
B A check raise spells trouble but not to the point where you can throw your hand away.
C You do not plan to take a helpful free card on the turn (I say helpful because if a straight card comes and you can give yourself a free card, it rarely helps)
D Your EV increase from everyone calling your flop bet is negligible, because your chances of winning on a hot and cold basis is not much more than the odds you would get on your bet.
E. Your check on the flop is against players who are very unlikely to force you into folding double bets on the turn while your chances are still decent.
(Notice by the way that VLG criteria, can occur against one opponent)
The above factors must usually all exist for your check to truly be called a Vince Lepore Gambit. Other helpful factors include flops such that fourth st. will often bring a card where you are usually dead; opponents who will be so fooled by your flop check that they will now call you down with hands that they wouldn't normally (eg small pocket pairs); and/or having the kind of opponents such that your check induces them to bluff. (This last factor however is a two edged sword except in head up pots, because it may induce both a bet and a raise which contradicts E. above.)
VLG*2= Very Luck Girl who gets Vince Lepore (the) Great. (The) being silent which is the hidden meaning in all this, that it could never happen.
ukw
I'd like to take the situation raised in the thread 'Please Rate this Check Raise Semi-Bluff on Turn' and turn it around a bit. The situation given was:
Game: Loose passive 10/20 Hero Calls UTG with Kd 5d A Middle Raises, all Fold except both Blinds and Hero. Flop: 8d 6s 4d [ Hero has Four Flush and Gut shot ] Hero Checks, Middle Bets, Both Blinds Fold, Hero Calls. Pot is now heads up. Turn: 6h [ pairs middle card, no help to Hero ] Hero Checks, Middle Bets, Hero Check Raises.
This time, you are the Middle Raiser. Let's say you have a pair of 10s. You've just been checkraised, there's $55 in the middle, $10 to you. What's he got, what do you do?
Jones
Note to self: maybe don't post at 4 am.
If I'm now counting this right, it's $140 in the pot and $20 to ya.
Jones
Our Hero is in what appears to be a very live nine-handed 15/30 holdem game. A drunk who has been wildly over-betting both hands hero has witnessed so far is sitting to Hero’s right, and this is the third hand played after Hero posts a late blind to enter the game.
The first two players limp, the drunk raises and Hero calls with As Kh. All remaining players call. The pot contains 18 small bets and $270. [Note: Some may advocate a three bet here but this is not the point of the post, although comments on this are certainly welcome if you strongly believe a three-bet is correct.]
The flop comes 7h 6d 2c. All check to the drunk who bets. Hero raises (comments?) and all fold behind while the big blind and an early limper call. The drunk calls.
The turn is a ten of spades. Big blind and the early limper check. The drunk bets. Our Hero raises and only the drunk calls. There are now 17 big bets and $510 in the pot. Comments on Hero’s raise?
Before the river Hero’s plan was to 1) bet if drunk checks and ace or king comes, 2) call if ace or king comes and drunk bets, 3) check if no ace or king comes and drunk checks, and 4) call if no ace or king comes and drunk bets. Comments on Hero’s river plan?
The river is the Jd. The drunk bets. Hero calls. Hero waits for drunk to show hand and drunk eventually shows a 9 5 offsuit. Hero tables AK and takes a $570 pot with the best no pair.
Try to forget the positive outcome and rate Hero’s play on this hand.
Regards,
Rick
Well played, your raising represents an over pair and gets you headsup with the drunk. Of course, a 3 bet by you on the preflop would have made this move even more believable and might have gotten you heads up right there. But who knew the flop was going to be so perfect for your move.
You play AK much better than I do, but my bankroll is such that I must keep these high variance plays to a minimum.
hero plays very well but doesnt understand how much the extra two players in the pot hurt the chances of his plays working.
For a strong argument for 3-betting preflop, see John Feeney's Inside the Poker Mind "One Reason to Reraise a Maniac" pp 150-155. I think John is right on, and not reraising is very bad poker here, even if this drunk is not a true maniac.
I like the raise on the flop. Overcards are the sort of hands that tend to not benefit from other callers.
On the turn, I have to be a little worried about the cold callers. I'd probably call, even though there are advantages to raising.
On the river, given that we are heads up with the drunk, I would never fold, and bet if an A or K fell. Hero's plan is fine.
Rick,
Thought I'd ask you about a hand I played last night since its remarkably similar. I'm in SB with AKo. Kill hand, so its 10-20. Kill button in BB checks; next player, loose guy who plays too many hands and raises with any pocket pair, KTo and QJo, raises; fold, fold; next player, young and agressive who has just joined the game and has played every hand, raises to 30. Rest fold to me and I call. Flop: 9,7,5 rainbow. I check; kill bets; next player calls; the kid raises and I call as do the other two. Turn: 3, putting two spades on the board. I check; check; check; kid bets and I call as do the other two. River: J, no flush. Check; check; kid bets and I call quickly. Other two fold. Kid shows KTs and I take pot. Should I have played this differently from the small blind. I noticed you raised, but the ckecks from the BB and other player, both of whom I know well, usually indicate nothing.
Thanks,
John
John,
I'm going out the door and will look at this one late tonight. Note that I was not the hero in these posts. On your hand, maybe you can explain how the kill works in terms of the order of action (it is different everywhere) and that may help in my or any other response.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
The kill button acts in regular order; i.e., if the kill is in the small blind, he acts first.
BTW,
I didn't think you were the Hero; I read too may of your posts. Check "forget about it" post, too.
John
The logic behind Hero's play here simply baffles me. He is unwilling to 3 bet pre-flop with what is usually one of the best playing hands in order to thin the field. But once board cards arrive he is willing to start pounding the pot having no pair, no draw, and no hand and a table full opponents. I guess our hero has decided to just bet his way to victory through a mine field of 8 opponents armed with nothing. Having failed to 3 bet pre-flop to isolate the drunk, his flop raise is an interesting gambling move to get everyone else out. The problem is that now 8 players have taken a look at the flop and it is almost a certainity that some of them have better hands and will be hanging around now. When the hero gets called in two other spots he should plan on dumping this hand if a blank comes and he gets bet into. The turn raise is another pure gamble. Even a drunk rates to have a better hand in this situation and does he think that the drunk will suddenly sober up, start playing decent poker, and fold?? His plan on the river is okay given this large pot that he created. Folding is unthinkable at this stage.
Hero got lucky and probably thinks he plays well. Were the hero and drunk drinking from the same cup?
I agree that a preflop three-bet would generally be preferable here. I do not agree with one poster that this flop was "perfect" for making a move. However, the major concern is the number of opponents. Since the first couple players are apt to let the drunk bet for them if they flop a good hand, hero effectively had 7 opponents behind him when he raised the flop. IMO, this is too many for this play to have a positive EV. On the turn, the number of remaining opponents is more reasonable to try a move. However, the turn card was not good (completing the nut straight draw), and the two early cold-callers would again be likely to check-(raise) if they have a big hand. Nevertheless, the large size of the pot may make this turn raise worth the risk. No problem with the river plan.
Hi hero!
MJS
Even though the point of the post is not the pre-flop play, I think it is mandatory that the hero 3 bet his AK. This should have opened the door to get heads up on the flop by raising the drunk. Then he could just call down the drunk if he kept betting.
I think hero won by luck with his incorrect flop raise
IMO this is simple but I decided to post on this forum rather than the beginner’s forum since it took place in a different 15/30 game and is a companion to the post below titled Big Risk, Big Pot and a Drunk. Same Hero.
In a typical Los Angeles area 15/30 game a very solid, tough player raises with four players and the blinds yet to act. Hero has 8h 7h and calls. Please rate Hero’s play before the flop. Mercy need not be shown.
Regards,
Rick
Well I'm assuming you have four or five customers here (including the drunk of course) as well as position.
Since you know what likely hands the solid player is raising on and you play so well after the flop, why not call here and play your rush?
Besides, your AK move and the drunk's play has surely put the whole table on tilt :oD (or at least loosened them up conciderable.)
In the example above, first couple players folded and solid player open raised with four players and blinds yet to act. Hero was directly to solid player's left. Sorry for the missing or unclear information.
Regards,
Rick
...I put my rush on hold for a better situation, and let the SP play with the drunk this hand. :o)
Information is missing but I'll assume raiser is first in and hero is cold calling with position and only small expectation of other callers.
This play is probably -EV by one or two of the 6 chips it costs.
-Fred- ...and I could figure it out to 3 places if I could just find my pencil.
Fred,
You wrote:"This play is probably -EV by one or two of the 6 chips it costs."
That sounds about right, but at the same time one or two chips may not sound like much to our Hero who won the pot on this hand. But I want to remind Hero that this is a HUGE leak if it is repeated over a lifetime of play. Cold calling an opening raise with hands that clearly need volume pots comes up all the time. It is not that the raiser dominates you in the sense that AK dominates KQ, it is simply that you are rarely going to get the necessary number of opponents to make it worth trying to flop a draw and even if you do you will not get much of an overlay when you flop it.
Other issues involving suited connectors are debatable. Coach Ciaffone avoids them even in late position against a field unless conditions are just about perfect. Izmet thinks that under certain circumstances you can raise and build a pot versus many opponents. Others will see the flop for one bet but almost never for two. But no reputable player will cold call a solid early raiser unless there are several opponents in between.
Regards,
Rick
hero plays great but thinks he can outplay everyone on every hand. cant happen.
Hero's play is very bad here. Eight-Seven suited is a weak, speculative drawing hand that requires two things to play profitably. First, it wants an unraised pot since it needs implied odds to show a profit in most cases. Second, it wants lots of company. Now in the case in question, neither of these factors happens to be present. A solid player who open raises from middle position, while not having to have a premium hand in all cases, will almost certainly have a better hand than Eight-Seven suited. Furthermore, the raise will discourage later players from taking a flop so a very likely scenario is for our hero to take this flop shorthanded. If someone else cold-calls the raise like the cutoff or button then our hero could find himself sandwiched between two players with better hands thereby losing even his positional advantage. Finally, from time to time the pot will get re-raised costing our Hero 3 or even 4 bets to take a flop which is very bad.
I think our hero needs to seriously consider stepping down to a lower limit game for awhile so that he can get his game in order.
I think you're mad at your money if you call here!
However, if you are determined to gamble, why not re-raise and keep the hammer down till the very end. You may get it heads-up and bluff him out or hit your hand.
The good thing about your play is you will always be welcome in the game and never barred (just like me :-)
I agree. This is a horrible, horrible play. The only way I'll play 87s is if a) I've already got four limpers in front of me, or if b) I'm in the BB against a steal raise. Otherwise it's worthless.
And this is coming from someone who is constantly fixing leaks in his pre-flop play. My early position game is fortunately solid, but in late position I've been known to get way out of line... but even I know the limited value of suited connectors.
Rick,
Sorry we didn't hook-up at HG. Button drop that's a trip!! That place is nice, dealers were better than FW IMO.
78s give it up!!
Paul
Thanks for all the responses. I won't reveal who Hero was or who the solid raiser was but those that know me can probably make a good guess.
Anyway, one of the blinds was the only other caller before the flop. Flop comes a K 6 5 rainbow and to make a long story short Hero makes a straight and irons out an AK held by the solid raiser and a probable two pair held by the blind.
Moral of the Story: Sometimes you can make huge mistakes on the pots you win.
Regards,
Rick
Calling with a hand like A5 offsuit would be terrible. Calling with 8h7h is an error but not a major one. Calling with a hand like 44 is still wrong, but only marginally so assuming the player plays fairly well once the flop comes.
This reminds me of a conversation that David Sklansky and I once had with a third player. The third player wanted to know what you should do about a particular player who was sitting on his left and calling his raises from early or middle position with a hand like 98s. David replied, why would you want to do anything?
Mason,
My lead post was written with less than my normal precision. I corrected it in response to “hillbilly” but note that the very solid player was first in with a raise with four players and the blinds yet to act and Hero was sitting immediately to solid player’s left.
Anyway, you wrote: ”Calling with a hand like A5 offsuit would be terrible.”
Agreed, but I’ve never seen Hero make this mistake.
“Calling with 8h7h is an error but not a major one.”
IMO it would only be a minor error if Hero could routinely outplay the solid player post flop (NOT!) or the texture of the game was such that the 8h7h figured to get several cold callers behind giving Hero a shot at a large pot. This was unlikely in that game.
”Calling with a hand like 44 is still wrong, but only marginally so assuming the player plays fairly well once the flop comes.”
I agree here, especially if Hero can pick up a caller behind and the blind. I think three opponents for two bets is at least marginal for a small pair even if the small pair plays mostly for the set.
“This reminds me of a conversation that David Sklansky and I once had with a third player. The third player wanted to know what you should do about a particular player who was sitting on his left and calling his raises from early or middle position with a hand like 98s. David replied, why would you want to do anything?”
Let me assure you that I never criticize an opponent or give lessons at the table and I handle bad beats well (i.e., when I don’t see or get bad beats, I know I am in a bad game). But I have a vested interest in seeing this particular Hero improve. I’ll elaborate further if we ever meet ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick:
You sound like a graduate! In your poker battles, take no prisoners
Good post, thanks!
On a scale of one to ten it's a 3. If it's the hero's default play it's a zero, as it can't win.
I'm just scrolling down the list after a weekend offline, Rick, so I haven't got to the Big Risk, Big Pot post yet. Taken in isolation, if a solid player raises first-in with half the table yet to act behind him, and I'm to his immediate left with 87s, I dump without any 2nd thoughts whatsoever. I'm looking for a much better price for this holding.
Now, if the guy is on serious tilt or something, or there are other extenuating circumstances, I still dump it! I might consider, (and have done so in LL) raising on the button with 87s after several limpers, but to cold call a supposedly legitimate raise with several others yet to act behind me is a poor play, IMO. I'd give it about a K6o for a rating.
The game is $20-$40 hold-em at the Mirage. Sitting to my left is Jimmy McClure a well-known local who has been playing hold-em here in Vegas for over 10 years. Sitting to my right is Tobias Stone. Tobias Stone was a nationally recognized bridge and backgammon champion back in the 1960s and 1970s. Stone has been living here in Vegas for awhile and is a regular in the Mirage $20-$40 game. I am sitting in the small blind with the Qc2c. Two early players limp and two middle players limp. Stone on the button limps. With $130 in the pot, I limp for another $10. This is probably a marginal call but with 13:1 pot odds I want to take a flop since the pots have been getting larger in this game as the evening wears on. Jimmy takes a free play. There is $140 in the pot and seven players.
The flop is: QsJs2h
I bet $20 with the top and bottom pair. Jimmy raises to $40. Everyone folds to Stone on the button who makes it $60. At this point I am worried that someone has Queen-Jack or possibily a set so rather than make it 4 bets, I just call. Jimmy now makes it $80. Stone calls. I call. There is $380 in the pot and three players.
The turn is: Ac
I check. Jimmy bets $40. Stone calls. What should I do and why?
Results to follow later in the day.
Jim,
well since the action was slow before the flop i cant read any hands so id give them all the possible hands that could give the flop action. so they may have draws or just top pair. the ace hurts but not as much as it appears as someone with ace queen should have raised before the flop. i know tobias and i havnt played with him but i dont think of him as one who pushes a non big hand much or who wouldnt pop it on fourth street if the ace hit him. i would call the hand out unless the river killed me. or by playing in the game i might pop it on fourth street to hope for the best as you may have the best hand and may knock out qj or kj or a hand that may outdraw you. getting 10 to one folding is not an option for me.
I put stone on a spade draw and it would be nice to raise here and charge him extra, but of course you probably fear a re-raise by jimmy.
Now I don't put jimmy on the nut straight (KT) as why would he raise your initial fop bet and drive out customers. Also I don't see why he caps it on the flop with the open-ender (but I suppose he could of)
Agree he could have QJ or a set, or even AQ as all these hands would be played fast on the flop against alot of opponents with a flush draw out there.
I guess I vote to just call here and the river unless a spade comes on the river and re-awakens mr.stone
let's count the outs as I know you hate (don't we all) drawing dead.
If Jimmy has AQ, AJ, or QJ you maybe only have one out with a 2d as the 2s might fill the flush for stone. (but maybe not as well)
If jimmy has a set of dueces or AJ, then either remaining queen might win it for you.
you are probably behind here but you do have some potential outs and if someone holds QQ or JJ wouldn't they raise preflop? (but not necessarily, I know)
Would YOU have raised preflop with QQ or JJ if you were in the BB with all those limpers behind you? (not the subject of your post I know, just curious)
I still think given the size of the pot call the single turn bet and look at the river.
In the second paragraph of your "PS" you suggest that the deuce of spades may not be an out for Jim, since it could very well give someone a flush...
IT WOULD GIVE JIM A FULL HOUSE; one could only hope that it gave one of his opponents a flush, Jim might still be stacking that pot as we speak.
Didn't we have this talk a few weeks ago ?
Hit the moonshine AFTER you post; this should alleviate the problem ( LOL ).
All in good fun, the rest of your analysis was good - as have been most if not all of your recent offerings.
Don't worry, we all still love you; we're just starting to get a little worried. Our main concern is that if you read the board this way when you're playing, you could be mucking alot of winners.
J-D
Of course you are right JD, I've gone and stepped in it again. Ironically my mistake only adds to the case I was making for Jim to make the call.
Dang it! Back to the rail. Then again, maybe I won't be so hard on my self after all. We all make honest mistakes upon occasion right? We need to learn from them and move on, not dwell on them.
I thought it was pretty dang big of Jim to share his catastrophic mistake of not calling with the forum so others might learn that losing a bet or two mistakenly is not near as bad as losing the whole pot.
Actually I think another whole thread could be started with the topic being the aggressive play of jimmy in that hand and the fine line between agression and being a "live one".
Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
I am going out to get a bumper-sticker that reads, "I brake for HILLBILLY'S posts".
You can throw it away. The odds against you having the best hand are no better than 11-1 but more likely about 19-1. Even with the implied odds, you are either in a marginally profitable situation or a big loser. You probably only have the two deuces left to give you a winner. It looks like you are up against Q-J or K-10 (Jimmy) and either Q-J or possibly a flush draw (Stone).
Since there was no raise coming in, and you have one of the deuces, I discount the probability of someone having J-J, Q-Q, 2-2, or A-Q. With all the limpers in the pot, the most likely hands to be facing are large unsuited connectors or small flush draws.
Jim,
I haven’t looked at that capital letter challenged, bear hugger’s answer yet to avoid being contaminated :-).
Although not the point of the post, I think your call of the small blind with Q2s is clear, not marginal. Marginal is calling with three limpers getting nine to one IMO. Some day I’d like to set up a poll of what most consider marginal in this spot for hands like low suited garbage, offsuit connectors, suited connectors and so forth. It’s been done before (I think) but we have a lot of new posters and this decision comes up all the time so anybody that is way off has a big leak (and it could be me ;-) ).
On the flop a check raise (you knew I’d say that) is an option since this flop will surely hit someone, somewhere and is virtually a sure thing to be bet. But betting isn’t wrong and is more your style. I think I might make it four bets on the flop myself even though it now can get capped at five. You know the big blind has a hand rather than a draw and how he responds to facing two more bets cold with one more potential raise still out there might provide a clue to his strength. He might even fold a hand like KQ. Now the button may cap with a draw (of course the cap is on only if the big blind calls) but I would think further betting would be an indicator of a made hand rather than a draw unless it is a two-way (i.e., flush and straight) draw. Given that you bet and were raised twice, calling two more bets is unpleasant but probably correct. When faced with one more bet, you have a call.
You mention that you know or are at least acquainted with these players. That means they know you too. So I would think they might figure your bet usually means a good to great hand, at the same time they know that you might slow down or even fold quite a few hands that are less than the nuts or near nuts here. So don’t be surprised if they overplay their hands in an attempt to pressure you or slow you down.
With that in mind, I don’t like your turn check. The turn is the time to lead again with your good but not great hand and I would think that if an opponent raises here you could fold with a clear conscience. Since you checked, the big blind bet and the button just called, I would call without enthusiasm. The bid blind could still be on a hand such as KQ and the button now appears to have either a draw or a weaker made hand. Of course, if you are up against two pair you are drawing to the two remaining deuces and if against a set of jacks you are drawing to the two queens. Against a set of queens you are drawing dead but you should be able to discount this holding since you have one and there was no pre flop raise out of the blinds (although not all do with queens or for that matter jacks).
My guess is that you called and were punished or folded and were vindicated by results. But over time I think giving up too easily here can cost you a lot. And I still like a lead bet on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
You can't call the river if any A,K,J,T,9, or spade hits. That leaves you 3x8,7,6,5,4,3;2xQ,2 as outs if you are now ahead.
If someone has QJ,AQ or JJ you only have 2 outs. Combining all this I would fold now.
I folded. When the Ace comes off this gives someone with top pair/top kicker now two pair which leaves me dead to a Deuce and the odds were not there to play a 2 outer. I could even be drawing dead. There was now $460 in the pot and two players.
The river was: 6d
Jimmy checks. Stone checks. Brier throws up. Jimmy wins with the KcQh for a pair of Queens while Stone mucks.
Ray and Rick got it right and I lost a $460 pot. I was shocked that Jimmy over played his hand so much and I guess that Stone was on a come hand like a Spade flush draw or a straight draw that missed. I just thought I was beat by Queens over Jacks or Aces-up or maybe a small set. I did not realize that Stone would 3 bet on the flop with a come hand.
Bob Ciaffone calls the betting on the flop the "phoney betting round" and for good reason. Just because players pound the pot on the cheap street does not mean you are necessarily beat when you have two pair. If you notice the board it contains both a two flush and two touching cards in the playing zone so draws are quite possible. My mistake was not recognizing this and in not understanding how my opponents play. I can call the turn bet for $40 and this closes the betting so I don't have to be worried about getting whipsawed. The river may not even get bet and I could get a cheap showdown.
Rick's idea of betting the turn is an interesting one but somewhat inconsistent with just calling the double raise back to me on the flop. If you think your hand is good I would think you would want to 4 bet on the flop not lead on the turn when an Ace comes off which can only hurt your chances of having the best hand. But folding was a disastrous play.
Jim,
I read the results before I responded. But you know loosey goosey me. My response wpould have resulted in I told you so. The calling staion that I am. You see some folk believe in doing everything they can to win when in a big pot. Just like your opponents.
Vince
Jim wrote:
"Rick's idea of betting the turn is an interesting one but somewhat inconsistent with just calling the double raise back to me on the flop. If you think your hand is good I would think you would want to 4 bet on the flop not lead on the turn when an Ace comes off which can only hurt your chances of having the best hand."
I think the idea is to see what the turn card brings before committing more chips. If a Jack comes, you are dead. If the flush card comes, you are probably dead particularly if the flush card is also a Broadway card.
The ace on the turn was not a great card for you but there are lots that are worse. I agree with Rick on the turn bet.
Ay Caramba! I guess this opens up the more general question of check raising a large field in an un-raised pot, although that may be results based here.
As I said, I would've CR'd in this situation, but had the Js been the 7c I'dve bet out(then RR'd, of course). I also would've bet out if it was only 4-handed, although I likely wouldn't have called preflop w/Q2s four handed(maybe 50-50).
A think a check was definitely right on the turn. You've got 4 outs and a decent shot at having the best hand going. The money is going in on the turn no matter what. No way I fold this hand on the turn with the pot being that large. Especially when J2 is a real possiblity given his free play in the BB. It's true he could have top 2 pair but he wasn't favored to have that hand.
I'm also surprised that someone who knew you well would so overplay a single pair. Conversely though, I'm certain that he didn't put you on Q-2!! He truly thought that he had best hand on the flop. While the action on the flop isn't so scary, the continued pressure on the turn by Jimmy is really out of line -- particularly when the Ace hits.
What this really points out though is the guessing games involved in playing top and bottom pair on a board like this. As I noted above, it seemed apparent that Stone was on a draw, but in truth, Jimmy was also on a backdoor draw with his flopped top-pair and gutshot straight draw.
It's not always possible to make the right play when someone gets out of line.
JIM BRIER BECOMES "RESULT ORIENTED".
You got tricked; but it was a trick only a good player could fall victim to.
Does anyone remember the joke about the boy in college sending a telegram home to his father which read -
Dad (stop)
Send more money (stop)
NOBODY gets away with bluffing me (stop)
P.S. More on this later - got to drive my wife to work ( we're in the Eastern time zone).
J-D
I do have more to say about this hand; time and prior commitments keep me from doing it at this moment.
I did want to make one point, however.
IMO, QXs is NOT a marginal call from the SB against four limpers, it's almost an auotmatic call. Sorry about the result of this hand, BUT -
if you allow [the results] to cause you to play too tight from the SB in unraised, multi-way pots, the cost will soon far exceed your loss on this hand.
Pleasure as always,
J-D
P.S. Thanks for taking the time to look over A5s; it was good to know I hadn't overlooked anything of substantial significance. I agree that calling it a "no-brainer" was probably a mistake; I play with alot of calling stations, in one of these games folding it would have been a big mistake. Against lucid foes, discarding it - even if the wrong play - would be nowhere near as tragic.
Jim,
I haven't read any responses. Considering the opposition, I would strongly consider folding. The only hand you can beat is KQ or maybe Jimmy had J2 in the BB. Tobias likely has KQ or a monster draw.
It don't look good, but depending on how well you know these guys, you can maybe cry call. The A is a nasty card. FWIW I would've checkraised that flop, figuring some people might be raising with draws.
Bill
Easy call. Spade draw and ?? as likely hands against you I can't fold yet plus you likely have 4 outs.
-Fred- .. what's 2 big bets amongst friends?
A couple of "blind hands" is what it looks like. I think you have the guy on the button beat it's the guy in the BB that I'd be the most concerned with. What are the possible hands that he would play like this on the flop?
QQ - 1 way (less likely given the way the button played)
JJ - 6 ways (although he didn't raise preflop which is probably right)
22 - 6 ways
QJ - 6 ways
A2s - 1 way (he might play a pair and a nut flush this strong on the flop).
KTs - 1 way (he flopped a royal flush draw)
rest of KT combos - 15 ways (would he play a straight draw with an overcard this strongly on the flop? I would doubt that he has this hand)
10,9s - 1 way doubtful.
AQ - 6 ways
Q2 - 4 ways
J2 - 9 ways
Given the range of hands that have you could win with versus ways your beat I think a check and call on the turn is right. I think the pot is laying you enough to make the call here. If you could somehow eliminate JJ, QQ, and AQ from his hand I think you have a pretty good case for a check raise.
I didn't see the results until after I had completed my post. If he's going to play KQ this strong on the flop then a check raise would be right.
Given the pre-flop action, I would not necessarily fold here. Since you can't get raised, and the pot is big, I would call.
But...
I think the move was to bet the turn, not giving anyone a free card who might be playing a draw aggressively, ie possibly the button. If you get raised again by the BB, I think you can more certainly put him on a set or AQ or QJ (he may not have raised in the BB with AQo with many limpers, although I do not know his style of play). If you get raised on the turn, probably fold, thus saving one bet over check-calling to the river. If they both just call your turn bet, I would take it to the river, although check-calling the river might be one option.
Interested to see what the other posters say and what the results were.
Dave in Cali
Planet Poker 20-40 game.
I am first in 4 off the button and raise with Ah8h. Only the button calls.
Flop: Js3d2h
I bet and he calls.
Turn: 10h
I bet and he raises. I call.
River: 2c
What is my best play?
BTW, I would say that the button plays pretty well but not great. He is probably a small winner (perhaps $10 to $15 an hour) in this 20-40 game.
Your best play is to check and fold when he bets. I would not waste $40 trying to win the pot here by pretending that you have a hand. His raise on the turn almost always means he has two pair or something better. He won't be folding even if you are trying to represent two pair yourself (over pair with open Deuces). The only way betting here could be right is if he was the type of player who would semi-bluff raise on the expense street on just a come hand. This is too remote.
If you are my opponent, what hands do you bet the river with if I check? You can assume that he does not have JJ or TT as he would have 3 bet me preflop.
How about Jack-Ten (top two pair) or a small set?
A winning player doesn't cold call with JT, you know that!
Players will call with Jack-Ten suited on the button against an open raiser from middle position.
I guess that's a question - would he have three bet with JJ or TT - and if so (and ruling those two hands out), would he have flat called with JTs? If you know this guy well, and know that he would not have flat called with JJ or TT or JTs, then it seems likely that the hand he has, if he is a decent thinking player, is KQ.
Given that, you should check/call him.
Check fold.
- Andrew
Check-fold. A guy who plays pretty well but not great has you beat every time here, and won't fold to a bet or check-raise. He'll likely check his JcTc behind you, worried that you have a big pocket pair.
As I try to step up to these higher limit games maybe you guys can tell me what I missed.
You can either bet as a bluff and fold if raised, check and call, or check and fold. I don't think check raising will work as well as betting out as a bluff.
I say a check and fold if bet seems obvious. My next thought would be bet and fold if raised The pot with around 8BB doesn't seem large enough. What do you think this guy may have? He is playing this like the Ten helped him to make two pair, or that he slowplayed a set. I guess if he was aggressive he might take KQ and play this way.
The people in my game need to have a good hand to raise the turn.
CV
Although I do see it as a clear check on my part, I don't necessarily see it as a clear check/fold if he bets.
In fact, I did check and he bet.
The chief consideration for me here was whether he would bet JT, AJ, AT etc. on the river. Or, would he check down those hands (in case he got counterfeited, knew the jig was up etc.) and save his bets for a full house or a bluff? (Although he could very well be "bluffing" with a better Ace).
You say "players in my game have to have a good hand to raise the turn". But given that I raised preflop, bet the flop and turn and called the turn raise, would those players bet again on the river with JT, AJ, AT etc.?
I see what you're getting at. He may be afraid that his two pair might not be good anymore since you called his raise and the board paired 2's on the end. If you have QQ, KK, AA. You will call his last bet and win. Of course by the way you are thinking you would never check these hands on the end when 2's paired because of that fact that he will call but now will be afraid to bet.
He still possibly won't think on your level and possibly check down even Jacks and Tens. He would bet his full houses and possibly bluff KQ. He most likely would have re-raised the flop with AK, AQ.
I still think the way this played out that he won't bluff often enough to make calling the end worthwhile, but I do like thinking about these situations.
CV
given what happened, i would have bet again with AJ, and mucked to a check/raise. you could easily have AK, and call me down...and the fact that you (a good aggressive player) did not reraise on the turn probably means you do not have QQ, KK or AA, and you know I'm not calling you with JT. In fact, I'd bet also with KQ....so given that I'd bet on the river with AJ, KQ, it's almost mandatory that you call, if I am the button, and you know me well.
Check-raise. I think an average player will be semi-bluffing on the turn in this situation at least a third of the time and will follow-up with a bet on the end nearly 100% of the time. Also, if you check you'll sometimes win with no addtiional risk.
The problem with checking and calling is that there are a lot of ace hands that he can hold.
The problem with betting after a complete brick hits on the river is that your chances of him folding a better hand for one bet are too low. And if he raises you're in a very bad spot.
AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT are out according to skp as his opponent would 3 bet these hands. I am assuming that if his opponent would 3 bet with JJ,TT he would 3 bet pre-flop with AA,KK,QQ.
JTo - 9 ways. Would the opponent call a raise cold with JTo?
JTs - 2 ways. Opponent might call a raise cold with this hand.
AJo - 9 ways, KJo - 12 ways, QJo - 12 ways, 33 - 3 ways, 22 - 1 way, ATo - 9 way, AKo - 12 ways, AQo - 12 ways, 99 - 6 ways, 88 - 3 ways, 77 - 6 ways, 66 - 6 ways, 55 - 6 ways, 44 - 6 ways,
Q9s - 4 ways, 98s - 3 ways, KQo - 16 ways
As a guess I proposed these hands as one he would call pre-flop and play against you after the flop. Whether he calls looser than this or tighter I have no idea. But if he did, he has probably read you for having a high probability of having a weak hand after the flop. His raise on the turn to me means one of 3 things:
1) He has a big hand.
2) He has a decent hand which he was going to call twice with anyway so he popped it on the turn.
3) He has a good draw and is raising to try to win it there.
Of course your opponent may not be capable of doing 2 or 3 and if he is may not try it everytime he reads you as being somewhat weak after the flop. So checking the river I think is the right play. If it's number 2 he probably just checks it back on the river so if he bets eliminate number 2. As skp mentions he may also have a no pair hand that beats skp anyway. Lets look at the possibility of number 1 first.
JTo - 9 ways. 33 - 3 ways. 22 - 1 way.
for a total of 13 ways.
Looking at hands that he has no pair but beats you anyway, would he play them as indicated in number 3 or number 2? I think than he would probably go with number 3.
AKo - 12 ways AQo - 12 ways.
Q9s - 4 ways, 98s - 3 ways, KQo = 16 ways.
So when he bets the river you could be only about a 27-23 dog and if he would fold his no pair hands to a check raise often enough that could be right.
So the bottom line in evaluating the right play to me involves:
1) Estimating his cold calling hands pre-flop.
2) Thinking about what he read you for.
3) How consistent does your opponent play.
4) Is your opponent capable of semi-bluff raising on the turn?
5) Is your opponent capable of bluffing on the river?
6) What the pot is laying you.
Seems like you might have a call here or if you're really reading the situation well maybe a check raise.
I checked with the intention of at least calling as I did not think that my opponent would bet if he had a hand less than a full house as the river card may well have counterfeited any two pair hands etc.
My problem was that the guy could be "bluffing" with AQ if for some reason he did not 3 bet preflop with it. Although it may be slightly incorrect for him to bluff with AK or a small pair, he may do that as well.
As it turned out, I called and he showed A5 suited and was raising as a bluff on the turn with a slight chance to get lucky if I called.
As to your post, well I agree although some of the hands that you list are quite unlikely eg. 98 suited etc.
BTW, this fellow would call a raise on the button with JT offsuit and yet he beats the game (albeit for a small amount based on my read of him). Preflop startegy is important but it ain't the final word on playing winning poker.
Stay away from my table because you will cost me a lot of money! Seriously though this was an intruiging hand.
I do remember guys that play like that in the on line 10/20 games I've played. They love to call in late position against an early raiser "Me". When the Flop go's wragged they play like you decribed to try to take the pot. It seems like there play is wrong but against a tight opener the strategy seems to make them money.
CV
check/fold - he's not going to lay down to a deuce - he would most probably make a crying call with any J or any T (if he did in fact raise with that) or with any better - of course, I actually think he has either TT or JT.
thx in advance for the help
10-20
Im the SB in a loose agressive game with a maniac a few fish and 1 good player (but he use deception a bit too often to make sure we respect his raises). i have AKo
The maniac raise UTG. i saw him raise with 2-4o and laugh at us when winnin a monster pot with it...
3 players (fishes who calls raises with K9o) calls
The good player makes it 3 bets.
I call since the odds were very good that the maniac would cap it. surprise... the BB did the cappin. hes bad but dont raise with crap.
Flop: 245 rainbow
i check, since they can hold almost anything
they all check to the button who bet...
i raise.... they all fold but the button who call
Turn 10
i check he bet i call (probably a mistake not bettin here right?)
River A (no flush possible)
i check he bet i call... (another mistake i guess. should ive bet or check raise?)
results to follow. pls rate my play b4 lookin to results :)
He show me 5-6s and i took down a great pot with my big pair. i think i got lucky and i should have earned more maybe...
btw youll probably criticize the button for his pre flop play. sure look weird, but hes the only one who have a better earning rate than me at my card club!
i love the fishes!
Charlie,
I’m having trouble following exactly how many players were in the pot but there is nothing wrong with letting other players do the pre flop raising and reraising when you hold a strong hand and you are out of position.
On the flop I like your check. There are too many players to bet overcards. Once the button bet your check raise is a bold yet sensible play. Getting it heads up with the button is the best possible outcome. With all that dead money, you are going to the river no matter what.
Since you check raised the flop leading the turn is probably the better play especially since the ten should not have hit the button. In other words, he may still be leading or he may not but the ten probably did not help him.
On the river betting is OK but checking and calling is just about as good. I don’t like a checkraise here as it could go to three bets and you might have to call for the size of the pot.
Regards,
Rick
ty rick
we took the flop six-handed with a $240 pot
When we classify players as loose aggressive, weak tight, etc. what are the most important tendencies that define these categories?
Example: If someone is loose aggressive, do they 3 bet more often than typical players with a wider variety of hands, etc. etc. How many tendencies do you look for before you categorize an opponent?and
I'm hoping to see if there is a consensous of opinion on the primary tendencies we use to categorize our opponents. I think we can all learn something from our answers. thanks in advance.
In my area there is a very common form of the loose aggressive player. They play too many hands but they compensate for this self weighting tendency a little bit by check raising and semibluffing on a regular basis.
the weak passive players are the ones you can almost be sure have read HPFAP. this is not meant as an insult to S&M; its just an observation that many people have a difficult time getting past the first chapter.
What's the best poker software available? Why do you think so?
I'm interested in Hold 'em, and 7 Stud games.
Thanks for your input!
Hi
I am moving to hawaii in january and i was wondering if they have casinos / pokerrooms in HAWAII???? anyone??
no legal gambling in Hawaii. Vegas wouldn't allow it. Lots of illegal gambling, though, from cock fights to BJ to sports to poker. If you really want it, you can find it. e-mail me for more details, if you are interested.
At Bellagio, where SB is $20, and BB is $30. I'm in the SB w/QhQs. UTG and middle position player limp. All fold to me, I raise. BB, and 2 limpers call. 4 players see the flop for $60. $240 in the pot.
Flop: 6h7h9s
I bet, all call. $360 pot.
Turn: 7s
I bet again, all call again. $600 pot.
River: Ac
I bet, all fold.
Comments welcome.
it appears all your opponents were on draws (hearts, spades and str8ts possible)
Well played, except some may not like your river bet as if you are called you are probably beaten. The pot is large by the river and it's unlikely your bet will cause a weak ace or two small pair to fold. But that being said, combined with the threat of trips your bet COULD have caused someone to lay down a winner.
i think you should check-fold the end...you're beat
No doubt it was well played at least till the river. Tough situation to bet out the river, but I think it was the right move. The only thing I would be afraid of is someone playing Ax suited on a flush draw or A9. However, I think that you were playing strongly enough to possibly push out the best hand if it was just aces with an average kicker. Trip 7s is not that likely, except perhaps the BB, who might not want to raise the turn with two players left to act (although I would to make the flush draws pay). With less players in the pot I think it is certainly correct to bet it out. I think that in this situation I would either bet or check-fold. I don't think check-calling is a good option
You bet, next guy folds and next guy raises. Now what?
dump.....
I would rather spend my $30 calling a bluff that I induced by checking the river.
see Brier's post below
Check calling seems like the best option to me. When you bet, you will only be called (or raised) by a hand that can beat you. However, if you check, someone with a lesser holding may take a stab at you thinking that your check shows weakness. The pros of check calling are losing the minimum when you are beat, and (maybe) winning an extra bet when you are ahead. What is the argument for betting out? What better hand will fold?
Rob
I agree %100 with this post... The only risk is a world in which someone with a MYSTIC read on the situation is able to whack it after someone bluffs with a missed draw knowing that they have YOU beat. Bottom line is that any ace is calling, you have a greater chance of inducing a bluff by checking. You can't get called unless you're beat on the end.
Does anyone doubt the logic of jamming it from the SB preflop? That struck me as "not-automatic"...
TT
preflop here from the SB. Think about it, the 2 mid to late limpers have already shown their weakness by just limping and what are the odds the BB has better than your QQ's? I would think you almost always have the best hand going to the flop here, so get the money in the pot.
I think the bet on the river MIGHT push Ax off his hand based on the play of the hand up till that time. When the SB raises BTF and comes out swinging hard when rags flop I put em on a BIG ace or big pair. If I was on a nut flush draw with straight possibilities(Say Axs) I might lay down into a bet on the river in this case. As I mentioned, I like the river bet better with only one or two opponents. Check-calling just feels like a weak play to me, even though I do see your points. I would just rather be in the drivers seat.
When the SB raises BTF and comes out swinging hard when rags flop I put em on a BIG ace or big pair.
Due to the pot size and the fact that the SB could be on a big pair it would be foolish for Ax to fold to a bet on the end. I agree that Ax would only stick around if it had a straight or flush draw. However, I also think that it will make the crying call on the end when the Ace hits but will probably just check behind if you check.
Rob
.
I think your river bet was bad. A worse hand will never call and a better hand always will. No one with an Ace will fold here given the pot size. By checking, you might even induce a bluff on the end. If you check and someone bets that you must call. If you check and it gets bet and raised back to you then you have a problem but mucking is probably right unless you know both the bettor and raiser to be very tricky.
While I agree that a better hand will never fold, I do not agree that a worse hand will never call. In fact, a worse hand will often call because of the size of the pot but a better hand will not check back if you check. As well, I think the chances of getting a worse hand to call are much greater than the chances of inducing a bluff in this protected pot.
That said, I would probably check here because of the sheer number of opponents. If, for example, I was up against only one opponent, I would bet based on the reasoning set out above.
Excellent skp. I agree that a worse hand will call. Many players will call with a 9 in this spot because of the size of the pot. But there are soooo many players here, that I believe, as Jim mentioned that a check/call strategy is best (and a check/muck is best if it is raised).
(n/t)
Any pair given the size of the pot.
I think the mistake you are making is that you are assuming that everyone will think rationally like you and fold a hand like 86 at the end because of the overwhelming chance that the guy driving the action had you beat all the way or just caught up when the Ace hit. But the fact is that many players will put in the last call on almost hopeless hands when the pot gets big.
I won a $777 pot last night on Planet where 2 players made dubious calls at the end. The overcall was in fact ridiculous.
I had 33 in the big blind. The board read:
3c6c7s9d7c in that order.
First caller had 9h8h (reasonable) while the second caller had 6d5d (down right silly call). Betting was capped on the flop (me and the guy with 98). On the turn, I led and got 3 callers. You just can't underestimate the magnetism between a big pot and the last call.
But given that this is a $30-$60 game how could someone have stayed this long with just any pair? With a pair of Jacks they would have raised pre-flop. With an over pair of Tens they would raised your flop bet. With pocket Deuces, Treys, or Fours they would not have hung around this long. This leaves pocket Eights or pocket Fives or Ten-Nine. Now you raised out of your small blind after many players limped in so you are marked with a good hand like AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK, AQ, or maybe AJ suited AND you continued to lead all the way through the turn. Once the Ace falls there is absolutely no hand a pair of Eights, Fives, or Nines can beat. I would submit that the probability of someone holding one of these three hands AND calling your river bet is so small as to be negligible. But it is quite likely someone has an Ace or just a better hand than yours. A river bet simply cannot be good poker here.
There you again Jim...assuming that everyone plays as well as you do.
Let me ask you this (and remember that we are talking about a different situation than the one the original poster put up because I too would check in that situation given the number of opponents).
So, let's assume that there are only 2 opponents instead of the 4 or whatever the initial poster had.
Now, if you check your QQ, I think you will agree that someone with a better hand will bet and you will call. Also, I think you will agreee that no will raise you unless they have a 7 or a straight. A vast majority of the time, you will have heard from a 7 or a straight on the turn so the chances of that are slim.
Thus, when someone has a better hand, you are going to lose the same amount reagrdless of whether you bet or check.
But if someone has a worse hand, my bet can fetch me another $60. Not always but I will at times gain that $60. The only way you will gain that $60 is if you induce a bluff and that is way more unlikely than the possibility of someone calling with a worse hand. In a pot that size, very few players will bluff because they put you on exactly what you have: a hand like QQ with which you will call.
A big part of my win rate is value betting the river. I see too many guys putting on the brakes way too often on the river.
If you think that no player can have a hand like 98 or 86 (i.e they play too good to stick around with those hands), why would you think that they are bad enough to stick around with a lonely Ace (unless they were on a Ace high flush draw). And as I said before, if they hit an Ace, you lose the same regardless of whether you bet or check.
There are also several intangible benefits from value betting the river:
In other situations, you give greater cover for your bluffs. You also make people think twice about calling you on the the turn because they know they are going to have to call you twice. I find it is a lot easier to call someone on the turn when there's a good chance that he will not value bet the river if anything remotely scary comes out.
In sum and with respect, I say that a river bet in these types of situations is very good poker.
Good post. I agree that a bet is often called for against 2 opponents. In sum, an ace probably won't raise if you bet, but will probably bet if you check, and since you have to call a bet anyway if you check, you might as well bet yourself. Which is just the short version of what you said.
Against 4 opponents, I would generally tend to check, though, but I wouldn't necessarily argue against a bet.
-Sean
What if somebody (correctly) puts you on a big pair and raise-bluffs the river against you? Do you call the river if you get raised?
Good question but rarely applicable in the games that I play in as river bluff raises are just about unheard of. Perhaps, they occur more frequently in 30-60 because of the advanced play there...I don't know.
But if that is a factor in the game that you are in, then I would think you may have a little more reason to check. Of course, if you can count on a particular opponent to bluff raise way too often, then you bet more often and call his raise....heck, in the case of two opponents, the bluffer may help you knock off the guy who just outdrew you on the river!
This particular hand may not be the best hand to illustrate the concepts you discuss here. I agree that maximizing profit for value betting on the river helps the bottom line a lot. I also agree that it makes it harder for your opponents to read you.
As far as assuming your opponents play rationally vs. irrationally, I think that you just have to somehow factor in that they may be playing irrationally. In your $20-40 online hand post I made a list of things to consider. After thinking about my post some I decided that I may have left something crucial off of that list. I think this goes along with assessing the rationality of your opponents. If your opponent basically only thinks on the level of trying to read your hand while you think about what his hand is and you think about what he thinks you have, it makes it possible to make inspired plays like picking off bluffs with weak hands. In the $20-40 online hand you posted if your opponent was capable of thinking about what you had and thinking about what you thought he had, you may have been in a little trouble. So I would add that considering your opponents thinking level should have been added to the list and it is very helpful in trying to assess your opponents in general.
Studying and understanding the chapter "Heads Up on the End" will put mucho dinero in your pocket. This chapter alone way more than pays for the price of the book.
Playing QQ perfectly until the river. You got lucky they didn't have you beat. Because that Ace sure had deon lights flashing "Danager Will Robinson, Danager."
SPM,...sometimes the river can be a flash flood, but not this time...
:) Congrads!
In hindsight, I think the river bet was unnecessary, and probably wasn't the best play, so I tend to agree with most of your posts. I am not convinced though, that a weaker hand such as 98s or 109s would not call here. Given the pot size, someone with a pair I thought would keep me honest. Anyhow, thanks for the insight.
Those of you who metioned would fold to a bet on the river- you should re-evaluate. The pot is laying you 10-1 on the river to one bet. To a bet and a raise, of course you can safely muck.
10/20 Holdem, I am 4 off the button and raise with two red Queens. 2 players call my raise cold, as well as both blinds ($100 in pot). Flop comes TJK with 2 clubs and it is checked to me. I bet and only the BB calls. Turn is 4 of clubs and BB bets out. What is my play. One other consideration is that my image at this table is probably weak tight and the BB is very good player who is capable of putting a move on me.
To analyze this hand it's important to know what the suits were on the flop, i.e. which cards were clubs.
-Sean
I think Calvin is concerned he is already against a made flush here and is drawing dead if he calls. Why does it matter which two of the three flop cards are clubs?
If he has a read the BB may be making a move here I think he should call the BB down here. The pot is laying him 6-1 for this call and he may even be in the lead. The BB could be betting the Ac or AT, AJ, etc.
If Calvin is behind to two pair or a K, but not a flush, he is drawing to an open ender or Q to win the pot and the pot odds say call.
I am guessing that the reason Sean wanted to know which cards were clubs - and it's an excellent question - is along the lines of...
If the flop contained the "Kc", the pre-flop raisor couldn't have top pair AND a flush draw on the flop, ergo he cannot now have the flush if he flopped top pair. If the King was the off card (not a club), the PFR can now have a flush, making it very hard for the "good player" to move him off his hand.
I have found it to be very difficult to bluff out a player who is holding the nuts, or even second nuts - in fact, I don't know of anyone who will cooperate and make this lay-down. (LOL)
On a serious note, there is a term - the exact name escapes me at the moment - which refers to a situation where you do not have the nuts, but because you hold the "blocking card" you can be 100% certain that your opponent doesn't hold them [the nuts] either. However, your opponent CANNOT be sure you don't.
This comes up alot in no-limit (or pot- limit), especially Omaha.
Holding this card allows you to "raise with impunity"; i.e., you can raise knowing that your opponent can't raise you back.
An example would be if you held Ac,Qd and the board was Kc,Jc,Th,2c. If your opponent bets and you raise ( whether or not this is a good raise is not the point, I am just using this to illustrate the concept ), it would be very hard for your opponent to re-raise. He CANNOT have the nuts, and he has to at least consider the possibility that you do. You don't have to consider the possibility that he has the nuts; HE CAN'T.
Sean, if you read this I'm curious if this was your reason for asking which cards were suited.
J-D
I am guessing that the reason Sean wanted to know which cards were clubs - and it's an excellent question - is along the lines of...
If the flop contained the "Kc", the pre-flop raisor couldn't have top pair AND a flush draw on the flop, ergo he cannot now have the flush if he flopped top pair. If the King was the off card (not a club), the PFR can now have a flush, making it very hard for the "good player" to move him off his hand.
I have found it to be very difficult to bluff out a player who is holding the nuts, or even second nuts - in fact, I don't know of anyone who will cooperate and make this lay-down. (LOL)
On a serious note, there is a term - the exact name escapes me at the moment - which refers to a situation where you do not have the nuts, but because you hold the "blocking card" you can be 100% certain that your opponent doesn't hold them [the nuts] either. However, your opponent CANNOT be sure you don't.
This comes up alot in no-limit (or pot- limit), especially Omaha.
Holding this card allows you to "raise with impunity"; i.e., you can raise knowing that your opponent can't raise you back.
An example would be if you held Ac,Qd and the board was Kc,Jc,Th,2c. If your opponent bets and you raise ( whether or not this is a good raise is not the point, I am just using this to illustrate the concept ), it would be very hard for your opponent to re-raise. He CANNOT have the nuts, and he has to at least consider the possibility that you do. You don't have to consider the possibility that he has the nuts; HE CAN'T.
Sean, if you read this I'm curious if this was your reason for asking which cards were suited.
J-D
`
I see your both your points.Good thinking.
J-D I heard you the first time :o)
Sean - The King and Jack were clubs. As Hillbilly said I was concerned about a possible move being put on me, but in the end I agreed with Jim Briar that there were just too many ways I could be beat and folded.
Thanks, Calvin
I'm just guessing but I think you either raise or fold to fight another day. If he's making a move on you he may fold to a raise. If he re-raises it's a fold to you, but if he's weak he might just check the river.
SPM,...no math used here...
On the turn there is $180 in the pot and it costs you $40 to call. Even if he doesn't have a Club flush he only needs to have a King to have your hand beat. Furthermore, he could have a lot of other hands that are better than yours given that highly coordinated board. Is the Ac or the 9c an out? Not if he even has a single Club. I would fold.
100 dollars goes in preflop, then 20 more on the flop, so we're up to 120. Then when it's heads-up the BB bets 20. so it's 140-20 or 7-1 for this call. Did'nt David S. a few days ago say that headsup if you have atleast 15% chance of winning you don't fold?
Besides the math and the reasons I give in the "Hi Sean" post above I think Calvin is concerned he might be getting a move put on him here and I might make a stand here even if the chances weren't as favorable as they already are.
I would still fold. When you are beat you hardly have any chance of winning and if by some miracle you are ahead you can still end up loser a significant percentage of the time. Unless the guy is really tricky or just wacko I think folding is usually right.
The main reason to know which flop cards were clubs is to figure out the possible ways he could have a pair and flush draw, or what possible flush combinations he could have. I.e if the Kc is already on the board, that knocks out all of the Kxc hands he could have called a raise with, and a good player is a lot more likely to play a Kxs hand than, say, a Txs hand.
-Sean
nt = no text
Well, it is a real decision but I think you answered your own question. If this guy puts on moves often enough for you to read him as someone who is apt to juke and jive, then you probably have to call.
BTW, it is unlikely that he has a King as he would likely have raised you on the flop to try and limit the field. So, if you are beat, it is likely to a flush, perhaps a slowplayed straight, or who knows perhaps the 4 gave this guy two pairs.
Folding is definitely an option but if you simply fold every time a scare card comes out, you are toast. I mean, he could easily have a hand like QJ or even Acx having called the flop on a gutshot/backdoor draw.
You simply have to know your opponents in this situation and it sounds like this is a player you may have to call.
Hooty hooty hoo!
This is a situation that happened to me quite often lately at my home loose agressive game
Lets say i have AKo and am the small blind. the bettin is cap b4 the flop (i didnt have to raise since the other players took care of it)
6 players
flop is 245 rainbow and note that my opponents are able to play 2 4 offsuit for 40$ (10-20) under the gun.
i check (right or wrong?) and they all check to the button who bet (the button is the only good player with me in this game and his one of the preflop raiser, he 3 betted)
Should I fold, call or raise?
i dont expect any of my opponents to use the checkraise. they are too weak for that!
Ty for help
Charlie
The pot is laying you 13-1 here you definately do not fold. The question is whether to raise or not.
It's 7-1 against you to hit your gutshot and you may have outs to a A or K as well.
If your opponents are calling stations that you can't raise out of the hand just call.
If you think a raise will get you heads up with the good player then raise and maybe (since he is good) you can get him to lay down his probable overpair to the flop if you make a move at him on the turn or river.
...the pot is laying you 25-1 for your call here. you can raise and be reraised and still have odds to draw to your gutshot and overpairs.
This is a fold situation in my humble opinon. You have big cards, most of the players are from Any2card Town, which means this flop could fit them, but none of them bets the flop. The one good player made it 3 bets before the flop, and comes out swing after the flop. I got to put him on a hand like a big pocket pair.
Why waste the chips, wait for a better situation.
SPM,...if you play little cards you want a little card flop, when you play big cards, you want a big card flop...
Charlie doesn't fear a re-raise here. You don't think he should call 10 bucks to win 250 just because the solid player MIGHT have pocket Q's? The VoP (valley of patience) will become a deep, deep hole if you can't find AT LEAST a call here.
i discuss of this situation with my poker buddies and i got all kind of answers!! thats y i posted it here :)
Ty
Charlie
Charlie doesn't fear a re-raise here.
SPM; A raise is the least of Charlie's problems, he doesn't have anything, are we to call every rag flop just because we have over cards?
You don't think he should call 10 bucks to win 250 just because the solid player MIGHT have pocket Q's?
SPM; or pocket Aces, Kings, or even a set of rags.
The VoP (valley of patience) will become a deep, deep hole if you can't find AT LEAST a call here.
SPM; There are many holes in the VoP, but calling with nothing isn't one of them.
SPM,...just thinking out loud...
In a 30-60 game, I would fold. This is because I fear my cards are severely depleted in the remaining deck, and someone must have an overpair and is planning to raise. In an insane 2-4 style game, which may be what your home game is, I would raise. I would also raise in a 30-60 pot that didn't have so much raising preflop - smaller pot, but my cards are more live.
-Abdul
Hillbilly has the right idea, though you don't need to have a reasonable chance to get head-up for raising to be correct. You only need a reasonable chance that a few players may fold.
The game is 10/20 HE. I have JJ in middle position. Three people on my right limp including guy directly to my right--an extremely tight player (but aggresive). I call knowing that if i dont improve i must muck on the flop. One more limper to my left and cut off (another tight extemely aggressive player)raises. BB Calls first two limpers call guy to my right raises. I took a while and I thought "this is probably means AA or KK" and mucked. Pot became capped. Other than the guy on my right mucking on the turn and a J hitting the flop the results are not important. In retrospect i'm thinking that this is the type of pot i want to be in as an dog -- or did i make the right play. All comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
mmm 7 players and odds of makin a set are 7,5:1
u already have $20 in the pot... this is a clear call in my opinion!
Charlie
I only have 10 in the pot but regardless it is just one more bet to me; however, with knowledge of first raiser's play --i am fairly sure it will be capped. Does having to put in 4 sb pre-flop screw up my implied odds or because this is a 7 way pot do i have all the implied odds I could hope for
When 3 limp to you in middle position you should raise with JJ. All those that follow will have to pay 2 bets to continue. You probably have the best hand now and you don't want others to tag along cheaply. Your raise may give you the best position for the flop and beyond. Since you only called you are now in a pot with 7 probable players to see the flop. You may not now be winning as the betting developed, but you have correct odds to hit your set. you should call in this position.
Is it possible that you feel uncomfortable in this game. You may be playing scared if I am reading between the lines correctly?
Maybe but it's at least debatable. All 3 limpers and maybe others will call, and if the flop has an A, K or Q in it you are probably drawing to a 2-outer. So limping might be ok.
this is a clear call. It is already a big pot and will probably turn into a monster. If you don't hit your set release. your read of the player to your right having aces or kings I don't think was correct. when someone pulls the limp reraise maneuver it usually means they have high suited connectors. He folded the flop because it wasn't the correct suit.
The game is 10/20 HE. I have JJ in middle position. Three people on my right limp including guy directly to my right--an extremely tight player (but aggresive). I call knowing that if i dont improve i must muck on the flop. One more limper to my left and cut off (another tight extemely aggressive player)raises. BB Calls first two limpers call guy to my right raises. I took a while and I thought "this is probably means AA or KK" and mucked. Pot became capped. Other than the guy on my right mucking on the turn and a J hitting the flop the results are not important. In retrospect i'm thinking that this is the type of pot i want to be in as an dog -- or did i make the right play. All comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
I believe David and Mason, (who I'm inclined to listen very carefully to) recomend you would just call with JJ after three limpers, but raise if you were the first one in. After calling you would not fold to a re-raise behind you but call and hope to flop a set. If it is raised and re-raised before the action gets to you you would fold your JJ.
All raises need a good flop. Releasing the JJ after some good players turn up the heat, gives you no chance to spike a good flop. I think you need to see the flop before releasing.
SPM,...able to leap tall odds with a single card...
f
Your play is too tight here. I think you should raise with pocket Jacks even after 3 limpers. You probably have the best hand, you can flop a set, and furthermore there are thousands of flops where you will have an over pair to the board. An Ace, a King, or a Queen will flop about 55% of the time but 45% of the time under cards will flop. In other words about half the flops are favorable for your hand especially when you factor in the times that an Ace, King, or Queen flops and you flop a set. Your raise pulls into the pot many extra bets with you having the best of it. Having decided to just limp when it is raised and re-raised back to you by tight players you are probably up against AA,KK, or QQ. Folding may be right but I am not sure. I might still call and take a flop with all those players in the hand.
I'm thinking that this pot was defenitely big enough for you to see the flop. It sounds like the only person that had you "scared" was the guy to you right which you had position on. Two words, POT ODDS.
The blind structure is 10 and 15. I'm at a full table in a 15 - 30 ring game. Its folded to me and I'm on the button with 6c 6s. The SB is a younger player that has been fairly loose preflop, but no so loose post flop, he is a $1000 loser in the game. The BB is an older pot limit player that is very loose and bets his draws very strong, and he is at least a $1000 winner in the game. With this information whats your play?
Well it had been folded to me on the button a few times before, but I had complete trash and passed. So this time I feel my hand is strong enough so I raise. As expected both blinds called.
The flop is 8c 6h Jd. And both blinds check to you. Do you check as well (I occasionally do this when I've raised preflop and get alot of callers but miss completely)
I bet the SB folds and the BB calls. The turn is a Ks. BB checks, I bet and he calls.
The river is the As and the BB bets into me. What's my play? results will be posted under this post, so answer before you read them.
I thought about it, and put him on Aces up and I raised, he immediately came back over the top, and like the fish I am, I called. He had QT for the nuts. Did I lose 60 more then I should?
I think you should have raised his turn bet with your set (making him pay to beat you) and then check-called (paying off his straight) on the river.
You loose 60 dollars either way.
hard to raise a turn bet he doesn't make. I'm going to take a nap now. G'nite
As I posted below, your reraise was correct. Unless you have a dead-aim read, you had to pay it off also. Sometimes they get lucky.
As far as whether or not to play the 66 preflop, I don't really like it against a loose small blind as smallish pairs aren't very good 3 ways. But if the small blind often calls then folds on the flop, maybe it's no so bad.
I don't see any reason to check behind on the flop.
I would generally raise the river, but of course you were beaten since you're posting this hand. QT is the obvious answer, but since I don't like obvious answers, I'll give him a weirdly played AA. Is he the type of player that routinely takes an ace to the river against a late position raiser? If so, you have an easy raise, especially since someone who bets draws routinely is less likely to have check-called the flop with a gutshot and an overcard and check-called the turn with an open-ender.
-Sean
If you fully expect BOTH blinds to call any and all button raises, I would dump this low pair in a heartbeat, and look for a seat change. I'm sure there will be posters who consider this play wimpy, but I'm just going by your comments.
Now, if I felt there was at least a 50% chance that both blinds would fold, and another 15-20% chance that only 1 of them would call, a raise would be in order. You would be favored heads-up with position against one caller, and when you hit the dream set, they will not likely put you on it. Now on to this particular hand.
1. Do you check the flop? NO. You want to be able to raise on the button with a wide variety of hands to attack the blinds, and these players should know that you will probably bet here with just about anything when they check to you. Don't disappoint them. Nothing better than having the opposition give you money drawing thin to dead. Plus there are 3 cards reasonably close together, and no free gutshots, thank you.
2. 4th suit K on the turn, and you bet. No-brainer.
3. Now an Ace hits, and he bets. Do you raise? Of course you raise! I'm going to make this guy pay through the nose for going looking for an Ace, or makybe he's got something like A6, or A8, and he's really happy he hit his 2-pair. HeHeHe.
Now if you get re-raised, it becomes pretty close to hitting it again, or calling him down and having a look at his Q-T. If he's slowplayed pocket 8's all this way, he is a dangerous opponent, although you would think he would have check-raised you on the turn. I would favor a re-raise, because IMO he is much more likely to have tried to spike an Ace to make 2-pair than he is to have chased you down with just 2 overcards on the flop, and gone runnner-runner, although the King on the turn does give him an open-ender.
Now if you re-raise his check-raise and he raises it again (gulp), I guess I've cost myself another 2 BB's, but I still make the crying call because he maybe thinks his Ace's up is huge. He might not even consider you have a hidden set.
Going four bets is too many because it is possible he called the flop with QT on a gut shot which then became a double gutter on the turn. I would put in one raise and then just acll him down if he makes it 3 bets.
Well the obvious guess is that the BB is on Q-10. Since you said he bets his draws, he would probably be calling a gutshot on the flop. However, given that information, it's odd that he wouldn't bet out upon becoming open ended on the turn.
Of course, he could simply be on something like A-6. I think raising him is probably the proper play, but I might not be surprised if he turned over Q-10 for the straight.
David
raise pre-flop. You have position and a hand that is going to win much more than 33% against 3 random hands.
On the river, its not so clear. The ace could have made his straight, or it could have just made top pair and he thinks its good and doesnt want you to check it down. Is there a 33% or greater chance that he has his straight? I dont think so, so I would raise.
You should reraise. The range of hands he could have here that are losers greatly outweigh the possible hands that he could have that beat you.
Doug,
Before the flop I’m going to raise but this might be one of those hands where you just call, keep the pot small, and outplay them later per the advice in John Feeney’s book. I say this because it is highly likely you will have both blinds call. Two opponents for two bets is about as bad as it gets with a smallish pair. I would not even seriously consider folding.
”The flop is 8c 6h Jd. And both blinds check to you. Do you check as well (I occasionally do this when I've raised preflop and get a lot of callers but miss completely)”
I might be tempted to slowplay especially given that you often check when you miss. But betting is not bad.
”I bet the SB folds and the BB calls. The turn is a Ks. BB checks, I bet and he calls. The river is the As and the BB bets into me. What's my play?”
I would raise. I would think he might bet the draw on the turn so I wouldn’t worry about the straight much. If reraised you have to call as two pair is far more likely than a straight or bigger set but not that much more likely.
Regards,
Rick
Saturday I was playing in a 20-40 with a 1/2 kill game which allows the kill the be taken voluntarily at any time. We have a player who takes the kill whenever he is under the gun and raises his kill with first action over 95 percent of the time.
On Saturday this pattern was continuing. He raised and all folded to me in the cutoff. I had 44 and I made it three bets. (What does everyone think of this move?). The button and small blind folded and big blind called. I had wanted to create heads up play with the player who raised his kill.
The flop comes A 3 5 rainbow. It is checked to me and I bet. Both players call. The turn is 2 which gives me the straight. The big blind bets, UTG calls and I raise. (What does everyone think of this move?) both players call. The river was a J. Both players check and I bet. Both call. I show a straight and take down the pot.
I look forward to hearing responses.
Your 3 bet to isolate the maniac is a bit weak. u must be at least 90% sure u will get it head to head coz youre an underdog if not...
on the flop your bet is fine, they might fear an ace and go away
on the turn, your raise is a no brainer.
i just wonder what the heck they had to check a flop that contained an ace and then call to then bet the river when a deuce is on the board...
oh well i luv the fish
Charlie
Regarding what they could have had to check the flop and bet the turn when the deuce hit, I would suspect the big blind had an ace with a weak kicker, possibly a deuce. I often check-call on the flop with a pair of aces where I don't like my kicker for whatever reason, and sometimes will lead on the turn when a blank hits. (Other times I check-call the turn and lead on the river.) Savvy opponents will pop me with top pair/strong kicker when I lead, but weaker ones will just call on the turn and/or river whereas they'd have popped me if I lead on the flop, and some weaker ones will call down with underpairs, figuring that I'm pulling some weird bluff.
-Sean
My stock answer is that I don't like isolating with small pairs because unless you end up with a set/full house/straight, or a weird flop like 222, you'll have no clue where you're at in the hand, and 44 isn't favored by much over any random garbage the raiser might have, with the exception of hands with 3s and 2s in them. Although if the loose raiser plays passively and predictably after the flop, maybe they're ok.
Your postflop play was fine.
-Sean
This time I haven't checked the other responses but I'll be sure to go back.
With a little patience, I think you can find a better spot to isolate. I understand that there's a good chance you hold a better hand than the kill, but there are 3 players yet to be heard from. Also, the type of player who would voluntarily post kills then raise at whim, can be difficult to play against with such a vulnerable holding as a pair of fours, even with position.
As to your second question about raising the turn... What move? You raised with the most likely best hand. Nothing wrong with that.
I will occasionally 3 bet an unimaginative, tight player with small pocket pairs, esp. if I feel I can outplay them on later streets. I feel as you play higher limits, you need to vary your play more, and this can be one way if you can play well post-flop. Maniacs are a little tougher to deal with- I would suggest picking a better spot to take on the maniac.
Raising the turn here is a the only play.
I am in the big blind and I have KK. I raise out of the big blind and have 5 players in the pot. The flop comes J 10 8 rainbow. I bet and it comes back 4 handed capped. What should I do? Results later.
unless they are all horrible loose agressive players, u must fold here. u are drawing dead if someone has 7-9 or 9Q and u are playin a 2 outer if someone has a set. if it cme back capped, it means 3 ppl raised... sure at least one of them has sumetin more interestin than AJ or is rammin and jammin with his draw...
Charlie
Ask if you can get your $60 back. If they say no, fold.
Matt,
I'll assume reasonable or typical opponents. You caught a nightmare flop and your three opponents indicate that they are very strong and/or at least have strong draws. The only safe parlay would be to catch a king and have the board pair (and with this action you could be up against quads). In the meantime, you can figure that you will pay a high price to get there. I would fold and wait for a better spot for your kings.
Regards,
Rick
Save your money and chuck the hand now. Unless you are playing with complete maniacs someone probably has a straight but at the least two pair or trips. In any case you have very few outs.
I've read the other responses and can't add much. Yes, you may have outs but there's just too much heat in this here fire. You'll get kings again soon enough, with hopefully a more favorable flop and conditions.
I did fold. There were two players with two pair and a straight out there.
Wise decision, Matt. You saved yourself money which can be better utilized on the next opportunity.
I’ve always been impressed by the way 'top players' (being ever cognizant of dynamic changes in table image), can squeeze extra value from a previous situation. I think I failed to do that here. I'd appreciate all comments.
Hand #1 - It’s a 10-20 game with a 1/2 kill. I posted the $15 kill in mid position. UTG who plays a reasonably solid mix of hands, (but does not raise light pre-flop, and plays slightly passive after the flop), raised. It was folded to me in the kill. I re-raised with AKo. Since I couldn't fold, I thought it best to invest another 2 bets (not 3 bets since I posted the kill) and get heads up to give my AK a slightly better chance. I also thought that how UTG responded to this re-raise, might give me a clue about his hand. Unfortunately, a loose late position player called $45 cold, and a very good player in the sb called $40 cold. 4-way. Pot = $190.00
Flop came 864. It was checked to UTG who bet. The sb's check might be very good news for me. I decided to raise for many of the same reasons I had pre-flop. Both loose player and sb folded, UTG called. It was now heads up.
Turn was a 5. UTG checked. This check told me little. I figure if he has an overpair he will check/raise. In the meantime, I may have or be tied for the best hand. Since I might want a free showdown, I decide to follow through and fire another bet on the turn. He calls.
The river was an A. He checked, I bet, he called. I had sucked out on his JJ! (sb threw away AKs). I will accept any comments or criticism on my play of this hand, but my real question is how this should have affected my play on the next one.
Hand #2 - About 2 hours later, this same player raised again in early position. This time I had KK in late position. I had made a mental note of the previous hand and knew I had an opportunity to gain a little extra because of the way I had previously played a no pair hand like AK . I re-raised, he called. Heads up.
The flop came T83. He bet, I raised, he re-raised, I called. He was not aggressive enough to bet again or check raise the turn with a worse hand, if I capped the flop. Had I thought different, I would've capped the flop at 4 bets. Also, in a different time and situation I might have just called the flop and raised the turn.
The turn was a 4. He bet, I raised, he called.
River was a Q. He checked and here is where I may have developed some fuzzy thinking. Since hand #1, I had not seen him raise with anything but a big pair. If this still held true, then I can only be ahead to JJ. Everything else beats me. I couldn't even rule out TT because there was an additional hand we played where I raised him on the turn and he just called (knowing I would fold to a re-raise?), and check raised me on the river (which I folded) and he showed me trips. So he could be check raising here with TT OR QQ. KK is unlikely, and AA beats me. I didn't think he'd call with too many hands I could beat with the exception of JJ, AQ (which I thought was unlikely) and possibly AK (given hand #1). I checked behind him and again beat his JJ.
How bad was my non bet on the river? Did I miss the chance to capitalize on hand #1 by failing to squeeze that extra bet in on the river ? Or was this a prudent check behind him? Thanks for all responses.
Kevin
Kevin,
Don't you ever post easy questions? I think you played both hands well. Mostly because you thought it out so clearly.
If I put that much thought into a hand I was playing I might become dangerous. But don't worry, my attention span is some where between 3-8 seconds.
SPM,...playing by seat of his cape...
Thanks SPM. But it's always easier to assume a hand was played well when the 'hero' wins it. I just thought there may have been some subtle lines to read between, which I often need help with.
Kevin
Kevin,
As you know, I am huge fan of value betting the river.
As your post indicates, he was a fairly solid player - too solid I would think to try and check raise the river. He had to have JJ - I think he would play back at you on the turn with AA or the other KK and I think he would bet the river with QQ.
I think you will find that for every time you get check-raised and have to pay off or fold, you will get paid off by a lesser hand much more often than you will get trapped. This makes a huge difference over the long run.
Just some thoughts...
Michael D. (Soccer/Sucker Mike D)
Thanks Mike.
Believe me, I wanted to bet for value in the worst way and often I might. I just didn't like the queen. Especially when you consider a solid player is not supposed to have AQ given the action that led to the river. And let's face it, he's really not even supposed to call the end with JJ under normal circumstances (but that's why I posted the previous hand). So what's left?
I guess I incorrectly reasoned that I was risking two bets (if he check raised) to win one, and I just couldn't see where that one would come from. Can you help me out some more with this?
Kevin
Kevin,
I am not saying you are wrong at all for checking the river here. Given the action, and assuming he is a solid player, a check may be the wisest course of action most of the time.
However, based on the fact that you way overplayed your prior hand against him, I feel that you would not be out of line by value betting the river. He IS going to pay you off after he saw you overplay and turn over the AK against him earlier in the session. On that particular hand, you had him checking/calling when he should have been betting/raising, and calling when he should have been folding. This was probably playing in his mind, maybe just subconsciously, but it was still there when you know had the KK against his JJ, 99, AK, KK, AQ, etc (including the 1010 and QQ and AA where you get stuck paying off 2 bets instead of 1 if he check raises)
You probably made a wise move, but I just love to absoutely punish decent players (or ones who try to play well) when I am in a hand with them - whether I have the best of it going into the river, or get there on the river, I want them to know it is going to cost them the whole way.
In regards to this hand, I feel that given that you rate him as a solid player, your overplay on the prior hand actually setup the value bet on the river. Normally, AA would be a value betting hand here, but I also would have stepped out with KK simply because he saw what you were pounding before and this might encourage him to pay you off. It actually would have been interesting to find out if he would have called - just to see how prone to tilt he was - If he lays down the JJ here, now you can move on him with lesser hands later as well. Isn't position great!!
OK - Thats all for now.
Just some thoughts...
Michael D. (Soccer/Sucker Mike D.)
Hey Kev,
I tend to agree with what Mike is saying. I would think that a solid player is going to let you know were he's at on the turn. I can understand your concern when he check raised on the river in the last hand but, you created action by playing your AK strongly. If he was solid I'm thinking he might try a value bet or raise if he thought you had nothing because of the last hand, so he's paying you off.
Adam "The rookie"
Okay I re-read it and based on your statements the wisest bet on the river is a no bet.
SPM, an oz of reflection is worth a pound of reckless betting...
Forget my post what ever the Chairman thinks is what I'm going to start thinking.
SPM,...out of his league...
I agree. You won't go wrong taking his counsil.
I hate copping out by offering the answer, "it depends", but to offer you any really useful advice I would have to have been there - or at least know ALOT more about your opponent... how he plays in general, and how he was paying that night.
From what info I have, you do not seem to have given up much, if anything, by checking - although I do agree 100% with Michael D.'s philosophy; it would have been a nice chance to bet, get called, and show down a real hand.
Final thought - my appologies if you answered this in any of your posts - if you were even contemplating the idea of betting and folding if you got check-raised, a bet would have been an horrendous idea.
Why "invite" him to blow you off your hand - and the "Q" was a scary card; while you were very likely the have the best hand even after it fell ["Q"], there were now not alot of [worse] hands that can call you if you bet.
- In a word, it is going to take a great deal of convincing to get me to believe you missed a "great bet".
IMO, this is a situation where right and wrong are incredibly difficult to determine.
I am fond of the expression "no-brainer"; this was NOT one of them.
J-D
Thanks for your input J-D.
I definitely call a check raise. This is why I considered a bet to be a "risk two to gain one" proposition. As I stated in response to Michael D., I just couldn't see too many hands where that one bet gain would come from which was I checked. Thanks again.
Kevin
hi
iwas in florida thsi summer and i dont htink poker was allowed there either.. but they had cruises into international waters.... is this possible in hawaii as well.. DESPERATE TO PLAY POKER!!!
poker/gambling cruises were not deemed economically feasible in hawaii. like I said in my e-mail to you, your best bet is to find a good home game.
poker/gambling cruises were not deemed economically feasible in hawaii.
Local 10-20 Hold'em game at the casino last night.
There has been a lot of pre-flop raising by some maniac who overplays his hands. He will raise and re-raise with any top pair or overpair. I am 2 seats left of the BB and look down to see QsQh. I just limp. Player to my left folds, then the next player to his left (we'll call him Gambler) calls. Player to Gambler's left, a lady who currently has 3000 in front of her and has been hitting all night long, calls. Maniac raises just as I predicted. SB and BB fold and when it comes back to me I back-raise 3 bets. All call to the maniac who caps it.
Flop comes
3 5 7 rainbow.
I bet, Gambler calls, lady raises, maniac calls. At this point I put maniac on a two card overdraw, either AK or AQ or AJ or even A10. He might also be chasing a backdoor flush too. Anyways, I 3 bet it, Gambler calls, lady caps. The lady is an extremely hard player to read. She can sometimes play very well, other times she'll gamble, other times she'll make very bad calls, but one thing is sure..she is getting very very lucky tonight. Anyways, everyone calls.
Turn comes a Jack of diamonds giving a backdoor diamond draw.
I bet out again, gambler calls, lady just calls proving to me that she is on the straight draw, and maniac raises. Now I put him on one jack. I three-bet, gambler calls, lady calls, and maniac caps.
Question: How was my turn play and what should I do on the river?
River card is the killer card - a 6 spades.
I check, gambler checks, lady bets. Maniac starts swearing and calls. I show my pocket Queens to the player on my right and muck them. Gambler also folds. Lady shows A4 offsuit and river's a gutshot straight. Maniac shows AJ offsuit.
Comments?
The Fish
When a player thinks they are lucky, they will chase forever and sometimes hit. That's what happened with this lady. I would have called the river however, seeing as if she was on a gutshot straight draw, she could have been just as likely to have the 6 and decided to bluff you out when the river came. By my quick calculation, there is $680 in the pot when you fold, so for your last $20, you are getting 34-1 odds. You don't have to catch her bluffing very often for this call to be good.
Other than that, I don't really see anything you can do. If someone wants to pay 8 big bets to chase a gutshot, well, the odds are higher than zero that they will hit once in a while. Unfortunately!
David
It would be nice if every post wasn't a bad beat, and if so many posters weren't out here to hear how great they played, and how unlucky they got. What do you want people to say? A chimp knows you outplayed everyone at the table badly and lost. What are you going to learn?
...that the posters theory of just limping and letting the maniac start the raising might have a flaw or two.
If our poster is sure the maniac will raise then all the more reason to raise early as then he will be able to cap it when it get's back to him. And the lady might think "Gee, it's 2 bet's to me, the maniac might 3 bet it and then the original early raiser might cap it, maybe I better muck my A4 offsuit"
Given the description of the lady's play however it's quite possible she call's an initial early raise and then the two that follow anyways.
But it's better to raise first and let her make one more mistake.
I would only call on the turn when raised, too many ways some moron could have you drawing to two outs. Some of the time I'll call the river since the pot is huge and success is needed only rarely to justify this final big bet.
-Fred-
It seems you had a great read on all the players. If you would have raised pre-flop before the lady limped in, would she have mucked the A4off?
SPM,...looking at another angle...
Do you want her to muck the A4o?
~Do you want her to muck the A4o?~ Absolutely
With QQ up front you want to eliminate as many opponents and overcards as possible. And hopefully get heads up with the maniac here.
You have characterized this as a gutshot and everyone has demonized her play as insane or based on the fact that she is lucky on this night... By my count, if the flop was 3-5-7, her A4, however questionable before the flop, is now a pretty good draw (double gutter at a 2 or 6)...
I kind of agree with the guy above who says this becoming a forum for bad beat stories... What is your question? There are drawbacks to limp reraising to "isolate" the maniac... If you are sophisticated enough to put such a scheme into practice, you can probably analyze the benefits/downfalls. You played the turn too fast, there are too many ways the maniac can have you drawing dead or close and the pot is already monsterous... Also, I am not sure I'd lay this down on the end. 34-1 ... pretty long odds. Are you say this woman could NEVER bluff. You've already mischaracterized her play as "blindly chasing a gutshot"... What else might you be wrong about? Call the end...
I don't think The Fish is looking for our sympathy and I don't think he was posting this as a bad beat story. He lost a hand where had he chosen to raise pre-flop he may very well have won. I think the Fish made a poor pre-flop decision and I commend him for posting this hand so that he can get some feedback and hopefully improve his play. I also think the lady is semi-retarded for cold-calling a raise with A-4o.
You Played It Perfect, Including the Muck on the end
Mr. Fish:
You describe the maniac as someone who is always betting and raising top pair top kicker or overpairs. This does not make him a maniac, that is what he is supposed to do. On the other hand you just limped in with QQ letting miss lucky in with A4o for 1 bet (even though she should have folded even for 1 bet) She then felt tied to the pot after subsequent reraises.
Now that YOU let her in she flopped a double belly buster (same as an open ended str8) with an overcard. She can't fold now. Her turn play was a little weird and it should have slowed you down. She might of had J7 or anything else.
I probably would call the river for 1 more bet with the over pair. I think if you ever limp with QQ's you open the door for this kind of bad beat.
First, I have no idea why people in this thread replied to say that "If you had raised, maybe A4o would have folded." Of course you don't want A4o to fold when you have QQ! Getting A4o to play for 4 bets as opposed to 0 is a huge coup, and even more so when there's already a bigger ace out.
Second, the river fold is horrible. The pot is large, and it's not uncommon for a bad player holding a second best hand to bet out on the river when checked to, figuring they have the best hand. In a pot that large, you should call just based on the chance that the lady misread her hand, let alone that she's making a dumb river bet. I have no idea why you mentioned twice that the lady has been "getting lucky" tonight, but I suspect that's why you made the fold, and it's horrible reasoning for a horrible decision. Many novice and intermediate level players pride themselves on making good laydowns on the river, but you only need to be right a very tiny percentage of the time for the call to be correct, which is why you MUST make many loose calls on the river.
-Sean
Sean,
If you want everyone with a lesser hand to call why would you ever raise AA? It's because a whole table full of junk hands playing for 1 bet make you a huge dog to all of them put together.
You dont want anybody at the table to fold if you have AA. 9 callers when I have a hand that wins 35% of the time against 9 callers is like heaven to me. The ONLY reason you raise pre-flop with AA is to get more money into the pot. Give me a 10 way capped pot pre-flop everytime with AA.
Actually there is a perfect number of opponents for AA and its around 7 to 8 opponents. What I mean is 7 to 8 opponents gives you the most bang for your buck.
Same with QQ. The only hands you dont want against you are AA or KK. Everything else you want to call. If an overcard hits (which will happen around 46% of the time), then you probably have to dump the Qs. But I will take QQ up against as many opponents as possible (as long as none of them are AA or KK).
much of their value in a large multiway pot and I can't possibly believe what you say is true.In fact, I might have nightmares tonite if I get to sleep at all.
First, it's a complete myth that big pocket pairs lose their value in a multiway pot. I have no idea who started this myth but I want to shoot him or her because I swear that I have to reply to that myth about 2 or 3 times a week. Two things are true: first, big pocket pairs win less often in multiway pots. That's indisputable. But more money is going into the pot, so the pots that big pairs win will be bigger. Second, it's true that the value of AA won't increase at a constant rate, i.e. if it would win $60 against 3 opponents, it's not going to win $120 against 6, but it's certainly not going to win less than $60. It would probably win somewhere between $80-$100.
Trust me, this topic has been rehashed hundreds of times on this board, RGP, etc. When you have a big pair, you want to play against more people for more money. You can debate whether raising or limp-reraising is the best way to accomplish this goal, but you certainly shouldn't be arguing that you want to knock out A4o when you have QQ, when the alternative is getting A4o to play for 4 bets!
-Sean
and thank you for taking the time to reply. I am trying to understand this concept and as no others have come to my defense here I must be wrong.
On pg 18 of my HEPFAP (1994 edition) it states and I quote "If no one has yet called, almost always raise with AA,KK,QQ,AK, and AQ. Part of the reason to raise with these hands is that they lose much of their value in large multiway pots." End of quote
I don't have to tell you who the author of this "myth" is and sure hope I have not taken anything out of context as I don't want to get David or Mason shot :o)
Anyways this is why I thought the way I did on the matter and if I took this passage in a way it wasn't meant or intended I am truly sorry as I am just trying to share what I truly believed to correct with the board.
I am sorry if this topic has has been discussed ad infinitum as I have no desire to beat a dead (or a live) horse.
I do hope you scroll down to see this reply before it disappears as I appreciate you not giving up on me with this matter as I have had a tough time with it and I will certainly re-think with an open mind my thoughts on this matter.
"On pg 18 of my HEPFAP (1994 edition) it states and I quote "If no one has yet called, almost always raise with AA,KK,QQ,AK, and AQ. Part of the reason to raise with these hands is that they lose much of their value in large multiway pots." End of quote"
It is a myth that AA, KK, and QQ lose value in large multiway pots. These hands play great multiway. But if your on the button and its folded to you, then definitely raise. Its better to steal the blinds than to let the blinds see a free flop.
AKs and AQs do lose value in large multiway pots, but not as much as people think. The still win more than their fair share of the pots multiway. (see TTH, Abdul, and Gary Carson's book)
But if your on the button and its folded to you, then definitely raise. Its better to steal the blinds than to let the blinds see a free flop.
Whoa. You really, really don't want to steal the blinds with AA or KK, as they're worth a whole lot more than that, and if you suspect that there's a decent chance of stealing the blinds with AA or KK, it's much better to let the blinds see a free flop and try to pair up than to raise and just steal the blinds. In practice, I do almost always raise with AA or KK when everyone folds around to me in late position, but that's mainly because it's too conpicuous to open-limp there. Anyone with a vague clue will be able to figure out if I open-limp on the button that I probably have AA or KK and won't give me much action, and also I open-raise with a lot of hands on the button, and I don't want my opponents to think I can't have AA/KK when I open-raise. But, as Abdul says, it's a disaster to steal the blinds with AA or KK, which is why I would limp with these hands if I thought I had a decent chance of stealing the blinds, and I could limp without appearing too conspicuous.
AKs and AQs do lose value in large multiway pots, but not as much as people think.
Not AKs and AQs; the suited element makes them go up in multiway pots. That's why HFPAP recommends sometimes limping with those hands, and that's why when facing a raise with no one else yet in the pot, it can be more profitable to flat call with AKs but 3-bet with AKo, whereas most people's inclination would be to do the opposite. AKo and AQo might go down in value in large, multiway pots, but probably not by all that much, which is what I think you meant to say.
One more comment that I forgot to put in my other reply--it is true that there's a maximum number of opponents that AA can handle, and after that amount it does start to go down in value, but that maximum number is pretty large. I think the sims I did suggested that 8 was the optimal number of opponents, which corresponds with what you said in another post in the thread.
-Sean
"Whoa. You really, really don't want to steal the blinds with AA or KK, as they're worth a whole lot more than that, and if you suspect that there's a decent chance of stealing the blinds with AA or KK, it's much better to let the blinds see a free flop and try to pair up than to raise and just steal the blinds."
You are right, AA and KK are worth much more than the blinds. You would love to have 3 or 4 people call. BUT if your on the button and everybody folds to you, would you rather have a 100% chance of winning 1.5 bets or a 72.3% (85% * 85%) chance of winning 4 or 5 bets?
I would say its pretty close because your going to lose 5 or more bets the 28% of the time you do lose, but your going to gain around 3 bets the times you win. It is probably slightly more EV smooth calling. Except that the BB has a very high chance of calling anyway, especially considering your open-raising from the button. That is screaming steal. You might get a call (or re-raise) from both blinds. Then you can smooth call until the turn and then pop it.
Plus, I would rather be heads up with the BB for 2 bets than 3 way for 1 bet. I think I would, at least. I haven't done the math to see which has the higher EV.
In the 20/40 game I play in, if somebody smooth calls on the button I either put them down as having a big pair, or as a total calling station.
If I smooth called anything from the button, the blinds (if the knew me) would fall out of their chair.
I certainly don't mind going over this stuff again, but it does seem to come up a lot. (BTW, you should definitely read all of the material in the archives if you haven't already.) As far as the passage in HPFAP is concerned, there is a fair amount of material in some of the 2+2 books that's poorly or vaguely worded, which is a real shame because the 2+2 stuff is among the best material out there. Regarding that particular passage, as long as your definition of value is "What will earn a good player the most money?" then AA doesn't go down in value against multiple opponents. If you asked David "Would you rather play AA against 6 opponents for 2 bets or 3 opponents for 2 bets?" I would be very surprised if he chose the latter option. AA is probably tougher for novices to play against 6 opponents than 3, though, especially ones who get married to pocket pairs despite a scary board, so perhaps some people are better off playing big pairs against a small field. If the choice is 6 for 1 bet or 3 for 2, you're probably better off with 3 opponents for 2 bets, which is why you often should only go for a limp-reraise if you're fairly sure the pot will be raised behind you, or if you think there's a high chance of stealing the blinds if you raise. In almost all low-limit games and many mid-limit games, it's correct to open-raise with AA, and I probably open-raise with AA at least 90% of the time I'm dealt it.
-Sean
-Sean
I follow an Abdulian style pre-flop. If I'm coming in, I'm raising. There are many players in my 20/40 game where I can fold AQ because I know its trash when they raise. I dont ever want to be that predictable. Because I will raise KQ, KTs, A8s and A9s before the flop, I get 3 bet by AQ all the time. Amazingly, when I raise I still get any ace and any two royalty to call. I like that. When I raise, I want action. Plus, a lot of times I can raise AA or KK and get a re-raise. Then I can cap it and still get 4 or 5 customers.
The only problem with this is that you get played with a lot on the flop because people dont fear that big pocket pair when I raise.
"Second, it's true that the value of AA won't increase at a constant rate, i.e. if it would win $60 against 3 opponents, it's not going to win $120 against 6, but it's certainly not going to win less than $60. It would probably win somewhere between $80-$100."
It all depends on the hands that people are holding, but in general there is a finite number of opponents that AA plays best against. From my calculations, its around 7 to 8 opponents. Tom Weidman (hope I spelled his name right) has a great post on one of the RGP archives about this exact calculation.
So, for every dollar you put in the pot AA will return the highest profit at 7 or 8 opponents. Which means basically that at a 10 handed table you only want one or two to fold.
I replied in more detail in the "Joe is right" post below, but I'll make a couple more quick comments. First, being a "huge dog" to all of the junk hands does not make it a money dog. It might only win 40% of the time against 8 opponents, but that's still a huge overlay, and the more bets those opponents put in the pot, the better. The object is to win the most money, not the most pots, and the reply you made about "limping with QQ causes bad beats" seems to indicate that you might be more concerned with winning pots than winning money. The only exception might be if you were underbankrolled or in a shortstacked situation where you couldn't rebuy, like in a tournament.
As far as why to raise with AA when there are still people left to act, I mainly do it because there's no guarantee that someone else will raise for me, so I often raise to guarantee that anyone who plays will play for 2 bets. But limp-reraising is certainly a viable strategy, and when you know someone's likely to raise for you and cap it if you 3-bet, that works out fine.
-Sean
...just a matter of time before David boots Rick out of his top 5 list or whatever and gets you in there:)
...unless you are already there along with Rick...
"AA" may win ~ 1/3 of the time against nine RANDOM opponents, but even bad players are not playing totally random cards, nor are they going to the river with them when the flop and turn miss them completely.
Granted, if you play even fairly well [post-flop] "AA" will win a ton of money against any number of opponents - BUT,
they do lose value ( albeit not much ) in pots with too many players, assuming these players are starting out with hands that are at least reasonable.
Two words: "Morten's Theorum"
Three more words: reverse implied odds
Here is a contrived ( but completely plausible ) scenario that may - or may not - convince you to at least re-think the "bring 'em all on" approach you seem to possess re: "AA". It applies to "KK" and "QQ" as well, but not to the same extent since with the latter two you don't have the luxury of knowing you are off to the best start.
You are in a game with nine weak, but sane, players.
The first two limp in; they are both likely to be holding pretty good hands as even weak players are starting to toss hands like 97-off into the muck from early position - at least most are.
You raise with "AA". All call, including both blinds.
The hands you are up against include:
two or even three pocket pairs -
a couple of suited-connectors ( if luck is on your side the suits may be duplicated, but the odds are they aren't ) -
a suited Ace ( there goes most of your sets; there go all of your sets if two of your opponents are playing this holding ) -
the other hands can range anywhere from the other two Aces down to the 64 offsuits of the world; I might even play this from the big blind against nine opponents if the raisor was close to my left - there is not likely to be any more raising.
If the flop comes down two-suited, which it will over 60% of the time, there is a very good chance that somebody is drawing to that suit; obviously if it comes down all of the same suit you are in knee-deep if you don't hold THAT Ace. ( This only occurs about 5% of the time, but it's a much bigger problem if you are facing nine opponents.)
If the flop comes with a pair, it's about 50/50 whether someone holds a card of that rank. Paired flops come ~ one time in six.
It is a virtual certainty that someone will flop a straight draw if the flop contains no pair; virtual certainty might be an overstatement, but not much of one.
Where is the old "Q-7-2" (rainbow) when you need it ?
- It probably fell last the last time you were holding AKs, or JJ.
IF one of the pocket pairs doesn't flop, turn ( or even river ) a set - AND,
IF nobody gets there with their draw - AND,
IF somebody doesn't flop, turn, or river two pair -
you're going to win a nice pot.
Are you sure you wouldn't like to see at least three or four of those hands hit the muck before the flop ?
Nine opponents is not the optimal number to have when holding "AA".
I have done some simulations - all of which are no doubt flawed in one way or another - but they seem to indicate either 3 or 4 to be the optimal #, ideally the blinds fold and leave behind a little dead money.
Question:
UTG raises, six call, you are on the button with a small/ medium pocket pair, or QJs/JTs. Do you call ? ( It could be a leak in my pre-flop play, but I can't get my money in there fast enough - especially with the pair. It's alot of fun to flop a set and have someone at the other end of the table doing the betting.)
If you answered no to both questions, the next one [should be] a moot point, BUT
Do you call if you are 100% sure he has "AA" ? ( Maybe another leak, but I call twice as quickly as before - if I hit my hand my implied odds are staggering.)
Well, if you call in this spot, isn't the other guy doing the right thing when HE calls ?
I hope this post receives some feedback. If these are bad calls I would like to know about it; I've made a fortune from them - I hope I don't have to stop making them.
J-D
....what took you so long? :0)
Question:
UTG raises, six call, you are on the button with a small/ medium pocket pair, or QJs/JTs. Do you call ? ( It could be a leak in my pre-flop play, but I can't get my money in there fast enough - especially with the pair. It's alot of fun to flop a set and have someone at the other end of the table doing the betting.)
I absolutely have the same "leak" (he-he). In fact half of the time I'm raising here especially if the blinds are loose and the table passive (wake me up, I'm dreaming). A raise here might even kick in the old "check to the preflop raiser" syndrome and I might even get a free card on the flop (hey, I said wake me up!)for another chance at my set or draw. Of course I do not claim the credit for this move as I read it in HEPFAP and it is further advised to not get carried away with this move but done occasionally it can be very effective.
I recently saw a good player make this move with a pocket pair o' sixes and he got his third six on the flop (I had mucked early UTG and was watching the action intently- he had five customers by the way).They all thought he was making some kind of bluff move on them (boy was he) and unfortunately (for them)they played back at him with top and two pairs. He won a monster pot and couldn't resist a knowing glance my way which I returned with a grin.
We generally steered clear of each other but one time I caught him on a blind steal and re-raised him and we were head-ups preflop. When the flop came we both were looking at each other and not the cards. We both grinned as we were BOTH looking for tells and not the cards. I bet out and he gave it up (thankfully, as I had nothing)
But I digress here, thanks for the kind words up top and I'll kick the e-mail idea around as you can never have two many recipes for possum pie!
( I'm starting to feel like the sheriff of "2+2" )
Her straight draw was open-ended; a deuce would also have given her the straight.
DISCLAIMER: This is not an endorsement of her play; she played every street almost as badly as one possibly could. The only thing she did right was win.
Tough beat - I doubt realizing that she had eight outs as opposed to four will make you feel any better.
You might take a little comfort in the fact that had the river been a deuce, you would not only have been inclined to pay her off, you might even have payed two bets to see her hand.
3 - 5 - 7 --- J --- 2
If you get cute and decide to check-raise the "gambler", and the lady gets cuter and smooth-calls, you might have gotten the chance to put two bets in on the river before the lady announces her strength; now you can either fold for the third bet - a very tough thing to do for most of us - or pay her off and lose THREE bets.
It's hard finding a silver lining in this cloud, but you might consider thanking the poker gods for delivering the "6" instead of its counterpart.
BTW, if there were any serious flaws in your play of this hand, I didn't spot them, although I probably pay her off on the river given the size of the pot.
Better luck,
J-D
Here's a situation that presented itself over the weekend. I've gotten some dissenting opinions (go figure!) about the correct play, call, fold, blah-blah. I respect everyone who posts on this forum so consider yourselves the Chief Justices and tell me what's the vote.
It's a full table and very aggressive. Your Hero has black 9's and open raises 3 off the button. The players behind Hero fold except the button who raises. The SB folds and the BB calls the 2 cold and Hero calls. 3 players, $95 pot.
Flop: Ks3h7c
The BB checks, Hero checks and the button bets. The BB folds and Hero check-raises. The arguement was why raise with an overcard on board and pre-flop raiser behind you? My thought was it was a raise or fold situation. No way can Hero just call. I understand that you're taking the risk that the button could re-raise but I thought that the pot could've been won right there if neither had a King. The check-raise establishes that the Hero is showing a strong hand. Button calls. 2 players, $135 pot.
Turn: 2d
Hero bets and button calls. Any other way to play the turn? I don't think going for a check-raises again is an option. 2 players, $175 pot.
River: 5d
Hero bets and button calls. Hero turns over hand and the button turns over pocket 8's.
Comments? Is this just another example of Hero playing a hand overly aggressive with an overcard on board?
Thanks,
Stephen
What hands would you 3 bet with...
It would be a pretty rare occurence that I would be losing to pocket 9's if I 3 bet, and there was a king on the flop. If you decide to play the 9's with a K on the flop the check raise is a good way to go. The pocket 8's should have folded to the check raise. Derrick
I think you played it OK. When you didn't get popped on the turn you probably felt pretty good about your chances.
I vote that the whole hand turns on the checkraise on the flop. Once it gets only called, I think hero has a good chance of winning the pot, as if the button had a King-included preflop raiseworthy hand, he would have re-pumped it here. I am very surprised the button called it down.
The checkraise on the flop is an aggressive play and my evaluation of it would turn on who the opposition players were. If I thought I could push them out or that they bluffed a lot, I would agree it was a good play. If button was a tight player, I would rate it a waste of a small bet.
David
I think both players overplayed the hand. Of course, as always, it would depend on what you thought of the particular player.
However, anytime there is a 3 bet you have to put the player on a good hand (better than 88). When the K hits the board and he bets out I would probably have folded. Even if he doesn't have AK he could have AA, QQ or JJ or something like that and he will likely call you down. If he does have AA or AK he may raise you on the turn and now you have lost two big bets, assuming you fold, three big bets if you call his raise.
I can't imagine what the Button was thinking 3 betting and then calling to the river after you check raised him.
I think both of you will lose money in the long run by continuing to play this way.
I like the way you played it better than the way the button played it. I think you have to follow though on the turn. I am surprised he called. At that point you can eliminate hands like AQ or AJs and figure he has a decent pocket pair. Some guys will call for the 2-outer and fold on the river, but most players who will call the turn there will also call the river, so I would probably check the river, expecting to lose to J-J or 10-10. He will check behind you most times but I would call if he bets.
I am curious what the regulars will say.
.
Pre-flop, the open raise with pocket Nines is okay from middle position. The 3 bet by the button usually means something like AA,KK,QQ,JJ, or AK. Now if the button re-raiser is a loose goose or just a tough,tricky player than this might not be the case. Of course, the big blind calling two more bets cold adds to your woes. When the flop comes King-high, I would check and fold in most cases against most players. If you are going to continue playing and assume that your opponent does not have the hand he is representing, the check-raise move is still unclear to me as opposed to just calling. If he is playing a worse hand than yours he hardly has any outs and one strategy would be to just let him bet the worst hand all the way to the river. In this way you minimize your loss when you have the worst of it and maximize your gain when you have the best of it. The only advantage to playing the hand the way our hero played it was that he might get QQ, JJ, or TT to fold but who knows? The button's play on the actual hand was insane since he should have folded his pocket Eights when check-raised.
The main concern was the BB calling the 2 cold. Once he folded to the button's bet is when I decided that the check-raise was the best play. The button is someone that doesn't have to have AA-TT or AK to re-raise. I think it was more of a "let's get it heads-up" kind of a raise and I think the BB picked up on this too hence the calling 2 cold.
I figured if the button was weak I would win the pot right then. I've seen the button raise pre-flop and bet to the river with nothing but overcards when there were callers all the way.
Here's another point that I'm not sure about. How do I protect myself with against a 3 bet in situations like this? I can't believe that the player always has AA-TT or AK. I thought the best protection would be to check-raise the turn. Or maybe check-calling will save me bets in the long run? I'm usually pretty good about putting people on hands, but sometimes I just get lost in the action of the moment. Let's call it "brain farting."
It turns out that he thought I had AQ and wanted to see my hand.
Obviously your opponent read you for a good chance of having high cards and as you said wanted to get it head up. Your opponent must think you play pretty tight. Good read on your part.
Just wondering: Who is the hero you're talking about?
The hero is me.
Both players badly overplayed their hands.
Even if one were to assume that Hero just refuses to believe that the button has a good hand and is committed to seeing the river, betting the flop is better than checkraising.
Having checkraised the flop and betting the turn, I don't quite understand the river bet. In this situation (unlike the one that Jim and I were arguing about way down below), you are better off checking. It is a near cinch that you can't get a better hand to fold. While you may still get a worse hand to call, it is also quite likely that a better hand will check back if you check. Plus here, there is some reason for you to sometimes (I emphasize sometimes and not always) fold if you check the river and he bets.
This is not a good spot for a river bet.
I think this is an automatic raise. The button put you on 2 big cards, and 3 bet. I will make this play depending on my read of the raiser.
Check raising the flop is an interesting play. I have seen it done, but don't advocate it. The button can easily have a hand that beats yours. I think betting or check/calling is best if you want to continue and reassess on the turn. Since you check-raised, betting the turn is automatic- but the river bet is not so clear. It appears you aren't going to run the button off his hand. Only if you think your pair is bigger than his, then a bet is fine. One overcard should not necessarily scare you against 1 player. I would be more concerned with a over pair to yours. Therefore, I would check. The button just played bad by calling you all the way after you have shown so much strength.
I've read the discussions between Jim and skp regarding my river bet in the $30-$60 post below. They both make good and valid points, but I don't fully agree with either one of them. You can't always put people on big hands- or when a scare card comes out, assume it helped your opponent. If you always assume you are beat when the cards don't appear favorable, you will be run over and your bankroll will diminsh. I think it's important to remember you are also playing people, not just cards.
I'm thinking that betting out on the flop might have been a better option than check raising. If the button raises then you need to seriuosly consider mucking that hand. As far as betting the turn after a check raise I think that might have been the only move. If you check there, so does he.
My worthless opinion "The Rookie"
For one, if the cap was 3 raises, I would cap it pre-flop to put fear in the button. Then fire on the flop no matter what hits. You want the button thinking AA.
I think if you had played it more aggresively you wouldnt have had to worry about whether to fold, call, or raise because the button would have folded to your flop bet. Is an 88 really going to stick around after you cap it and a scare card like a king falls on the flop?
Of course, you won more money your way. But if he had TT, JJ, or QQ you would probably still win the pot when the king hits.
Another good reason to play it more aggressively is because you dont have to worry about a bluff when your playing it this hard. So if you get raised on the flop you can fold safely. You dont want to play to predictible, though, because good players will pick up on this and start bluff-raising you in these situations.
i have AKo in late position
2 limpers (ALL bad players) i raise and they all call includin the button (a too passive player but tight) and the BB.
5 players
Flop JT2 rainbow
BB check out (not very ethical but still allowed in our room) player 1 bet player 2 raise
Should i fold, call or reraise?
Results to come...
Ty for help
Charlie
Easy fold. Remember that bad players love JT an J2s and T2s. How you gonna beat that?
-Fred-
Easy fold. #2 probably has top pair at least and you shouldn't chase.
~stephen
The pot is laying you 6.5 to 1 odds for a gutshot to the nuts. Even with your two overcards, there's not enough in the pot to call two bets cold, especially considering it could get raised behind. This is a fold that you have to make if you want to be a consistent winner.
I am in the small blind with 67o (20/40 game).
four guys limp in...I call, BB checks.
6 players - 6 small bets in the pot.
The flop is A68 - rainbow.
I check, BB bets, one guy calls.
Should I call?
I think the correct answer is yes - because I probably have 5 outs - it is one SB to me, and there are currently 8 SB in the pot...and I will probably get 2 more SB, if not 4 more or more than that on the turn if I do hit a 6 or 7.
5 outs and 10 SB (conservative implied odds) seem pretty good.
Of course, if I miss on the turn, I muck - however, if I hit a 5 or a 9 for a straight draw, then I will be inclined to call again on the turn.
So, I think I should call the flop bet - should I?
Why even see the flop with this dog. Only pigeons play offsuit garbage. You're only getting 11:1 pre-flop, not enough in my opinion. Also with 4 limpers don't you think someone might have A6 or K7s putting you squarely behind the eight ball?
-Fred-
This is the type of situation one gets into when playing small connectors. You seem to feel that all 5 of your outs are clean, but I would disagree.
We've all seen a number of players who play A7 or T9, hell, there might even be an 87 waiting out there. IMO, this isn't a strong enough flop to continue with.
GB
I think not. 3 of your outs pose a large problem for you. If you play this you must plan to get out early otherwise your 1/2 bet turns into 3 1/2 quickly. Maybe many more.
I am on the button in a 20/40 game with Ac9c - the cutoff seat is a new player and has posted.
In the middle, we get one limper - a slightly below average player. Right after him, another guy limps (average player). Cutoff checks.
Question 1 : should i raise with A9s? Question 2 : if the cutoff had not posted, and has now folded (thus making 2 limpers), should I raise with A9s on the button given the two weak limpers?
I would tend to think yes on both questions, but would like to hear any thoughts (assume the blinds are average players)
yes raise. prepare to fold this one before the river though if you dont see some serious clubs, checking, or an ace.
You need to think seriously about why you would raise with this hand. Are you betting for value or trying to move players out of the pot? You already have position, so that is not an element.
My thinking with A-9s against a large field is that I want to build the pot for the occasions when I hit. This also allows me to be in command of the flop (or at least get it checked to me by someone who wants to check-raise). Against a small field, I'm betting this hand for value because I think it may be the only Ace up against no-pair. In any other situation, I think it is a mistake to inflate the pot.
Thus, against 3 limpers, a SB and BB still to act, I think you are really strung out in the middle here. If you raise, the SB may likely fold, the BB will call and your limpers will certainly call -- or you may get re-kicked. Some players will slowplay a big pair from an early position against an aggressive player sitting on the button in order to reraise and isolate. Obviously, this is the worst scenario for a hand like A-9s.
I don't believe you have a lot of equity in raising with A-9s into this mid-sized field. This is a very speculative hand that really needs implied odds to be a big winner. Yes, against a short field, it may be the best hand and worth a raise. But when it is clear you are going to be unable to win this without hitting the flop, it is a mistake to raise.
Definitely raise two limpers and a poster. Usually raise one limper. Usually don't two limpers.
Are these guidelines predicated on the premise that the limpers are typical, somewhat too loose players? Would they apply against tight-passive early limper(s)?
Should we be more likely to raise one limper than two because A9s plays better against fewer opponents? Am I correct in assuming that we should "definitely raise" two limpers and a poster due to the likelihood that the poster has a weak hand?
I think David's comments apply to the fact that a raise has a good chance of knocking out the blinds (3 people in, it's not a steal raise), as well as knocking out the poster (dead money), leaving 2, maybe 3 opponents.
This is a good thing for A9s with the button. Getting it heads up is a good thing. 2 limpers with no dead money isn't such a good thing. 5 people for 2 bets each is terrible, hope for clubs!!
GB
5 opponents for two bets, all of whom may check to the raiser is far from terrible.
yes maybe yes yes
Please don't lick the aardvark.
regular 20/40 game - theoretical situation, but one that comes up a myriad of times.
one after UTG limps in (an ok player). I have AKo two seats after him. I raise.
everybody folds, limper calls.
There are 2.75 BB in the pot.
The flop comes T52 or J83 or something fairly innocuous like that without an A, K or Q.
Limper checks, I bet, trying to win the pot right then. Limper check/raises.
At this point, there are now 4.25 BB in the pot - I probably have 6 outs, and maybe even the best hand at this point. This seems like a clear call to me (and sometimes a reraise to try to tell the opponent that you won't just reraise every time with only a big pair, that you could do it with two overcards as well).
The turn comes a middling card, but lower than the highest card on the board - no straights or flushes on the board. But with draws to both (though none for the AK).
A typical board may now look like J538, or T862 or something along those lines.
Of course, after the check/raise, the limper almost definitely bets out.
At this point on the turn, there are now 5.25 BB in the pot, and now, even if a 6 outer (A or K) makes a good hand, its not mathematically worth it if the limper has a pair. And it seems like an easy fold.
However, I know a lot of players will argue that it is necessary to call again on the turn, and then muck on the river, so you don't show complete weakness.
Thoughts?
I'm inclined to fight this war on the flop. If I'm headsup with a harmless looking flop, I will either make it 3-bets on the check-raise or release the hand, depending upon my opponent and my read of the situation.
Many players will limp into a pot with something like 7-7 or 8-8 from an early position. When this happens and you catch an "innocuous" flop, your A-K is on occasion drawing dead. Conversely, some opponents will play K-Q from an early position for a single bet, and will play it as best hand against a raggedy flop.
Judgment is crucial here, and it cannot be put into hard and fast terms. Nonetheless, I believe that the worst thing you can do is muddle into the turn no knowing where you stand and how you are going to deal with the expensive streets. You really need to preplan your play in the seconds between your opponent calling the preflop raise to when the flop comes out.
if youre not going to fold, im thinking reraise on the flop in an attempt to gain more knowledge about his hand, he will probably cap it if he has two pair or a set, unless he's very tricky in which case he might smooth call. if he caps it you can safely fold right there i think. (some will say this will encourage the table to walk all over you cause you will laydown a hand you raised preflop. i think it could be beneificial cause it may encourage a second best hand to reraise into you when you have the best of it.) i especially like this reraise cause if he smooth calls you then he may go for a checkraise on the turn and you can take a free card if the turn misses you.
either way, if he bets into you on the turn just give up. everybody assumes "having position" is about being the button, but so often being first to act is what will allow you to prevent bluffs, steal pots, and check-raise. now that's what i call position!
it's a truly solid player that knows when to get away from AK. tough hand.
(would love to hear what others think of my analysis of this situation)
If you know your ace or king will be good, and you know he will call a flop reraise and then check, (allowing you a free card) the math says it is a clear reraise. But change any of the above assumptions and your answer could be different.
But I take it that you are not suggesting that you automatically take the free card if a blank comes on the turn. You will often have to pay off on the river if you check the turn (particularly if the flop has a two flush and the flush does not get there). So, my inclination is to mix my play up here on the flop but if I do 3 bet it, I am likely to follow up with a bet on the turn and check down the river.
Against the type of opponent described by DS, I think it is usually correct to three-bet the flop and take a free card on the turn (unless the opponent is so weak that he might fold a strong pair). Due to the ragged flop and the nature of the opponent, the flop check-raise indicates a high likelihood of a pair. Under these conditions, it would not be necessary to often call a river bet (with no pair) after checking the turn.
MJS
"If you know your ace or king will be good"
If only we could know such things...heh
We can't know those things with 100% certainty. What degree of certainty is required for a reraise to be mathematically indicated? 80%? 70%?
"At this point, there are now 4.25 BB in the pot - I probably have 6 outs, and maybe even the best hand at this point."
Another play that is useful when balanced with other plays is to check behind your opponent on the flop. If you don't balance this play with similar plays with made hands it will announce to your opponent that you have missed the flop. This doesn't necessarily mean that you must lay down the hand if you fail to improve on the turn.
This play can also be used to entice an opponent to bluff at the turn card. A raise against an opponent who you can read fairly well will often take the pot. Of course, it's important to make the correct read.
Why fight this losing battle? For the opponent to check-raise on the flop, I give him credit for top pair K or A kicker. You said he was OK and ok players often limp AJ, KJ, AT, KT even up front.
The only thing is he tricky enough to check-raise w/ a non-pair hand assuming you missed w/ big cards? That would make me more inlcined to check the flop.
It's a clear call on the flop if your outs are clean, but there's no guarentee that they are. In fact I'd say most likely you're playing 3 outs w/ a runner-runner broadway.
Muck - next hand.
If you want to see the entire flop with this hand I think a raise to his check raise would be benefitial to try and buy a free card.
Paradise -- relatively typical game... I limp in UTG with AQdd. One caller, + both blinds... Flop is Ac8d7s. I bet, only BB calls. BB is new player, have never seen him before. Turn is 2d giving me the nut flush draw to go along with my AQ. I bet, BB calls. River is 6s. He checks and I bet and he immediately raises. Actually, I hated the feel of the river card for some reason, but I bet anyway and told myself if raised, I'd let it go... I thought for about 5 seconds and mucked. I have not picked off one checkraise bluff on the river in months at Paradise (and only a few in my 3 years of playing) and I was relatively sure I was beat.... All comments appreciated. Bad fold? Bad limp? Bad bet on the end (given my feeling and possible range of hands he could call with...)?
...yesterday? Raise that BB out of the hand preflop! Check and call on the river
A) I can perhaps pick up the blinds and win 30 if I raise there, but I chose to limp in that spot to mix up my play and b/c I like to limp there given the texture of the game -- If I raise there, I am often not called unless dominated or behind and out of position... Anyhow, who's to say he wouldn't have called the raise? I got myself in a situation where I was ahead and paid off by a bad draw or a much worse hand... Anyhow, I am 99% sure I was beat and I folded.
B) I didn't check call the end, I folded to a check-raise... I appreciate the comment, but you appear to have misunderstood my river situation. If he had bet out, I would have simply called and looked at his hand. He was the BB and I was UTG... I bet out b/c I thought I had the best hand.
a) TT I think you must rethink your preflop strategies. Your limp gave the BB a FREE shot at beating you and beat you he did. I can think of a few good books on the subject :o)
b) When the BB check to you I think you should have checked it down. In the first half of your last post you say you think you are 99% sure you are beat. In the second half you say you bet out because you think you have the best hand. Which is it? He was offering you a free chance to see his hand and I don't think a bet is a good idea because if called you are beaten and he may have blown you off the best hand with his checkraise so essentially you have nothing to gain and the pot to lose. I think that book I was refering to explains this even better than me :0)
Well that's how I understand things anyways.
I do have AQ... I thought it was best. He check-raised me, I thought I was beat b/c I NEVER pick off raw bluffs when check-raised on the end like that... I have poured countless dollars after these calls and they ARE NOT bluffs 99% of the time. Are you saying never bet that hand? I see no inconsistency in my post, it was chronology... Thought I had best hand, knew I was beat. I guess I didn't KNOW b/c I am questioning the laydown, but I am pretty sure... Also, you ignore my other reasons for playign AQ suited up front in that way... Maybe we must just agree to disagree on this one, but I think you over-simplify/misunderstand.... Also, maybe I'm just wrong.
:-)
You are right: 99% of the time online that CR means you are doomed.
When I watch the 20-40 game, the best players there check that river when checked to...you won't win that extra bet when you have the other guy beaten, and the CR there kills you.
Mark
So what % of the time should I bet that hand? Are you saying don't bet it? I bet hands like that for value a heckuva lot and am called with worse all the time... What percentage of the time (since I know from your posts that you're a numbers man) do I have to get called by a loser to make it worth it??
You can make the river bet if you will be called by an inferior hand more than half the time - 50.1% is plenty - IF,
you are absolutely sure that a check-raise means you are beaten.
- This is extremely over-simplified; it completely ignores:
1. your image re: future hands
2. the microscopic chance that you will get a better hand to fold
3. the varience that accompanies razor thin river bets
- and probably a slew of other factors.
It does, however, answer the question -
"how often do I have to get called by a loser to make this bet worthwhile ?
At least I think it does.
J-D
I would bet that river 100% of the time, and more often if I could. There's some mighty weak payoffs going on on Paradise, and I think it would be a very foolish check on the end. As far as your action post-check raise goes, I think the fold is fine, but there can be some real morons, even in the 20-40, that you should pay off. Barring previous knowledge of this player, a fold is reasonable, but I probably call here more often than I should. Occasionally I pay off a double bet, but *way* more than twice as often I get paid off with a worse hand.
TT,
I haven't read the other responses yet but wonder if they will be similar.
You wrote: "Actually, I hated the feel of the river card for some reason, but I bet anyway and told myself if raised, I'd let it go..."
If this is what you thought in advance then you should have considered checking the river. Look, you are against an unknown opponent. You have been checkraised on the river with top pair, good kicker. There are eight big bets in the pot when you are faced with a decision as to whether or not to call the checkraise. Against a known opponent, you could often make this laydown, as checkraise bluffs are quite rare. But against an unknown opponent, you are setting yourself up for future problems. I would call here.
You only have to be right about eleven percent of the time to snap off a checkraise bluff OR call down an opponent's checkraise for value when he holds an inferior hand. Note that you limped before the flop, which tends to indicate a hand other than ace-good kicker, thus it is not inconceivable that an AJ would checkraise a single opponent. If you win only five percent of the time, you really only lose about half a big bet. In the end, you should play better from that point on since you won't waste mental energy wondering whether you threw one away you shouldn't have, especially if the new opponent turns out to be a maniac.
Regards,
Rick
Someday I'm going to learn how to do that.
BUT -
from a STRICTLY mathmatical viewpoint, I think you were right to throw it away; I SUSPECT Rick does also.
I also think you were wrong to bet, especially after you "didn't like the look of the river card". I am CERTAIN Rick does also - he said so.
J-D
Most of the time if you make a laydown for one more bet with that many bets in the pot you are making a mistake. The river for one more bet is not the place to be making great laydowns. You only have to be right once in a while to make calling here correct. I would have called the raise. Better yet, check-call the river and snap off a bluff next time.
dave in cali
Easy bet on the river when checked to.
You are right that a very high percentage of the time you will be beat when he checkraises but you still can't fold more than once in a blue moon because if you do those checkraise bluffs which are so rare will suddenly skyrocket in frequency.
Pay him off. View it as a cost of doing business (overhead if you will) and bet your AQ again the next time a hand plays out the same way.
No doubt one of the biggest debates is whether or not to raise pre-flop when you have a big pocket pair (QQ, KK, AA.) Now, I almost always raise with big pocket pair in any position regardless the no. of players already in the pot because I have the strongest preflop hand before and I want full value for my hand and I want everyone else to pay to draw for their straights, two pairs, trips, flushes, full houses.
Now, the question that seems to segregate a number of posters here is the question of whether or not to limp and re-raise knowing that someone behind will raise. Now I understand that by limping in with a big pocket pair, you are giving others a cheap shot at the pot for only 1 bet. But if there is a raise behind and you re-raise (backraise) they are now forced to call 2 extra bets (which most will do anyways) and the likely possibilty of a cap.
Going up against multiple opponents with big pocket pairs is always risky, but I'll take those chances anyday because I am the favorite.
In an earlier post I did, "Please rate this 10-20 hand and play...", I held QQ in middle position and first to bet pre-flop. Most times, I always raise pre-flop with a big pocket pair, but because I felt that the maniac on the button would raise, I took a chance to limp, let two callers liimp as well and backraise. With 3 other callers in the pot, I liked my QQ given no A or K would hit the flop. And if an A or K comes, it's an easy fold if I get raised.
Comments
The Fish
I think it depends on the field you are against and the pocket pair you are talking about. Aces and queens may both sound good but there is a big difference. I will almost never limp with QQ because over half the time an over card will hit on the flop. With AA you dont have to worry about an over card so you may limp with this hand. KK is tough because there is only one over card but getting beat by soemone who you allowed to limp in with A-3 will obviosly piss you off big time, so I tend not to limp with KK either.
Assuming you have AA, whether or not to limp also depend on the other players you are playing against. If the rest of the table is not overly aggressive I will pretty much always raise regardless of where I am. However, if the table is very aggressive I will often just limp and hope someone raises and then I can 3 bet. An example of this is the 20-40 game on Paradise. This is the most aggressive game I have seen and I will usually limp with AA and sure enough almost every single time someone in late position will raise and then I can three bet.
This brings up another point, in that position is obviously relevant. If I have AA in say middle position and there are 1 or 2 early limpers I will raise because there are already a couple of callers and I do not really want 6 or 7 people trying to outdraw me. If I am in late position and no one else has called I will probably just limp because I do not want to merely steal the blinds.
nt
I'm in a pretty good 20/40 game, however, the two weakest players are walking (actually they are smoking – anyone who thinks that the California no smoking laws don't cut into your earn is crazy IMO, but I'll save that argument for another day).
Anyway, I've been in the game for about an hour and have been aggressive and tight, showing top hands the three times I went to the river. I have the button and raise with QJ offsuit after all fold to me. The small blind folds and a player who appears to be solid (first time I've played with him) three bets me out of the big blind. I call.
The flop comes a J 5 2 rainbow. The big blind bets and I decide just to call since in California 20/40, flop raises are generally not believed and they could three bet your raise with all sorts of things. Comments on my call as opposed to raising on the flop would be appreciated.
Before the turn card comes down, I intend to bet if my opponent checks as long as an ace or king does not come. If a baby comes and my opponent bets I intend to raise, as my opponent is far more likely to have overcards than an overpair. If a king comes, I will probably call a bet. If an ace comes and he bets, I have a tough decision.
The turn comes a seven and the board is still a rainbow. My opponent bets and I raise. My opponent calls without much hesitation. This worries me.
The river comes a nine. My opponent checks. Do I have a value bet here or should I check? Results will be posted later in the day. I'll also be around for a change for further comment if warranted.
Regards,
Rick
Button steal raise is a no-brainer.
On this flop, I think you are either way ahead or way behind. If you raise the turn like you did, he may dump a big Ace or smaller pocket pair. Not necessarily a bad thing, as you charge him to suck out, and you are quite happy if he gives up at this point. On the other hand, he is very unlikely to lay down QQ or better, and may even play back at you. If you get re-raised here, you can probably safely dump, but it would be a tough call if this guy is capable of making that move on Slick, for example.
My guess is that when he does not re-raise on the turn, he is trying to spike an overcard. When none comes, what's the point of betting the river? he will either lay down his miss, or call you down with his over pair. I would not bet the river unless a Q or J hits.
Gotta go warm my car up for a few minutes. Leaving it sit outside for 8 hours at -25 is too hard on it. It's probably a hundred degrees warmer in LA than Edmonton today. Sigh.
One factor I think isn't being considered enough is the concept that his three bet preflop may have simply been a response to what he perceived as a steal attempt. I don't know if I could put him on any particular hand here, but it wouldnt surprise me if he had something like K-7. In that case, he will probably call you down.
That said, I don't feel confident enough in placing him on a hand to risk the checkraise on the river. I'd probably just check and see who wins. (Isn't this the Vince Lepore Gambit?)
David
Checkraises on the river for good reason:
1. There is no guarantee that the other guy will bet for the intending checkraiser to put his plan into action.
2. If we are talking about a checkraise bluff...well that's rarer yet as it is just much safer to bluff bet for the reason mentioned in No. 1 above.
3. Many players feel sheepish in pulling off a checkraise on the river (when they would do it on the turn with no reservations whatsoever). Much of this is because they don't want to look silly when the other guy just checks and they have to show down their humdinger of a hand.
So, I don't think that the checkraise factor should enter into your decision on betting the river at all.
First sentence should read:
Checkraises on the river *are rare* for good reason:
....
Dunc,
If he had a single ace overcard (e.g., AT) or an underpair I would want him to call my turn raise and chase and pay off if possible. If he had clean overcards (e.g., AK), I would want him out as he now has odds to chase if you include the fact I would probably pay off a bet on the river.
I would think there is no way he would lay down an overpair, top pair and probably AK to my raise. Whether he would reraise with an overpair (or even AK) is another story.
On the river head-up these guys tend to call with any decent pair and a good ace high. There is just too much "move making" at this level not to.
Regards,
Rick
PS: All my windows are open and I am writing out my Christmas cards in my underwear if that makes you feel warmer. Don't worry Mom, my underwear is clean.
I think a value bet would be out of the question given your read that his smoothcall of your turn-raise is worrisome to you. Why set yourself up for a river raise? If your read is he has not been bluffing, I suspect he has a hand that can beat yours. I vote to check it down.
If you bet, what is he going to call with that you beat >55% of the time? I would check. My guess is that he has AJs, especially if the 7 was not the same suite as the J on the board.
Rainbow board with two suited card? It looks like its back to elementary school for me to learn how to read.
Rick,
The board is J,5,2,7,9 rainbow. Definitely bet the river for value.
Player
Rick,
IMHO I think you should just check. There is a chance that he might fold here but considering he 3 bet pre-flop and made an easy call after you raised the turn I doubt that he will.
I think he could have AA, KK or QQ, and is a little cautious about a set of jacks, but I think more likely he has AJ, KJ, QJ or TJ.
If you bet for value, what do you do if he check raises?
Bullet
Against an unknown opponent who appeared very solid and perhaps tricky (based on a quick assesment - this was not a LOL (Little Old Lady) or TOM (Tight Old Man) I might have to make a crying call.
Regards,
Rick
Rick: "anyone who thinks that the California no smoking laws don't cut into your earn is crazy" R: "The turn comes a seven and the board is still a rainbow. My opponent bets and I raise. My opponent calls without much hesitation. This worries me."
Backdoor,
”Rick: "anyone who thinks that the California no smoking laws don't cut into your earn is crazy" If you factor longevity into the equation it probably adds to it.”
I believe second hand smoke is an annoyance rather than a significant health risk. Dan Hanson really nailed this one on the Exchange about six months ago so I don't want to rehash it now. My point back then on that thread is that income is the greatest predictor of longevity, and studies of second hand smoke dangers that do not eliminate income differences have little value.
”R:"Anyway, I've been in the game for about an hour and have been aggressive and tight, showing top hands the three times I went to the river. I have the button and raise with QJ offsuit after all fold to me. The small blind folds and a player who appears to be solid (first time I've played with him) three bets me out of the big blind. I call." Often when they smell a steal a three bet means little. I wouldn't be too worried yet.”
Well, it generally means a pair or a decent ace.
”R: " The flop comes a J 5 2 rainbow. The big blind bets and I decide just to call since in California 20/40, flop raises are generally not believed and they could three bet your raise with all sorts of things. Comments on my call as opposed to raising on the flop would be appreciated. " He won't lay anything down to a raise. When three bet preflop heads up, I prefer playing straight up and forget fancy plays. He's telling you he has a hand, but since you can't fold, I generally prefer taking command here and not on the turn. The flop raise is expected, and he may well reraise again on the flop, with a real hand or not. This is just fine.”
Point well taken and in most cases that is my default play.
”R: "The turn comes a seven and the board is still a rainbow. My opponent bets and I raise. My opponent calls without much hesitation. This worries me." Rick Nebiolo, who is a regular poster here, once posted a response to one of my hands where he mentioned a quick call indicates a draw. In this case it could mean even ace high.”
I think the context was different then. I don't think an ace high would have a quick call and there was no draw out there.
”Much of my profit is made from people acting emotionally to raises and just refusing to believe you have something.”
Good point.
”Get more sleep, lol.:)”
Hey, I posted this at about ten in the morning. I'm almost normal today.
Regards,
Rick
Rick : "I believe second hand smoke is an annoyance rather than a significant health risk. Dan Hanson really nailed this one on the Exchange about six months ago so I don't want to rehash it now. My point back then on that thread is that income is the greatest predictor of longevity, and studies of second hand smoke dangers that do not eliminate income differences have little value."
Haven't read the other responses.
The key here is whether you think he is the type of player who would 3 bet you on the turn with an overpair. If he is, he generally will also be the type of player who will call at the end with a Strong Ace - no pair. Against this player, I would value bet.
There are some players who will never 3 bet when out of position on the turn with "just" an overpair. These guys are also way less likely to call the river bet with a naked Ace. Against these guys, I would check it down.
A lot of players fall in the middle of these two extremes. I flip a coin in those cases (but decide to do a best of 3 coin toss if the first toss tells me to check:)
skp,
With such a wide array of opponents in California, there are just a few that I have such a fine line on their play. This guy wasn't one of them.
You wrote: "A lot of players fall in the middle of these two extremes. I flip a coin in those cases (but decide to do a best of 3 coin toss if the first toss tells me to check:)"
I need to practice my math. For these "middle" players, you would bet 50% + 25% of the remaining 50% of the time (when you go for two out of three). So you would bet 62.5 % of the time.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Not that I know anything, but I think you should check. Namely, if you bet there are the following possibilities:
1) you win a bet if he calls with a worse hand, such as AK, AQ
2) you don't win or lose anything if he folds with worse hands
3) you lose two bets if he raises and you call, if he has AJ, KJ, AA-QQ or less likely a set (5s, Js, 9s?) since although then he would have reraised you on the turn, I think
4) you lose one bet if he reraises and you fold correctly (he has AJ, KJ, AA-QQ or a set)
5) you lose a whole pot if he reraises and you fold incorrectly
6) you win a pot if he folds incorrectly (but that seems very unlikely)
The probability of having either AK, AQ on the one hand, or AJ, KJ, AA-QQ or a set on the other is slightly unfavorable for you, plus the losing potential seems a bit more than the winning potential (even if the probabilities were 50/50) so I would say, check!
Since each one of you is more knowledgable than me, I would appreciate comments!
Steven
Steve,
You wrote: ”Not that I know anything…”
Hey, that self-depreciating thing used to be my gig before I realized it didn't go over well. You obviously know plenty :-).
”if you bet there are the following possibilities:
1) You win a bet if he calls with a worse hand, such as AK, AQ”
Agreed. And most would call with these two hands plus some underpairs like TT and 88.
”2) you don't win or lose anything if he folds with worse hands”
Without a draw or perhaps KQ overcards, I don't think he has many hands he can call with on the turn and fold on the river.
”3) you lose two bets if he raises and you call, if he has AJ, KJ, AA-QQ or less likely a set (5s, Js, 9s?) since although then he would have reraised you on the turn, I think”
The sets and maybe the top two overpairs would reraise on the turn but most of the other hands would just call the turn raise and call down on the river.
”4) you lose one bet if he reraises and you fold correctly (he has AJ, KJ, AA-QQ or a set)”
”5) you lose a whole pot if he reraises and you fold incorrectly.”
This guy looked like the type to have enough tricks up his sleeve so I would not be folding head up with top pair.
”6) you win a pot if he folds incorrectly (but that seems very unlikely)”
Once he calls the raise on the turn, he is calling the river except perhaps with KQ (which shouldn't call the turn raise).
Regards,
Rick
It's a toss up and therefore doesn't matter. If you can repeat this situation dozens of times, bet or don't bet, it won't change you bankroll.
-Fred- ...and I always make the right decision when it don't matter.
The smooth call on the flop seems timid. You're in need of information on his hand more than anything IMO, and a smooth call probably does not get you that data.
The subsequent raise on the turn still does not get you the information on the strength of his hand. AJ remians a possibility and AJ may be the worst hand he could have to play as he has played.
A check on the river from you seems rational.
Steve Keith
I think you should bet here, unless this is the type of player that will not re-raise you with an over pair. You have a value bet here, since he will likely call your river bet with any pair or A high. My guess is he has a pocket pair.
I think its interesting why you chose not to raise the flop. The is no draw on the board, so I think raising the flop will give you more information. If re-raised, you can reassess on the turn. This will also save you 1 small bet when you are beat and go to the river. Additionally, even if re-raised on the flop, it's likely the player will not bet the river unless he 1) has you beat, or 2) thinks he can run you off the hand (which is unlikely since you've shown strength on the flop, and has seen your tight aggressive play in the last hour).
SLW,
I generally do raise on the flop here. At the same time, a reraise by my opponent does not always mean he holds a strong hand. So even if he did reraise on the flop, head up I would have to call down most opponents unless the turn and river came terrible for me (e.g., an ace and/or a king). In this case I decided to play my hand a little more strongly by calling on the flop followed by a raise on the turn. Note that this is the much scarier play from the perspective of my opponent.
Regards,
Rick
SLW,
Your analysis is correct. Based on how quick the BB calls to Rick's raising him on the turn, BB has a medium pair, (maybe pair of 8's) drawing to a straight. BB could not have paired the J as he would have re-raised Rick back if he had the top pair with a low kicker. BB could also be reading Rick's cards as AK or AQ.
Therefore, a bet on the river is definitely a value bet.
Results
I think it was a close decision on the river but I checked it down. The big blind turns over AA and takes the pot. I supposed I lost the minimum but still like varying my play in this spot with a call on the flop and a raise on the turn when I have something half decent head up.
Gotta go and see if Gore uses the work “concede” in his speech. I put it at a 2 to 1 dog.
Regards,
Rick
PS: Is Alec Baldwin still leaving the country?
I'da layed more than 2-1....
"PS: Is Alec Baldwin still leaving the country?"
Put me in for a C note toward any one way ticket.
-Fred- ...and I'll vote for another Democrat next millennium.
It’s late Friday night at the Taj and I just moved from the $10-$20 table to a $15-$30 table. I’m in seat one and move into the BB. There doesn’t look to be much money on the table so I’m prepared for a tight game. The lady in seat two is complaining to me immediately about seat 6 and how seat 6 is constantly beating her. I decided not to take my BB and watch a couple of orbits instead. It turns out that seat 6 is playing weak cards and getting there against the field. He’s a typical calling station who doesn’t bluff and only raises when he’s made a good hand. In the time that I’ve been sitting and watching seat 6 had beaten seat 2 in two hands when he got there on the river. One time she had pocket Kings and he only had Ace high until he spikes an Ace on the river. I think she tried to push at the pot but he wasn’t going anywhere. She was basically on tilt.
When I finally decide to take my BB seat 2 raises UTG. Folds around to seat 6 who calls. It’s folded around to me and I look at red pocket Tens. I call. 3 players, $100 pot.
Flop: Jd8d9c
I bet out with my open ended straight draw. Seat 2 raises and Seat 6 calls. I can’t seem to get it out of my mind that she’s on tilt. I disregard seat 6’s holding since he didn’t raise. I figure that she’s got a good enough hand even if she holds just over cards. I call knowing I’ll probably need the straight or trips to win. Is a possible play to raise? I’ve seen it before but I have never tried. 3 players, $190 pot.
Turn: Qd
I see that the flush is out there but I’ve also made the straight with straight flush potential. I decide to bet it out again showing my strength and if I don’t get raised I’ll bet it out again on the river. She raises and seat 6 calls. I have to put her on the flush or at least the Ad. I call. Was the call warranted? Would anyone check-raise here? I've seen aggressive players work the check-raise here. 3 players, $370 pot.
River: 2d
I check, she bets, seat 6 folds so I make the crying call (now who's the calling station?). She immediately says she doesn’t have a diamond and shows AhJc. I show my Tens and she literally rips the cards up and throws them at the dealer and leaves. Is the crying call normal for everyone here if seat 6 folds? Would a call on the river be warranted if seat 6 calls?
Thanks, Stephen
I think you played it fine. On the river it's over 13-1 for your call. it's over 14-1 if the second player calls. Either way I feel you must pay off the flush with your str8t. Losing one bet is a small mistake, losing the pot is a "catastrophic" one. (to quote one of my mentors)
To my favorite hillbilly,
He didn't pay off with a straight - the 2d gave him the 3rd best flush.
I finally figured it out. You love to read all these "war stories" so much, you don't give yourself a chance to "digest" one before moving on to the next.
I may be off line for a few days so I would like to pay you the two compliments I've been meaning get to while I have the opportunity.
1. On those rare occasions (just kidding) when you do read the entire post, many - if not most - of your observations have been incredibly astute and extremely helpful. I hope we get the chance to meet someday - although I'm in no hurry to sit across the table from you.
2. Since you seem to have read most or all of the required reading for this course, you are probably familiar with our hosts' observation that a significant number of otherwise excellent players do themselves a great deal of harm by behaving obnoxiously at the table - usually, but not always - after absorbing a bad beat. This serves not only to drive some of the poorer players away from the game; it creates a climate in which none of those who remain are able to enjoy the session.
I strongly suspect that wherever it is you play, you are one of the most welcomed players at the table - even by those who have grown accustomed to having you "beat their brains in".
Some of us have had to work long and hard to cultivate this "skill"; I envy those to whom it comes naturally.
It must be nice to be adored by one and all. ( Don't you even get cranky once in a while ? )
P.S. Why don't you create a mailbox for yourself - I opened mine in about two minutes ( www.hotmail.com ). The site's homepage walks you right through it. I'm sure there are alot of people on the "forum" who would enjoy swapping ideas with you. ( I've got a recipe for possum pie I know you would go nuts for.-:)
I can guarantee you at least one regular correspondent.
P.P.S. "I love this forum too".
Keep'em coming,
J-D
Turn: Qd
Not the best color but you have made the str8. and of course the runner runner flush players are happy
River: 2d
This card really kills your str8. With 2 other players still in the pot more times than not one of them has a diamond. I think once seat six folded then you have to pay it off and just hope your str8 will hold up. This is not one of the times you think about saving a bet, the pot is just to big. If seat six calls and since you are last to act then you also just call but more times than not your str8 is toast :-(
Never seen a player rip up the cards thats funny...lol
Best of it !!
MJ
I like the check-raise idea on the turn. No bet gives you confidence that there is made flush, and I think is she bets, and you raise, sea six folds, and maybe she does too. You don't need the river.
If she re-raisesss, you can call and (if no help) fold the river...
BTW, you made the 3rd best flush, right?
You played it fine, though. Nice pot.
I once played in a casino game where not only this guy ripped up the cards, he ripped up the player's cards.
This guy was drunk and on tilt. He had pocket aces and this guy (gambler) who limped in before him had crap garbage - 2 - 6 offsuit. Anyways, to make a long story short, the gambler made runner runner two pair to beat out his AA and that pretty much did it. He ripped his cards, the gambler's cards and nearly ripped up the gambler. But management and security stepped in fast, took this guy outside and cashed him out. Never saw him again.
The Fish
Here's the thing about her ripping the cards. She rippped them on the second try. The first time she tried the cards fell on the floor and she cursed at the cards. Then she picked up the cards and ripped them. It was kinda funny because she ran into the floorperson as she was making her getaway and knocked the floorperson over. It was Keystone Copish, to say the least.
~stephen
now that is a funny ass story.
I'm killin ya! In my haste to call down the flush with my str8t I entirely miss the fact I have a flush as well. (on the river) Besto'Seven saved you a chore here.(thanks for going easy on me Besto'Seven)
Once again it ironically only strenghthens the case I was trying to make
I hereby promise to never post any more on 4 hours sleep. G'nite (again) :o)
I just love this forum so much
I understand that this woman is on at least semi-tilt, but I think it is a little risky to check that coordinated board on the turn. You have made your hand pretty much as good as it's going to get. No (rational) player is going to bet that board on the turn unless they have at least a ten in their hand, you would think. I would bet out every time and charge the hands with a higher diamond card and/or gutshot the full price for the river. The 3 diamonds are a little scary, but you do have some sort of protection in your Td for a weakish re-draw.
This gal must have been deep in the land of tilt to raise you on the turn with AJ and do diamond card. I would happily call her down, but a 3-bet is pushing it a bit. Sure, looking through her cards it's easy, but even the "ungood", as Abdul calls them, get cards once in a while.
On the river, it's crying call time. Folding is out of the question for 1 more bet to close the action. If she shows you something with a higher diamond, it's just a short term loan, anyway.
Buckshot, I was going to post a hand similiar in nature to yours but I didn't want you guys to see a grown man cry. the difference is that I DIDN'T make a crying call getting 16:1 on the bet. I lost a massive pot because I wasn't willing to be a calling station on the river. Big frigging mistake. mathematical catastrophe. didn't feel good. You have to make that crying call on the river.
On the flop, if you truly believe she is playing over-cards, i think you should re-raise here. Pounding the flop is okay as long as there are 2 or more players in with you. It is a little over 2:1 against you to make a straight by the river, so odds are about even with two players.(look at Abdul's page, listed under the links of this page) Plus, you have 2 more outs because of your tens.
Also, you don't necessarily have to get a straight or trips to win this hand. Both you and her know that seat 6 can have anything, but will announce good hands with bets/raises. So he can be ignored. And you believe her to be on overcards. It is very possible that you have the best hand here. By re-raising, she may drop her overcards if they do not come on the turn. If she re-raises, you are still getting the odds for the draws you have. No problem. Personally, i would have tried for the check-raise.
On the turn, i think there is little question that you have the best hand. Seat 6 is random, and now even if seat 2 has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, you have her beat. A check-raise would have been a good play if you didn't do it on the flop. I would have 3-bet the turn, personally. If she is holding the Ad or Kd, make her pay to beat you. The only legit raising hand (from early position) that beats you right now is AdKd. You have the best hand here.
The river is fairly tough. I think seat 2 bets here because of the pot size by now. It is very easy to think she is holding Ad or Kd. Seat 6 will call only if he has a diamond, or truly believes seat 2 doesn't have one. So if seat 6 calls, i would fold. Checking intending to call if seat 6 folds is a good notion.
Overall i think you played it very well and are thinking very well about it, but i feel you missed 1 small bet and 1 big bet.
Fistdantilus
Yes, a crying call is normal, especially against someone who appears to be on tilt. Yes, you should overcall if the calling station calls. Think about it, the calling station would almost certainly have raised an A-high flush, so all you're concerned about is if the calling station has the K-high flush. A calling station would probably call with any flush, so your T-high flush is probably a bit stronger than it appears.
Generally, you should ignore calling stations to a large extent when deciding to overcall, i.e. often pretend they didn't call in the first place.
-Sean
You played the hand very well. However, you missed the obvious, this women works for the card manufactures. She's now tearing up cards across the country.
SPM,...casino profits in danger...
You played fine. The lady played poorly by raising under the gun with Ace-Jack offsuit and by overplaying her hand on both the turn and the river. She has a clear fold on the turn when the flush card appears, a straight card appears, and an over card to her Jacks appear. She needs to step down to a lower limit game until she learns how to play.
Here is a hand I (mis)played in a 4 handed 20-40 game. I have Ac Kc under the gun and raise, the button folds, both blinds call. The small blind is loose/aggressive. The big blind is tight/aggressive. We take the flop 3 handed. There are 6 small bets in the pot.
The flop comes K 6 5 with rainbow.
The big blind bets, I just call, planning to raise either on the turn or river. The small blind calls. There are 4.5 big bets in the pot.
The turn is a 7, putting two suits on board.
The small blind bets, the big blind calls, I call. There are 7.5 big bets in the pot.
The river is a Queen. No flush is possible.
The small blind bets, the big blind calls, I call.
The small blind takes the pot with 76s, giving him two pair. The big blind shows KJ. He says I misplayed my hand by not raising on the flop with my top pair/top kicker. Is he right?
You should have raised preflop as well as raise the BB on the flop. Either raise creates a clear fold for the SB and charges him dearly to suck out on you.
If he makes these cold calls and you lose the pot anyways well that's poker but rest assured you are playing good poker and he is playing poor poker.
Your passive play in the hand gave him a decent shot at you. Although I don't play his hand preflop from the SB with only one player in the pot so far, he got some of the flop and for one small bet he probably does have a call to spike two pair or trips.
I must be losing my mind. You did raise preflop, have you seen my glasses? I know I left them somewhere.
A tight aggressive player who bets into you on this flop after you raised preflop is very likely to have a king, and odds are you have him outkicked. He could also have a set or maybe 65s, but these are far less likely. So you are either way ahead (he has 3 outs) or way behind (0 or 5 outs). If you were headsup, you could just call till the river, then raise (see HPFAP p 147). However, given another player in the pot, especially a loose player, you should probably raise to get out 4 and 5 out hands like gutshots and lover paired cards. These hands are getting a good price when you factor in implied odds, so you would rather they fold correctly or make the even bigger mistake of calling.
In a ring game, you should generally raise on the flop. In shorthanded play, it sometimes makes sense to wait until the turn in this situation but having not raised the flop, you should most certainly pull the trigger on the turn given that the sb apparently liked the flop enough to call it.
SKP,
Brian can't raise the turn here, as the SB check-called the flop, then bet out on the turn.
In fact, given the action and the K-6-5-7-Q board, Brian's overcall on the river is marginal at best(although I guess the SB coulda had A8 w/a four flush; but it's hard to see how someone willing to play short $20-40 would think he could bluff both a pre-flop raiser and a flop bettor on the river who both called him on the turn).
Bill
Good point. I missed the fact that the bettor on the turn was different from the flop bettor.
I generally would raise with a flop like this (read: a coordinated one) and a loose aggressive BB, if only because there are draws possible with this board and there's a chance you can get the BB to go off for a number of bets if you play back at him. If the flop were something like K74, or K63, I'd be less inclined to declare my hand on the flop.
That said, I think you can construct a case for raising the flop (as Jim Brier is, I'm sure, doing at this very momen).
I believe you were guilty of "F.P.S." fancy play syndrome and outsmarted yourself out of the pot.
Your SB player lives in Any2card Town. You raised under the gun. A player from the Valley of Patience folds the 76s, an any2card resident will call with suit connectors. After sb gets his pair, you will not move him from his task.
BB statement is silly. He floped top pair, if he raises the sb on the flop and you re-raise, maybe on a cloudy day the sb folds, but it was sunny that day in Any2card Town.
You saved some bets, better luck next time.
SPM,...Mayor of Any2card Town...
...a sunny day in A2CT but the BB's statement was not silly. (Although he is foolish to give lessons at the table)
If you re-read the post you'll discover the SB did not bet the flop as I'm sure he was hoping for a free card (he did not make his two pair til the turn)
Brian's last chance as the hand turned out was to raise the BB's bet on the flop and hope the SB lays down his middle pair to 2 bets cold.
I am willing to overlook your oversight as I make them all the time myself. :o) And of course the SB was on a mission and probably will not be denied his two pair no matter how much it costs him.
However if the sheriff catches you it could get ugly!
From your narrative, I gather the small blind checked the flop and then the big blind bet. I think you should raise the flop bet here because this is a raised pot with you having two opponents and if the big blind has a King he will probably be tied-in to the river in a shorthanded game like this. Furthermore, you are inviting the small blind to come in by giving him 8:1 pot odds which means he is playing correctly by calling with any piece of this board. Given that you merely called the flop bet, a new player, the small blind now leading into both of you is a concern. He could easily have two pair or some hand that beats yours. Raising now on the expense street is problematic. I guess your play on the turn and the river is right. But again, raising the flop bet was clear.
Local 20-40 Hold'em game.
Been playing for about 1 hour and the table has a mix of loose gamblers and tight rocks. I've been trying to stir up a loose image while playing tight.
I have black rockets in the hole - AsAc and am in the cutoff seat. All fold to me and I raise. Button and SB folds to the BB who re-raises. I re-raise again. He re-raises.
BB is a strong player but bluffs far too much and goes on tilt easily from a big or bad beat. He will either show no aggression or full agression. He hasn't played one hand from the last 2 rounds.
Anyways, the raising goes on for about another 4 raises. My question here is how many raises should I go on till I should stop? What if I had pocket Kings? When should I stop with pocket kings.
Flop comes garbage. 9 - 2 - 3 rainbow.
Again, the raising goes on at least 3 times each. How far we each went and when we stopped will be posted later.
I will post results and how this hand played out later.
Please offer comments.
The Fish
well heck, I guess the sensible answer would be to just call after the 3rd raise to try and disguise your hand or something. but since he sounds pretty macho you might as well keep on rammin and jammin. my guess is that he has aces or kings, hopefully not nines.
2 possibilities:
1- hes a maniac
2- he had aces
in my opinion, u should never stop raisin with aces...
for kings, well it depends hehe
charlie
Well, if it were me I think I would probably put all my money in if it were heads-up. He can't possibly beat the Aces before the flop, only tie at best. So I think I keep re-raising until he stops. I know I wouldn't until my stacks were gone.
~stephen
I would have to guess that he also has Aces. Before the flop I would tell him that I put all my money in. I guess I'm kinda nutty like that.
~stephen
I get the last raise every round unless a K or Q hits. Then maybe I stop at 1 raise.
If I had kings I would go about 3 raises pre- flop. on the flop I would go 2. On the turn and river I would just call unless of course a K came.
easy.
dont stop raising that flop with pocket aces heads up against a guy with maniac tendencies. dont stop. spend every last penny you have in front of you.
Pre-flop, I didn't stop raising until he called. This went on for about 7 raises.
When the flop came down 9 - 2 - 3 rainbow, we went into another raising war for about 5 raises until he just called.
Turn card came a Q. He checked, I bet, he check-raised. I called. Should I have smelled something when he checked?
River came another 2. He bet, I called.
He showed KK and I show my Aces.
Sorry folks, no bad beat story here. Hero wins the hand. But true enough, the player went on tilt afterwards and was raising far too many hands and dropped about $1500 in 1 hour.
Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise,Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise,Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise,Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise,Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise, Raise Then, just call.
SPM,...I like raising with Aces...
I would go all in pre-flop with pocket Aces. By doing this with the best hand you accomplish two things. You know you are playing perfectly and you can never make a mistake once board cards start coming.
I'm in a 10 handed 10 - 20 hold em game. I'm in middle position with Td Jd. There are 2 limpers ahead of me so I limp in. The Cutoff limps and the Button raises. The BB calls as well as all the limpers. 6 Players take the flop with $125 in the pot.
The flop is Ts Kd Qd. I'm thinking that I'm in love with it, but the BB bets out, 1st limper folds, Second Limper(2L) calls, I call, Cutoff(CU), Button raises. BB reraises, and 2L caps it. Its now 3 small bets to me should I dump it here? I don't, I call, as does everyone else.
5 Players in on the turn, $325 in the pot. The turn is the Js. BB bets, 2L raises, its now 2 BB's to me I have 2 pair and a flush draw, should I call with the very likely hood of it being capped? I do call, CU 3bets, and Button caps. We all call. 5 Players still in for the river $725 in the pot.
The river blanks off, a 3c I think, BB bets, 2L raises, I muck, and it gets capped again.
BB and 2L had AJ for the flopped straight, CU had A5 off?, and Button had AK.
I played 10 J suited and un-suited three times last night and once I got a pat hand. Lost them all. 10-J is on my _ _ _ _ list.
SPM,...searching for a hand that wins...
Doug,
tjs is a good hand in many spots,especially the one you were in. you just lost a pot thats all. but what is troubling is that you asked if you should have folded an open ended royal flush draw, four handed in an already big pot. time to do some studying if you are going to play 10 20 as that game can eat up alot of money of yours.
Other then the 9d and Ad I was thinking that I was drawing nearly dead. I posted what everyone had, however not knowing what they held I thought it quite possible that the cutoff had Ax of diamonds, as he was just calling till the J fell on the turn, and I also thought it was quite possible the button had a set of kings or queens, as I didn't think it likely that all 4 aces were out. I don't like the prospect of calling 80 dollars with a possible 2 outer. As it turned out, any diamond, T, or J would have drug me the pot, but at the time I didn't know that. Is my thinking flawed?
Pre-flop you have 12 small bets in the pot and the flop gives you an open ended straight flush draw. You are getting nearly 3:1 odds to make your straight or flush so I like your chances giving the pot size.
By the time it gets capped back to you pre-flop you have 23 small bets. You have to call 3 more small bets which is giving you 7.8:1 pot odds. It's a no brainer to call. Other than the person holding AJ and flopping the nut straight, everyone else is making a serious mistake by calling cap on the gutshot. What's worse is that they will be chopping 3 or 4 way should they hit the gutshot.
Ok, so they hit the gutshot on the turn and you know you will be paying big bucks to draw for your flush and/or fullhouse. Giving the way it was played on the flop and turn, I don't believe anyone has a set with KK or QQ. Thus if you hit a 10 or Jack you will be the best. Of course if the diamond comes down you know your chances are good unless somebody else had Ad6d. But flush over flush is unlikely here.
By the turn there are 16 big bets to you, and with the raise by 2L, you have about 8:1 pot odds, but have around a 9 outs for the flush and 4 outs for the fullhouse giving you around 4.25/4.50 to 1 (I'm doing this in my head) odds for the draw. Easy call here. Of course it will get capped provided that there will be at least 2 Aces in play with the nut straight.
Well, you got unlucky tonight. No 10, Jack or diamond on the river. But know that your opponnents were making a serious mistake calling for the gutshot draw. But I'll take their money for the gutshot draws
You should have raised the flop bet with an open ended straight flush draw and bottom pair. You have 15 outs to a straight or a flush plus 2 more outs to trips with two cards to come. You are a mathematical favorite to make a straight or a flush or even trips which can easily be winning hands here. How can you just call a flop bet with a monster draw like this? Folding on the flop is unthinkable. On the turn you are committed and the muck at the river is automatic. Tough luck and perhaps you lost a little less on this that I would have but then again I don't get hands like this often enough to know how to play them.
I'm in a 10-20 game with a half kill at Foxwoods. The BB posts the kill and is a tight player.
I have a tight aggressive image at this table and have picked up the blinds from UTG twice, and have only shown good cards on the river.
A middle position player limps in. This is a weak player that seems to play about 50% of the hands dealt to him. He likes to play almost all suited connectors and suited hands down to Jxs. He'll also play any two big cards, most any ace, and any pocket pair.
Its folded around to me and I look down to see A4 offsuit. The SB posts $5 so it's $10 more to call (it's a kill pot).
Question 1: What should I do?
I raised to knock out the Big Blind and try to take on the weak player heads up. The BB folds and the weak player calls.
the flop comes down: J J 8 no suits
I check, he bets
Question 2: What should I do?
I flat called.
Turn comes: A (two flush on board now)
Question 3: what should I do?
I check (for fear of a better ace, or a jack), he bets again
I feel like I have a clear call now.
River: Q no flush on board.
Question 3: what should I do?
I bet out and he folded.
When I bet out on the river people at the table all seemed surprised and after the pot was pushed to me asked me if I had Quad jacks, aces full or jacks full of queens. I didn't say anything and just stacked the chips.
Comments? Should I have told them that the river filled me up?
Rob
I think you did the right thing by just stacking. I believe he held an 8 or a small pocket pair. Just a guess.
My standard response to the question asked to you is “Eight Three Offsuit”.
Rob - Never show your hand (or tell players your hand) when bluffing or with the nuts.
Always keep them guessing....Just like you did last week when we were playing together at the Bellagio...you just kept stacking the chips!
Pre-flop I would not play Ace-Little offsuit when someone voluntarily enters the pot despite how good or weak he might be. This is just too weak a hand to get involved with unless you get a free play which was the case here. I would just take the free play and plan on folding unless the flop hits me. You don't want to invest a lot of money here out of position with a weak hand. On the flop, I would fold when he bets. On the turn, you got the best card you could hope for and you didn't bet it out of fear of a bigger Ace or a Jack. Then why get involved once the flop comes? Why would you bet the river when a Queen comes? He won't fold a Jack or an Ace so why bet? No one with a worse hand will call.
The biggest reason why I think you played this hand terribly is because your thought process doesn't make any sense. Before the flop, you decide "I'm up against a weak player, so I want to get the pot heads up with him to try to steal the pot from him." So you raise, the flop comes fairly raggy, so you check and call??? How the hell are you going to steal a pot when you check and call???
If you're going to make the sort of play where you're playing the player and not the cards, a bet on the flop is mandatory almost regardless of what hits, but unless this player is the type of weak player who plays a ton of hands but folds immediately if the flop misses him (that's a rare type of weak player; most always take off a card or two), you want to have much stronger hand than A4o to take him on out of position.
Is that game at Foxwoods highly raked like some of the other Foxwoods games are, or is it a time charge? (10% capped at $4?) If so, you really need to play pretty tightly before the flop in that game.
-Sean
A good shirt has seven buttons.
Thanks for the Good Advice Sean and Jim. This is the game where they rake the pot up to $4.
8 handed 15-30 hand. 2nd in, a decent player, raises. I am in third position and three bet with AhKs. This is a game where people frequently would call one raise but very rarely call two. What do people think of this move, considering the game was 8handed, and the fact that raises were frequently being called, but 3 bets rarely so? Everyone folds, and he just calls.
Flop comes
As9s2d
He checks to me and I bet. He check-raises. Now I 3bet and he caps.
At this point, I put him on AA, AK, AQ,99, also high flush draws like QJs or JTs.
Comments?
Turn comes:
5s
He bets and I call with my top pair top kicker and nut flush draw.
River comes:
Kh
Here is where I think I screwed up terribly. He bets out and I raise. He calls and shows me 99. I guess I bet out thinking that he might be aggressive enough heads up to value bet a hand like AQ against me, but really that is the only hand he could have that would be worth raising against me. A quick hand analysis should have shown that while it might have been correct to call his bet on the river, it was absolutely insane to raise. Comments on the river raise, and the way I played the hand overall?
hetron
preflop - the threebet is definitely a must in the Planet Poker game. flop - I would just call his re-raise. depending on who it is, I would think he either has you tied or has you beat (AK, A9, 99). turn - just call river - one raise is ok, I think, there is a possibility he lays down AK to the flush here (longshot, but if he has AK too, it doesn't hurt to raise)....he has 6 combinations of A9, and 2 combinations of 99 - and you know with 99, he's not going to reraise - so in retrospect, I like one raise on the river.
Comments on the river raise, and the way I played the hand overall?
On a 1-10 scale the river raise is a 1. The rest of the hand until that point is a 10. Call on the river and expect to lose most of the time.
-Fred-
You didn't screw up horribly.
Screwing up horribly: He raises, you fold, then he shows you AQ.
You overpaid by one bet.
Mark
Heads up I probably would have just called the flop, then raised either the turn or river, depending on the board developed and what kind of player my opponent was.
Raising on the flop is often a bad play here, since you probably won't get much further action unless you're beat, but a hand you have owned (like, say QQ here) might give it up. I'd just a soon slowplay for at least one betting round in hopes that I can extract an extra bet or two out of an underpair.
Pre-flop, I like your reasoning for 3 betting. On the flop I like your 3 bet because your hand is so strong. The pot is already large so you might as well re-raise. Since you decided to just call on the turn when the flush card came, it makes no sense that you would raise on the river with the top two pair. The top two pair still loses to a flush. Did you put him on Ace-Nine, Ace-Five, or Ace-Deuce for his pre-flop raise? Even with these unlikely holdings, how could he bet the river when both an Ace and a King show up as well as having 3 Spades on the table? The river raise was nonsensical.
You are in the SB. The button is an aggressive stealer of blinds. The BB is a person who knows this too, and will likely defend a raise by the button with many hands.
You get AA in the SB. Everyone folds to the button who raises.
Should you 3 bet (almost guaranteeing the BB will fold)...or just call? If you just call, should you bet out on the flop or check/raise on the flop?
I just call here then bet almost every possible flop and three bet if I get the chance.
If they players are awake and aware AND they will realize that your 3-bet pre-flop could be made with a lot of crappy hands then go ahead and 3-bet some of the time.
-Fred-
I think a three bet is in order and you should be three betting w/a lot of hands that you would play against this kind of player who would try to steal the blinds in this situation. (Esp ones which prefer a heads up pot).
He may interpret your reraise as ,"I know you think that i am stealing" and he may reraise preflop.
How to play ont he flop depends ont eh flop...
The only time I would consider just calling would be when the button is a good player and the big blind is a bad one.
Given what you know about the button you should often be 3 betting his steal attempts. If you are new to the game or have been getting complete crapola so you havn't had the opportunity to 3-bet, then I would just call.
If you have been 3 betting on some of his steal attempts then I would 3 bet here.
Nope. You are miles ahead of a heads-up opponent with A-A. Here, I let him hang himself with his own rope (see my reply below). I'm going to slowplay this hand against an aggressive opponent until the turn regardless of the board. If he happens to get lucky, so be it.
since your situation is hypothetical, I like calling then check-raising the flop no matter what comes.
But I like a reraise if you think the BB will defend with crapola, such as if a very loose player is in the BB.
dave in cali
Since I would 3 bet here with any pair above Fives, any suited connector down to Jack-Ten, and any two big cards higher than a Ten it is important for me to 3 bet with my premium hands as well in order to camouflage those times when my hand is not so good.
I agree with this except that I might 3-bet with a few more hands if the raiser is really aggressive.
I think the chief reason to 3-bet is that the raiser likely knows that you know that he's aggressive, and will expect you to get in his face with a lot of marginal holdings. When he therefore has a middling hand he's likely to discount entirely the possibility of aces (after all, you'd slowplay them) and jam when he's badly beaten.
Call the raise before the flop. Regardless of what comes, check the flop and call; check-raise the turn and bet the river.
Earl, what would you do when the board is highly coordinated but has missed you completely? To take an extreme example suppose the flop comes something like Th9h8h, neither of your Aces is a Heart, and the turn card is 7h. Would you still check-raise the turn and bet the river?
You bring up an extreme situation, but I believe you still have to play the hand strongly. That board will look just as scary to your opponent as it does to you. Of course, if I get reraised on the turn, I may have to re-evalute the situation.
Full game moderately tight and very passive. UTG opens for a raise. I'm next to act and decide to make the cold-call with pocket fives. go ahead and criticize the cold call. to my surprise 3 other players also call. The flop comes
8-4-2 rainbow.
UTG bets out. I'm about to muck my hand but then decide to raise since I put UTG on a big ace from the beginning. Everyone else folds. UTG calls. The turn is another rag, I bet, UTG calls. river is another rag. UTG checks and I check. I take down the pot with my fives. UTG has A-Ko.
comments criticism welcome. should I have been in this hand from the beginning? Should I have made it 3 bets before the flop to isolate? should I bet the river?
Since I won the pot I thought my play was pretty cool. But as we all know, just cuz you win don't mean yer good.
In my opinion a three bet on the flop might have been a better play. That way you can isolate like you said. Another point would be that if you three bet it, A/K is not likely to take you to the river without a pair. which might save you from being rivered. Usually a three bet says you have a big pair unless you and the game are loosey goosey.
Just my worthless opinion!
if you are going to do this, you must reraise to isolate. the classic "reraise to isolate a weak raiser when you have a small pair" play. Just calling stinks, the blinds are likely to defend and you are not getting 5:1. reraise or fold, I like folding better since the "classic" play is only really good when the raiser is a maniac or you are in a tournament, IMO..
dave in cali
nt
First put 'em on a hand you can beat, then take it to the river. It's a strategy... But not a very sound one.
You are simply gambling here and not playing with any kind of an edge at all. To play a small pocket pair upfront in a raised pot is horrible poker. Your hand wants to get in cheaply with lots of company. Not expensively against one opponent marked with a better hand. The flop raise is compounding the felony. Your playing with hardly any outs and the center piece of your strategy is to put your opponent on one specific hand, hope he doesn't improve, and will allow himself to be bet out of the hand in a large pot not to mention the presence of other players who called the pre-flop raise. This is the way crapshooters and other casino gamblers think.
You're killing me here Jim, hehe. "Crapshooter"? "Casino Gambler"? Yes it was indeed pretty crappy poker. BUT, as I said, the game was PASSIVE and WEAK. I think you can really loosen up your starting requirements here simply because of the fact that it is very easy to steal and because no-one is going to make it expensive for you to draw. OK, I promise to hardly every pull this bullshit again. BTW, I took your quiz again the other day Jim. I know you won't believe it but I did pretty good. more than doubled my previous score. Thanks again for the learning tool.
What quiz?
OK, I admit, I've been doing this lately-- I used to beat the hell out of the pot on the turn, but as of late I've been tinkering with new strategies; owing largely, I think, to the fact that I've been playing a bit online, where the play is generally more aggressive.
So. Here's what I'm getting at. You're dealt some kind of monster, say KK, near the button. There's already one limper. You raise, the blinds fold, and it's heads up.
The flop-- T73. The limper checks, you bet, the limper calls.
Turn-- A card that's moderately scary, say a 7 or a J, but not one that strikes a true chord of terror. Your opponent checks. You----
Well, obviously the traditional answer is that you bet. However, that's assuming you're NOT going to get semi-bluff check raised a fair amount of the time. And in the online games I've discovered that the 21 and 22 year olds you're up against LOVE to check raise the turn, whether they actually have something or not. Further, if you check the turn, they will almost invariably fly bet the river-- again, whether they have something or not.
At any rate, one move I've been screwing around with is just checking the turn, the either calling a bet on the river or value betting if it's checked to me. I've started doing this because I'm physically incapable of laying down an overpair in a heads up pot online (at least if the overpair is looking back at me), so I figure I might as well try and finish the hand as cheaply as possible if I'm beat, but catch an extra bet if I'm not.
Any thoughts on this? I've been making this play with some regularity, although as the title of my post suggests I feel like kind of a weenie when I make it.
You seem to understand the correct play against loose-aggressive players, so make it. Bet the turn and pay off if check-raised. There are some spots for the free-card-on-turn-to-induce-bluff-river bet, but this isn't the spot. When you have a strong hand and you're facing a near-maniac, you'll probably get a better return by betting the turn to induce a check-raise plus river bet bluff.
-Abdul
although this is a tough strategy to actually carry out, it is necessary against loose aggressive players. you just have to bite the bullet and call these people down a lot of the time since they bet and raise with crap. Play it like you got it and don't back down for a maniac. a high variance strategy, yes, but it will be your highest EV strategy against this type of opponent, especially if you play against these opponents often.
dave in cali
The play becomes worth it against players who will fold on fourth st when they are practically drawing dead (eg one overcard) but will now often lose a bet on the end.
The possiblity of a semibluff check-raise has nothing to do with the decision of whether to bet a good hand for value on the turn. If you're opponent likes to check-raise with better hands and thin draws alike, then base your decision to bet on the chance that you'll pay two bets with the worst of it and forget about the rest.
His first sentence is wrong. On close decisions you should bet less often if a checkraise means you may still have the best hand but probably don't.
I was only referring to the semibluff, and you're apparently referring to some combination of semibluffing and check-raising with likely stronger hands. GD's orginal post referred to players that do this whether they've got the goods or not, which suggests (to me) that they tend not to have it.
If a player constantly check-raises on the turn with any kind of draw, the possibility of him doing this shouldn't inhibit your tendency to bet a big hand, or shoulds inhibit it only slightly to account for the for the few times that he's huge.
If a player tended to bet strong hands and check-raise draws, you should bet the turn more often and with weaker hands.
Did Chris really say that David misunderstood. ooooh, UhUh. O.K. O.K we all make mistakes. Either he didn't mean it or he didn't follow M....'s latest chatising by the omniscient Oz. So I will render an Abject (what does that mean?) apology to Mr. Sklansky on behalf of Chris. Careful Chris you may find yourself on the Sklansky top 10 list.
Vince
Vince, you know perfectly well that the only person before whom I grovel is you.
All I'm saying is that it can't be right to ever fear being check-raised by an inferior hand, which by definition a semibluff is. Maybe I was misunderstood because it's so obvious that it's borderline stupid.
I would be more concerned about giving out a free card on the expense street than being check-raised by a better hand. Time after time we see players dragging pots on hands they had no business playing and might have folded if their opponent had just bet his hand instead of getting cute. This is a raised pot, you have a good hand but not an invincible one, your opponent has checked, and you are on the expense street so bet. Don't worry about trying to minimize your loss if your hand is not good since that is very unlikely and is a fraction of bet situation anyway. Bet and protect what is out there.
GD,
If the flop is T73 and the turn is a 7, I still hate the check but not as much as I hate it if the turn is a J. The jack increases the range of suck out cards substantially and makes it more likely that the river will give him a straight or two pair, since there are a lot of limping hand with a jack and, for a loose player, with one medium card.
I am in a 10-20 game with a half-kill (This is not a kill-pot). I am in the cutoff. UTG, an unknown player to me who has seemed very solid, limps. 2 additional players limp to me. One of whom is absolutely terrible. (He will call a continuously raised hand on the river with K high). I hold 7c7s. I also call. Both blinds come in. We see the flop 6 handed.
The flop comes 5,6,7 all diamonds. It is checked to me, I bet. Both blinds fold, UTG calls, the terrible player check-raises, I just call as does UTG.
The turn is the 5c. I now have top boat, and this is where my question comes in. UTG checks, the weak player bets. What should I do? ....
I just call. UTG also calls.
The river is the 9h. UTG checks, weak player bets, I raise, UTG now makes it 3 bets. The bad player folds. I simply call. There are many instances that I would 4-bet here, however with the action that took place and my impression of this player, I simply call. He turns over two black 9's for a bigger boat.
My question is on my turn play. Should I have raised immediately. A very strong player whom I discuss poker with regularly makes some great points that raising on the turn is a must. (I believe his thinking is absolutely correct, I just would like the panel to have a shot at me too)
I just call, hoping that the player UTG still to act will call. But because the player betting into is GOING to call if I raise, why not raise immediately. UTG is still likely to call if he holds the Ad, and absolutely will if he has a made flush, any 5, etc. He is also unlikely to be able to call with a hand such as 9c9s because of the board. (although I usually don't mind being called by a player with two outs). Put simply, my friend states that if he does call one bet, there's a good chance it'll be with a hand big enough to call two, the player leading into me WILL put another bet in. By raising I can eliminate the few hands he is more likely to fold to two, and avert the catastrophe of losing to a slightly bigger boat that comes on the river. Thoughts?
Thanks. Matt
by not raising, you allowed the flush draws to play for cheap, even though they were drawing dead. bad play. they will pay off, so why not raise? and I bet the pocket nines would have folded, thus allowing you to win the pot. besides, if you raised, the bettor would likely call, thus giving you two bets. but if you call, both the bettor and caller would each give you one bet, thus still giving you two bets, but decreasing your chances of winning the pot ... by allowing extra players a chance to draw against you for the same price. Raise.
dave in cali
What Dave and your friend are trying to tell you in a nut shell is....if you miss a bet or two on the turn that you would have won at the showdown - that's a big mistake, but if you allow someone a free card that beats you - now that's a catastrophe! That's a pretty weak attempt at quoting DS from Theory of Poker, but you get the idea - now get the book. :)
TripKings
if you miss a bet or two on the turn that you would have won at the showdown - that's a big mistake, but if you allow someone a free card that beats you - now that's a catastrophe!
Right, but there's a huge difference between "allowing someone a free card" and "allowing someone to make a bad call for 1 bet when they might fold if you make 2 bets." In that case you actually want them to call. The bigger issue is whether they would have called for 2 bets anyway.
-Sean
First of all, in regards to the hand itself, I would have re-raised the flop. The 765 single suited board presents a ton of drawing possibilities, and you might be able to drop some of those draws with a 3-bet. If you're up against a made flush and get 4-bet, it's no big deal, as you'll go on to make your hand about 35% of the time. The cost of an extra two bets heads up is miniscule compared to the potential gain of dropping a draw, and if you don't drop UTG, you're then getting the right price to jam your full house draw so the re-raise didn't cost you anything.
I don't understand what Dave meant when he said:
by not raising, you allowed the flush draws to play for cheap, even though they were drawing dead. bad play.
Huh? If the flush draws are drawing dead, how can it possibly be bad to allow them to draw cheaply? You certainly don't want someone holding the bare Kd or Qd to fold if they'd have called for 1 bet but not for 2, and someone with a straight draw might call for 1 bet but not for 2.
they will pay off, so why not raise?
Because you have no guarantee that the UTG player will call 2 bets with a weak draw, whereas he'll often call for 1.
A couple people in this thread have said or implied that the reason it's a mistake to flat call the turn is because the 9s called but might have folded for 2 bets, but that's results oriented nonsense. The 9s were getting 8:1 on a 22:1 shot, which are awful enough odds that it's no big deal to let them in cheaply. 21 times you gain a big bet, 1 time you lose about 12-14 big bets. That's still a winning proposition. And those calculations only consider the profit when he has exactly 2 black nines, and don't include that you gain more than 1 big bet the times that UTG has a weak, dead draw that he would have called with for 1 bet but not for 2. Given that there's almost no way that UTG could have more than 2 outs against you, calling may well be correct.
The only reason why raising would be mandatory is if you knew UTG would fold anyway (or call 2 cold anyway with a weak draw like black 9s) and the weak player would only check-call the river if the board double paired or the fourth flush card hit, whereas he might go to war on the turn with an underflush, in which case you would miss a bet or several bets if he would go to war. (BTW, I would tend not to put the weak, terrible player on a flopped flush, because most weak, terrible players would slowplay a flopped flush.) The fear of missing bets from an under full-house isn't a big deal because the under full-house will probably still go to war on the river. Also, if you're short-stacked or underbankrolled (or in a tournament situation where survival is important), that would be another time where raising would be mandatory, as the added profit of letting 99 in cheaply isn't worth the added variance of that 1 time in 22 you lose the 12-14 bets. Finally, if the pot were bigger and 99 would be getting closer to the right price to call, then raising would be mandatory. I'm not saying that smooth calling the turn is necessarily the right play, but it's hard to fathom a scenario where it's worse than neutral, and it will usually gain you a small amount. Basically, the failure to 3-bet the flop is a much bigger mistake than the failure to raise the turn, because on the flop there were a lot more ways your opponent could be drawing live against you than there were on the turn once the board paired.
-Sean
Good analysis.
But I don't mind the flop call of the wild one's raise (as opposed to 3 betting) so long as hero can be reasonably sure that the wild one will bet again on the turn no matter what card comes out. This way, if a blank hits, hero can raise and put UTG to a tough decision if he has a naked big flush draw. Or, if an ugly card hits (say an 8 or a Diamond), hero can just smoothcall and hope to fill up on the river.
Notice also that if the wild one in fact has a flush or straight, he likely will not 3 bet hero on the turn unless he has the nut flush or perhaps the King high flush because he has to fear the nut flush for hero the way he's played the hand.
On the turn raise, I think you hit the nail on the head in one of your other posts: Raise if you think that UTG will call 2 bets cold or if he will fold even if you don't raise. Also raise if the wild one is going to give you unreasonable action with any semblance of a hand. Otherwise, smootcall.
One other advantage of raising is that if both of your opponents have overpairs, you wouldn't mind knocking one out (typically UTG) to reduce the number of bad cards for you down to 2 as opposed to 4.
Another underestimated advantage of raising is the psychological damage you suffer if you let a hand like 99 in cheap and he goes on to outdraw you. While it is true that it is mathematically sound for you to keep him in, human emotions tend not to work with these concepts in mind. Realizing that 99 just beat you because you did not raise can put some players on tilt or semi-tilt and the money they lose in that condition will be way more than what they will "lose" by incorrectly raising from a fundamental theorem sense.
I should add that in most games that I play, the criteria for raising that you have set out will be there so I would raise the turn despite the fact that I filled up and have my opponents down to 2 outers (at most).
"If the flush draws are drawing dead, how can it possibly be bad to allow them to draw cheaply? "
because they will pay the extra cost anyway. very few players will EVER fold a flush draw for any # of bets.
it is not results-oriented advice, IMO he would have a larger EV by raising (and more often than not win a bigger pot), while lessening the chance of an occasional drawout.
I would have raised regardless of what the result was.
dave in cali
I play these sets fast every time. Exactly how I described in my post to Matt above. Trust me, I lost two huge pots with my played fast, flopped sets just last night :o(
Sean I see your points but when I decide to enter a pot with the best of it and start shoveling in the money I want to win THAT pot. When I raise someone out of the pot and then after the showdown I notice any discomfort on their part and I know I might have pushed them off the winner, believe me I'm not worrying about missed bets as I stack my win. I'm thinking, glad I raised. There was no reason to slowplay this hand at all.
So maybe my reply was nonsence to you but it was not results oriented.
In your arguement above you state that the UTG on the turn with the pocket nines was drawing slim at 8-1 for a 22-1 shot. True enough, you know that and I know that but the UTG did'nt know that! He had no reason to believe that he wasn't playing for a 5 as well as a 9 (for 4 outs not 2) for a 11-1 shot. And with the implied odds the pot is offering his call is very close to not being a mistake at all (in his mind that is judging from the play of his opponents)He might of even thought an 8 was an out if his opponents were betting flush draws, and not made flushes, giving him four more outs And throw in the fact that the pot should be bigger from a re-raise on the flop (which we both agree on) he would not be making a mistake at all. So why not raise to make him pay the price for his draw and let him make a bigger mistake than he already is but doesn't know it?
I really think we aren't that far apart on our thinking of this hand at all, and I am abslolutely convinced you are a much more experienced and knowledgable poker player than I, but I did want to voice these ideas and I did take exception to the results oriented comment as there is no way I play the hand different whether UTG spikes a 9 on the river or not.
...with 3 diamonds on the flop you must play those sets FAST. When you are checkraised on the flop you should have re-raised IMO. Yes you might be against a made flush already but the checkraise could easily be a single high diamond, overpair, smaller set, etc.
This re-raise would force the UTG to call two bets cold in the face of a flush board and maybe (in a perfect world) he mucks the winner here. But it would depend on the player as he did have an overpair to the flop.
When you turn a five for your shack there is no need to slowplay as the pot is already large (especially had you re-raised the flop as you should have) Re-raise the weak player and pray he caps it. This also forces the UTG to call 2 big bets cold with a fear of the cap. Another chance for him to muck the winner.
There is a saying if you don't lose alot of chips with a set then you didn't play it right and I'm afraid you made it much to easy for UTG to stay in and beat you.
Sorry he caught you with that dang 9 on the river! :o( You were wise to not re-raise the river when UTG comes alive but just call.
Even if you are unsure that the bettor would call your raise, you should still raise because 1. This is a drawing board if there ever was one, 2. You are giving someone who might be drawing dead a chance to make a huge mistake, 3. There might be a smaller made hand that will give you plenty of action, 4. Pocket nines fold (although some would still call with the 9d for the 1 outer).
Weigh that against the lone reason for calling, 1. You might (but might not) collect an additional bet.
The point of slowplaying is to allow someone to catch a card that makes it worth continuing. In this hand, those cards were either already there, or they weren't coming, or the few that could've came (such as the two outs to the 9, or the 1 out to the straight flush), would very possibly beat you.
I should've said "one of the points to slowplaying...". There are some other reasons to slowplay a hand. Sorry.
I think you should raise on the flop with your top set. Your hand may well be good and you have one of the best draws in poker if it isn't. With that flop you will get played with so there is no point in slowplaying here. On the turn, raising is even clearer. Players are already tied in and you want to make the drawing hands pay through the nose both now and when they make their hand. Wouldn't it be great if a lower full house re-raised? To fault you too severely because of the two outer hitting on the river would be unfair but again this is one of the advantages to betting your hand is that you prevent catastrophes like this from happening.
I replied in more detail under Dave in Cali's post, but I'll make a couple points since I'm bored:
But because the player betting into is GOING to call if I raise, why not raise immediately. UTG is still likely to call if he holds the Ad, and absolutely will if he has a made flush, any 5, etc.
Right, but he might fold smaller diamonds, straight draws, etc. that he might fold for 2 bets. Unless this guy is a complete nitwit, the only hand that would probably call two cold would be the hands you listed, but there are a lot more hands that would call for 1 but probably not 2--hands of the 99 variety. You have to figure that the guy would have called the turn bet with a lot of hands if he was going to call with black nines on a 7655 3 flush board. He probably would have called with most diamonds, and any straight draw, and any pair that was good enough to call the flop with. In other words, I think the number of hands he'd call for 1 but not 2 are a lot bigger than "a few."
By raising I can eliminate the few hands he is more likely to fold to two, and avert the catastrophe of losing to a slightly bigger boat that comes on the river.
It's not a catastrophe. It's only a castastrophe if it costs you several big bets, and it's almost certain that you gained from his call if he would have folded for 2 bets. (The magoos in the audience will probably say "of course it's a catastrophe, you lost the pot!", but they're forgetting the 21 times in 22 that you don't lose.) A catastrophe would have been folding to the check-reraise on the river and then seeing UTG proudly turn over Axd or 66.
-Sean
It is the $20-$40 game at the Mirage and I am in the big blind with the Kh4h. An early player limps, a middle player limps, and the small blind limps. I take a free play. There is $80 in the pot and 4 players.
The flop is: 5s5h3d
The small blind checks. I check. The other two players check.
The turn is: 7h
The small blind checks. I bet $40 having a flush draw, a gutshot straight draw, and an over card. I could win the pot outright and I have a ton of outs if I am called. No one has shown any interest in this pot so I feel it is my duty to not allow the money to just rot in the center of the table. Only the small blind calls. There is $160 in the pot and two players.
The river is: Td
The small blind checks. I bet $40 having missed everything as usual with no hand to showdown. The small blind goes into the tank and reluctantly calls. He wins with AhQh.
A friend told me my semi-bluff was a poor one because the pot was not large enough to spend $40 on the turn and another $40 at the river when I miss. I should have just checked the turn, happy to get a free card and then check-fold the river if anyone bets thereby saving $80. Was the pot too small (only two big bets) to bother with a semi-bluff and was it right to follow through with another big bet on the river when I missed?
Not betting on fourth st. is insane. The river bet is much more debatable (mainly because you might win a showdown).
Jim,
I agree with your semi-bluff on the turn. Part of the reason I like it is BECAUSE the pot is relatively small and you are unlikely to face aggressive raises. Surely you will take the pot on the turn at least a quarter of the time and you have many outs when you don't.
On the river I would check against weak players who will call with any pair or ace. A bet would be appropriate against medium skilled opponents who might lay down an ace high or baby pair combined with a draw.
Regards,
Rick
I think you got to see a flop that you shouldn't have been able to see, played it quite well and got beat from the guy who should have won anyway but not by the way he did.
Not to be blowing smoke up yer butt, I think you played the hand quite well. In fact, if the SB had any testicular fortitude, he'd of done what you did (i.e., make a move on the pot with turn and river bets). Since he didn't make the move, you were correct to do so IMO. Since the river card wasn't exactly scary, I also think the river bet was appropriate. The questonable play all around (pre-flop right through to the river) is really the guy in the SB, not your play.
backdoor,
You wrote: "Regarding river bet, do you think he will fold ace high? If so the bet's ok."
When Jim bets the turn, he has no clear idea what his four opponents have, except to say that it is unlikely that the two limpers have hit this baby board and that the small blind has yet to take a stab at the pot.
Since the small blind called Jim's turn bet, it is unlikely that he would throw away any hand containing an ace against a single opponent. At least that is true in California, where ace high hands will look you up about 90% of the time in this spot. It is possible he could throw away a better king, but what better king could call the turn bet unless it were a K6 or K4 (which would tie Jim) or perhaps a KQ or KJ? I am assuming the small blind is a mediocre player who will call with weak overcards or the combo high card/inside draw hands against a scary board.
Betting the turn is clear (would that make not betting insane? :-) ). But the river check is probably correct.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
David already said something along the same lines, but immediately after reading this, I thought that you have some semblence of a hand to showdown. It's not all that rare that I'll check behind with king high, hoping that it'll hold up in a showdown. The small blind sounds like a pretty weak player (failing to raise before the flop is at least somewhat understandable if you don't like betting ace-high into a raggy board, but failing to bet the turn!?!?), and weak players are likely to be ones that check and call with goofy draws like 98 on a 7533 board, i.e hands that king high will beat in a showdown.
I would probably semi-bluff that turn at least 75% of the time, if not 100%. It would be more debateable if you had a weaker draw, but your draw is pretty strong-- you still had 10 outs despite the presence of a bigger flush draw.
-Sean
3 K's, 3 4's and 3 6's.
I'm splitting hairs here but he has only 9 outs.
I think the caller figures Jim might bet an overpair or a 3 on the flop. He might slowplay a five.
On the turn then, Jim has either a draw or a 5. When the draw misses the caller might expect that AQ is a winner often enough. SB might have considered raising the river to push out a weak pair (if Jim would fold to acheck-raise with a 3 or other weak pair.
But Jim probably wouldn't bet a small pair on the river so I think that the check/call by AQ is the proper play on his part (although clearly he should have bet the turn himself).
One of those cases where both players played the hand properly. You had a good bet on the turn, but got unlucky in that someone got back on the draw. Without his flush draw, the Ah-Qh dumps the hand on the turn (why didn't he ever bet!!!). Maybe you could've forseen that 2 hearts on the board gave someone a draw and thus not bet the hand there. But trying to make that sort of guesswork usually ends up with me zigging when I should be zagging.
Your bet on the end was required though, because you probably have no other way to win. Conversely, if you have an Ace here, a check would've been correct. A final point: In some games, players who call you on the turn are absolutely going to call you on the river with as little as Ace-high.
I agree with Rick. I've made these types of moves out of the blinds lots of times, and had players downtable actually say," Not enough money in there. Go ahead and take it." If the pot was larger, you would be more likely to get callers.
I, like others, wonder why the SB's chips were glued to the table. Just curious, if SB had bet out on the turn, would you have called, folded, or semi-bluffed raised?
If the small blind leads out on the turn there would $120 in the pot and it would cost me $40. I have 9 outs with any Heart and 3 more outs with any Six that is not a Heart for a total of 12 clean outs based on what I know. The odds are 34:12 against on a 3:1 proposition not to mention an extra bet I might collect at the river or any further bets from the other two players yet to act on the turn. I would call every time. I don't like raising because I rate to get called and this lowers my odds.
The scenario you outline is ideal for a turn semi-bluff:
1. On the turn, the best bluffing position is in early position after the flop gets checked through.
2. The pot is fairly small which means that players are less likely to lock horns with you. I reckon the pot size here ($160) is about the ideal amount to run even a cold bluff i.e. I may have taken a stab at this pot with something like 8s2s. As Sklansky says, it would be "imprudent" to check with your hand which has so many outs even if called;
3. The board has all small cards and a small pair which means that none of the limpers likely have a piece of the board and you could even have trips.
BTW, I agree with what others say about the river check (i.e better hands including Ace high will not lay down)...and it is unlikely that the sb would call with just a better King on the turn.
If you had Qh4h for example, you probably have to bet because sb may have called the turn with Khxh which he is likely to fold on the river if you bet. Players are way less likely to look you you up on the river with King high (for obvious reasons).
Actually, this scenario is discussed in HPFAP (at least in the old edition). When everyone checks the flop and you think the turn missed everyone, you can often bet and take the pot right there. This situation alone would probably be enough to bet, even without your flush draw, gutshot, and overcard. No matter how you slice it I like Jim's play on the turn, even if he didn't win the pot.
dave in cali
Jim,
Another nice post. David's use of the word 'insane' is appropriate. I cannot imagine why you wouldn't bet here. I like the river bet too. First, how can you put him on a strong AQ here? Second, many other hands will fold. Third, you might win against some other banana hand, like someone said, like 98o...you played it just right.
But here is something interesting: If one of these chickens had raised you on the turn, then bet again on the river, you pretty much have to give it up unless a 6 or a heart show up. And you aren't much a favorite for that to happen.
Mark
Of course, if a King shows on the river, you are ok too.
Mark
There's no likely draws out. I've found that a lot of players put you on the flush draw when you bet out on the turn(when, indeed, you have picked up a flush draw), and will call you all the way down.
In the loose games I play in, the profitable play in tiny pots like this where no one likely has anything, is to either bet the flop or just check it down.
Jim, what do you do if the SB bets the turn? I can't believe he never bet or raised pre=flop this hand.
(n/t)
I would make the same play on the turn and not be too upset with myself. I think I would usually bet the river also, but if you checked it would be OK too. The small pot actually makes for a good reason to semi-bluff in this spot, if the pot was bigger it would be less likely to work. You can always take those little pots off people's hands when it is too much effort for them to bother winning it.
dave in cali
Jim,
Since your image is tight why not semi-bluff right away and raise pre-flop. I'm sure since the sb didn't raise into you with AhQh he must respect you. That way you have more options thruout the hand IMO. You would also put them on there heals and maybe chase the AhQh out him figuring you have a pair.
Paul
You might have a pattern problem Jim. I like the semi-bluff, but why did this guy call you dowm. I doubt you have an obvious tell, so I'm wondering, if you hardly ever check the flop ,and then bet the turn when you have something, making this guy suspicious. With your straight forward style that you seem to have, It might have been better for you to go after it on the flop, or check more of your betting hands on the flop in similar situations.
Dave summed it up in his usual concise style.
TURN:
Think of your turn bet as a value bet rather than a semi bluff.
Lets assume for the moment your straight and flush outs are good. Your odds on making the hand are 34 to 12 against. So if everyone calls your making a profit even if currently beaten.
Its possible that no one has hit the flop. In which case you need to give better kings and aces a chance to fold (at little or no EV cost to yourself), while not giving other hands a free chance to hit a pair.
Of course you could be drawing dead but if so you just have to take the hit.
RIVER: Maybe king high is both to good and not good enough to bet. For instance you might bet 8h6h here as a complete bluff and Qh3h for value. Is the small blind going to call you down with queen high?
I'm in a 10 handed hold em game. UTG limps in, which is followed by 4 other players limping in, including the button. SB Tosses in another 5 bucks, and I check in the BB with 4s 5s.
The flop is 3c 6c 7s. SB checks and I bet out having the nut straight and hoping an overpair or flush draw will raise, allowing me to make it 3 bets. Does anyone advocate a slow play or checkraise in this spot? All call except the SB.
The turn is a 3d. As I didn't get any resistance on the flop I assume my hand is still good and bet out again. (Any advocates of a check with that many players behind you and a paired board?) UTG folds, 3 limpers and the button call.
The river is a 2s, I hesitate for a moment trying to put people on hands. I figure that if someone had a full house I would have heard about it on the turn so I bet out again. 1st limper calls, then its folded to the button who raises. The button is the type of player that doesn't get out of line. He has to have a big hand here to raise, but I'm not sure he's putting me on a straight. Whats my play?
You have to call here. At this point there is $310 in the pot and it costs you another $20 to call with your straight. Make him show you his full house. Your plays are all fine.
Call!
SPM,...and I know you did, who won...
I did call and then the other limper springs to life and 3 bets! The button caps, and after some deliberation I muck. Then the damn limper mucks too! I sure wish I had gone into check and call mode that time.
Not that check/call would have made any difference. Presumably, button would bet, you'd call, limper would raise and button would 3 bet. You would be in the same predicament as you were in the actual scenario where you bet.
I would have played the hand exactly the same way you did and may in fact have just paid off 2 more bets on the river depending on what I know about the players. Against unknown players, I think it's correct to fold when you did as it's likely that one of them has you beat.
Limper is obviously a bit of a wild one.
The limper limp-reraises the river and then mucks for one more bet?? Doesn't this sound at all suspicious to anyone else? Was this an online hand, perhaps against colluders? Limper mucks before showdown so his hand won't show up in the hand histories...?
David "When they really ARE out to get you, being paranoid is just smart thinking" Ottosen
I would have to agree. If I limp-reraise, which I rarely do on the river, unless there are many other callers that I want to call to maximize the amount of money I can win, then I will always call one more bet even if capped.
I think you were up againts colluders here. Most likely someone had rags and someone else had the fullhouse.
The Fish
Is there any defense against collusion, any actions you can take when you strongly suspect it? I'm not sure of the house's motivation to stop it. i.e if the colluders are regulars and/or good tippers.
For instance, I once saw the dealer fairly discretely check the cards of a player who acted in a similarly suspicious fashion. He then called the floorman over and whispered his findings. I was in the ten seat and friendly with the dealer. He told me his suspicions, the player didn't have a raising hand, and that they were going to watch these two "colluders".
The actions of both the button and the limper are peculiar. If the button made a full house when the board paired, he should have raised on the turn; most players would also raise with trip threes here. [And most players would have raised on the flop with a set.] A terrible player might play 22 in this manner, however. The oddity of the limper's river play is obvious. I'm not saying that it was collusion, just that it was ODD.
MJS
"The button is the type of player that doesn't get out of line"
Bet you're wrong. He either had a hand that he was crazy not to raise with earlier, or stayed with a crazy draw, or is trying some kind of crazy bluff. It's a good-sized pot. He probably has 77 or 66 but might have the same hand you do.
Doug,
I'll answer without looking up Jim's answer but would be surprised if he differs substantially.
You wrote: ”The flop is 3c 6c 7s. SB checks and I bet out having the nut straight and hoping an overpair or flush draw will raise, allowing me to make it 3 bets. Does anyone advocate a slow play or checkraise in this spot?”
I think a bet is by far the strongest play. It is in harmony with two rules of thumb. The first is that whenever one flops a straight, betting is usually best since the board is coordinated and you will get the action you usually want. The other is that when the board comes small and you bet out of the blinds against a large field, you will usually get callers and raisers and they will not be able to put you on any hand.
Note how this differs from when you flop a set with a board such as K 7 2 rainbow. Now your bet is likely to get rid of most opponents, and for the most part you want them to catch up a little and pay you off on later streets.
”The turn is a 3d. As I didn't get any resistance on the flop I assume my hand is still good and bet out again. (Any advocates of a check with that many players behind you and a paired board?)”
I would bet almost every time. You can't let every pair scare you and you must realize that they have to fear that you filled up yourself since the blind could easily hold a three and would have bet two pair on the flop (as opposed to UTG for example).
”The river is a 2s, I hesitate for a moment trying to put people on hands.
A one or two second delay before betting should be standard, even if you have a big full. This disguises the times you really need to think about things.
”I figure that if someone had a full house I would have heard about it on the turn so I bet out again. 1st limper calls, then its folded to the button who raises. The button is the type of player that doesn't get out of line. He has to have a big hand here to raise, but I'm not sure he's putting me on a straight. What's my play?”
I would call. This may get the limper to call also, and you almost surely beat him. If you reraise you lose the limper, and would not like to have to pay off another raise by the button. Folding is unthinkable, and I hope you don't see that as a viable option.
Regards,
Rick
Red AA in middle position. 30-60 game. Players are not known to me at this point.
First in the pot and raise.
Late position player calls, BB calls.
Flop comes with 3 clubs on board.
BB checks, I bet, Late position raises, BB calls, I reraise, Late position folds BB calls.
Turn blank. I bet, BB calls.
River fourth club. BB bets - I crying call.
Question: Should I reraise the flop? Should the turn be bet? Should the river be called?
Late position had a king high flush draw that he laid down assuming that I had an Ace high flush draw. BB had 2 rag clubs.
Newbie,
I would have played this hand more cautiosly when faced with three clubs on the flop. I agree with your flop bet. But when the BB calls the late position player's raise, I also would have just called. The play of the BB suggests that he either has a big club (that he wants to draw to as cheaply as possible) or else the BB is slowplaying a made hand. From this point I would have gone into a check/call mode and folded if a fourth club came on the turn or river and I was bet into.
But I don't think that you played the hand poorly. Your re-raise on the flop got the late position player to fold which obviously helps. And the way the BB played I can't fault your crying call on the river when the fourth club comes.
The play of the BB I find very interesting. In his shoes I would have played my hand very aggressively until the fourth club came on the river. Since he chose to slowplay the flop and turn I'm amazed that he would bet out on the river when a scary card -- the fourth club -- hit. I'm assuming that since you state that you didn't know your opponents then the BB shouldn't have been able to get a highly accurate read of your play so quickly. But the BB appears to be a very good player; he read your hand perfectly and won the maximum possible on this hand.
If he were a loose defender it would be easy to say that he's more likely to have AcX than two clubs, and that he'd play them the same way. In this scenario you should bet the turn.
If he's not a loose defender then suited cards are a more likely holding and you should be more inclined to check the turn.
As for the river, you'd have to be virtually positive he wouldn't bluff. Pay him off.
I am in a 10 handed 20/40 game - everyone is foreign to me. The SB is a local pro (at least he looks and talks the game) who I think usually players one step higher.
UTG - seemingly normal player limps.
4th seat - loose aggressive player limps as well.
5th seat - folds
6th seat - this is me - I raise with QQ
7th through the button all fold.
SB makes it 3 bets. BB folds, 4th seat limper calls, 5th seat limper folds.
I debate 4 betting - but just call.
The flop comes 345 - with 2 diamonds.
SB bets, limper calls.
I raise, SB 3 bets, limper calls, I call.
At this point, I am putting the guy on something along the line of AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT or AdKd - however, given that the limper is still in, I doubt he has AdKd - I think the limper has Adxd for the nut diamond draw, and a straight draw.
Turn is a 8h - now there are two hearts on the board.
SB bets, limper calls. I call
River is a Js - SB checks, limper checks, I check.
SB turns over TT - limper turns over Ah3h (huh???), and I turn over my QQ to win the pot.
Putting aside that I think the SB played it a bit too aggressive, I think there are two debatable decisions for me, the turn and the river.
After the hand, I wondered if I should have raised on the turn - to in effect get a free card on the river (if I was behind), or get the river bet in on the turn (if I was ahead) - and then check the river, unless of course a Q hits.
I put the limper on a draw, so it would've been a good thing to make him pay on the turn that he may not have paid on the river.
If the SB had a smaller pair (or AK) than me, then I make him pay the same amount, just getting the river bet in on the turn instead of the river.
If the SB had a bigger pair than me, my check on the river would've been the same, since he would have probably simply called the turn (fearing trip 8s or a higher pair), and then checkign the river.
So, in retrospect, I think raising the turn, with the intention of checkign the river was simply a better play in this pot than calling the turn.
But, given that I have now simply called the turn, when they both check the river, should I have bet? Well, I can forget about the limper, since he is likely on a draw...but what does the SB have that he would 3 bet preflop, 3 bet the flop, bet the turn and now check the river? It seemed to me that he is a good aggressive pro, and would not have the resistance to check KK or AA - and thus given the fact he checked, he must either have QQ, JJ, TT. But I did not believe he would 3 bet the flop with TT (yes, 3 bet the preflop, but 3 bet the flop?), and thus I just called. I think the check versus a bet on the river have pretty close to zero ev...or slightly negative (meaning a bet is better), but not by much.
Any thoughts?
Another case where you really need to know your customer. Most players will only 3-bet preflop with A-A, K-K, or A-Ks. Maybe since you raised in mid-later position, he put you on a much weaker hand than T-T. While just calling the turn might've been a neutral EV play, I do think that once they showed weakness by checking the river that you should bet. That's a very unscary board and with 2 callers, if he had the nuts, I doubt the SB would take a risk on a check-raise where it appears that he might not get bet into.
Given the action pre-flop and on the flop, the small blind is supposed to have AA or KK. I think being any more aggressive than you were would be over playing your hand. The best course is to just get through the expensive streets as cheaply as possible and hope the small blind is over playing his hand which is what happened. I would not worry about whether or not you could have finagled an extra bet somewhere. Rather I would be grateful that my hand held up given that board and the betting.
PRE FLOP: Four bet. The limper is giving you EV to help on those occasions that the SB has you dominated.
FLOP: The SB is starting to convince me I might be beaten, still I would likely four bet to get the most out of the limper on those occasions where I’m ahead. BTW do I have Qd?
TURN: Calling him down OK. Alternately could raise, with the limper sponsoring your war with the SB.
RIVER: SB might be worried you’ve hit your set with the J. Still I would likely bet the river in case he’s got AK, AQ; but that’s probably due to playing too much on the Internet.
I don’t have much of a problem with the SBs play. He’s got to make sure that draws (flush, straight over cards etc) pay the max.
I agree with Jim's assesment here. The guy 3 bet you on 2 streets from the small blind, after you raised 2 limpers preflop. I would have guessed no less than KK or AA, especially from a local pro. Get thru the big bet streets and be thankful you won. You may have missed a bet on the river but it won't be the first. If sb has AK diamonds and the limper is also on a draw you don't get paid off anyway. Take care and play hard!
I am in middle position in a 30/60 game.
I have AQo...everyone folds to me...I raise. Everyone folds, SB calls, BB calls.
I don't know anything about either guy. I'm not sure if they are regulars here or not (I am not).
the flop comes AJ2 - rainbow.
SB bets, BB folds, I call. Turn is a 8. SB bets, I raise, SB calls.
assuming he will check (maybe check raise) on the river :
1. what do I do on the river if a Q hits?
2. what do I do on the river if a J hits?
3. What if the board pairs (2 or 8) other than a J?
4. What if it is a K or T?
should I bet regardless of what hits? if not, which card(s) should I check it down with?
If your opponent checks to you on the river you should bet regardless. He will always making a crying call with a weaker Ace which is his most likely holding given the betting action.
Your play of waiting until the turn to pull the trigger is becoming more popular among the better players. However, I still prefer to raise the flop bet since when I call he may not bet the turn and fold when I do thereby costing me another small bet in some cases. He may fold when I raise on the flop but at that point they usually call one more small bet to take off a card and see if they can hit something.
Bet no matter what hits. If he bets out, cry call. If he check-raises(unlikely; he probably has A-rag and will be scared you have AJ), cry call.
im guessing it's his cause he's the one who emailed it to me (thanks!!).
i just took it again for the second time and scored 50. yuck. i think i did better the first time and im just certain im better than i was then..
how did others do with this quiz? please be honest. should we assume mason and sklansky and izmet scored perfect 100s? are there any addendums at this point? a couple of the answers were really problematic. any winning players do poorly. am i just the worst hold em player ever.. im surprised im not completely broke..
Good question. I have done the test a couple of times spaced apart in time a month or two. Was average the first time and got 60 the second time. Think it is possible to get doing it too fast as test is fairly long if you don't take a break. Very good test--wish there were more around to try. A few questions I thought I was putting what would be marked the wrong answer but tried to play the way I had remembered in the past. Regards. Dave
When I took the quiz the first time I scored 68. The second time I took the quiz I only scored a 72.
~stephen
Izmet Fekali score a perfect hundred on that quiz? Never. I might score nearly a hundred on a quiz Izmet wrote. The post flop recommendations are too tight for the games with which I am familiar. Too many laydowns. The preflop is pretty good however. I scored extremely well on the test, but I used the "What do I think Jim Brier would do here approach", rather than what I would do, because, too many answers are dependant on the situation (which Jim Brier is well aware too.). It really just reaffirmed my player tendency ability, which (along with card reading, which is related) is considerably more important than what you would do in a vacuum situation.
It matters little how you score on somebody else's quiz. It matters only how deep are you willing to think the questions over and how able are you to defend your answers.
---
And it matters even less if you get hit with the deck.
true of course.
The scores have ranged from a low of 42 to a high of about 84. Roughly 100 posters have taken the quiz but not all of them have told me how they scored. Preston Smith, a successful local tournament player in Dallas, scored 81. I don't remember who else scored in the 80s but I know they were good players who post on this forum. I sent Izmet the quiz at his request but I don't know how he scored on it. I believe the average score is in the high 50s. Rick Nebiolo has taken the quiz and I would love to know what his score was. By guess would be in the middle to upper 80s.
I have received a number of questions from posters who took the quiz about some of my answers and I responded by providing more rationale. I think in most cases I was successful in convincing them that my answer was closer to be correct than they originally thought.
The purpose of the quiz is to test the soundness of your playing technique and it does not incorporate tells or psychology or how a particular opponent plays. It is assumed that you are playing with strangers basically. I believe that before you can effectively utilize tells, psychology, and these other poker skills you need to understand what a good hand is, what a good situation is, what a bad situation is, and other playing fundamentals. I believe that too many players set aside fundamentals and try to use tactics which may be more appropriate for a shorthanded game, a big bet game, or a tournament situation than a full tabled limit hold-em game. Basically they are trying to understand calculus before they have mastered algebra.
Next year, I will be revising the quiz and it will focus on post flop play with no pre-flop questions at all. It will be longer and much more difficult.
Jim,
I'm just waiting for my best friend (long time mid-limit pro) to take it and if I have time (a problem lately) I'll try to start some threads on questions where we disagree that are interesting. It was very well done and we are looking forward to the next one.
Regards,
Rick
Hey! I scored an 86 or 87. I even emailed you and told you about it. :-(
I would have scored a couple of points higher if I had correctly visualized the situations in a couple of questions.
But I didn't score well because I'm an ace player. I scored well because I'm a huge Jim Brier fan. My natural style of play is more like yours than anyone else's, so like it or not, you are my role model. :-)
I just recognized some of the concepts from posts here.
David
Sorry Dave, I simply forgot. A score of 86 is the highest I can remember.
I didn't actually feel slighted.
I'm more than a little surprised that I got a high score. I figured it was a 'B' or so. Although when I expressed this to my wife she said, "Why? you study more than anyone else in the world." Which, sadly, may be true.
I gave the test to a friend that I play with in a home game and this thread really puts his score into perspective. He scored in the low 70's. But the only poker book he's ever read is "Psychology of Poker". And he's never really thought deeply about the game. That's all instinct. I've always thought he was a natural, but I didn't think he'd be on a par with 2+2 regulars. It's kind of scary, actually.
And for the record, I think he beats that game for more than I do.
David
I am a fairly new player who is reasonably sucessful at mid limit HE. I play mostly 15-30, some 20-40 and while waiting, a lot of 6-12. When I got the quiz I wanted to use it as a learning tool so I took the quiz twice at the same time. My first answer was what I wood do and the second was what I thought should be done and got a 50 and a 64 respecively. Sure do have a lot to learn. Will take it again in a few more months. Have reread Theory and HPFAP and analyzed Jims answers so I am expecting to do better. This was an excellent quiz and a fabulous teaching aid. I would love to see a 100 to 200 question quiz with an analysis of each question published in a book form. Jim should get some remuneration for all his efforts and, even though this would be great competition for HPFAP, 2+2 would profit if they published it. Thanks again for all your help Jim.
John
i think there would be a market for a good quiz book with well discussed answers...see how successful people use kaplan test preparation service and really boosts test scores...and underlying understanding of key concepts...but may actally be rattling the aquarium walls too much...happy holidays all
Good idea. Speaking for myself I need practice in putting theory into practice outside the casino. A book like this could even be put online with a password system and throw off good profits to both Jim and 2+2 with the low expences incurred in printing. feel pretty humble seeing as how I had the lowest mark here but plan on getting better; good incentive. Dave
I played 6-12 for the last year and have just moved up to 10-20 and 15-30. Results so far so good.
I have taken Jim's quiz and I scored 70 Not good but not to bad. This game will keep you on your toes.
Keep up the great work Jim. I look forward to the next quiz. Your "Words of wisdom" have taught me a great deal and got me out of the lower limits.
Best of it !!
MJ
Hi!
Im new to twoplustwo and never heard about jim quiz before. I would really appreciate if u (jim) could sent it to me at revoilajf@hotmail.com !
Ty folks
Charlie
(n/t)...
Jim, you sent me the test a while back and i got a 77. I know that I was helped a lot by reading your posts and the answers to them from the great replys. I intent to try to take the test once a month to improve my score and I look forward to your new test. Thanks for taking the time to help and hope that you and your family have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Score: 71
(n/t)
This question is not intended to be derogatory in any way....however, I do know that Jim Brier and Mason Malmuth, are seemingly two of the tightest (at least in starting hand requirements) limit hold'em players that I know of (although I have not played with either much, just their posts reflect this).
Question : You are at a new casino, playing 30/60, 40/80, 80/160, or whatever is your usual game. You are very comfortable at the limit, and playing it, trying to get a scan on the players, etc. The cards have been very poor, and you have played for 4 hours, while only playing 4 hands, withouth seeing the river on any of them (either you folded on the flop, or you won on the flop). Players start to mumble. They ask you where you are from. A few minutes later, they mumble some more about how tight you are, and they say that they were planning a trip to your hometown, but now they'd rather go to Egypt. Clearly, it has been made clear by the whole table that they all think you play very tight (although they think you are much tighter than you really are, since the cards have been very poor to you so far). There's no real animosity or anything like that.
The gist of the question : Is there anything you should do? Or just smile, laugh, and continue playing the same game you play without letting the comments affect you in any way?
Your question makes a great point. I've often thought that if you start out playing a session tight and you get such bad cards for so long that you appear even tighter, then you should probably just pack it in and go home. The other alternative is to shift gears and start robbing the suckers blind.
I have several plays that I use when I've been in a tight mode and see that players have tightened up against me or trying to maneuver me out of iffy hands. (Until this year, my poker friends and acquaintances probably saw me as a very aggressive player. One time in a stud game, I checked and two of my friends instantly threw their hands away.)
It's good to have 3 gears; tight-aggressive, loose-aggressive, and tournament-aggressive.
Online, tight regulars in game. One was making a habit of declaring the hands he was putting me on (and doing a good job of it.)
I get AJ on the button two limpers call.
flop is AJJ and it is checked to me. I check.
Turn is a rag and I'm not to thrilled about letting people draw free on expensive street, so when it is checked to me I bet.
They both fold :-(
I turn over my AJ and the guy putting me on hands has a fit that he knew I must have had AJ because I checked the flop. He insists he would have called a flop bet thinking I had less.
Not too sure if I should have bet the flop or checked both the flop and the turn.
My image denitely played a part in them folding.
So I made sure I showed them a bluff shortly thereafter when I bet out of the BB with 55 on a flop of A26.
If it were me, I wouldn't show. Just use your made image to keep stealing until they catch on.
betting out on a flop of A26 with 55 is not a bluff....it may very well have been the best hand.
.
It's true that when you flop a monster you can bet it because often your opponents will not believe you. This is true against weaker opposition.
You 55 bet was not a bluff. It was a test for sure. In late position you would open bet to represent an ace to get weaker pairs to fold and also in case 55 is the best hand at that time.
I like to exploit my tight image not by loosing up pre-flop but my loosing up on the flop and the later streets. I might check-raise semi-bluff on the turn or just play a draw more aggressively since the chances of me winning without a fight go up dramatically.
The game has now got tighter for you so you should adapt the same way as if tight players replaced several loose players.
Loosen up on your bluffs and semi bluffs, tighten op on your value bets.
I've never been noted for being the tightest player in the world, but people have mentioned that I was too tight on occasion. one way to defray any sort of possible tension is to jokingly blame the dealer. Say something like "I would play more if this dealer would stop giving me 2-7o every hand." Not in a way that was genuinely insulting to a dealer, I guess just sort of playfully. Maybe give the people on my right (if they have already mucked) a quick glimps of a 3-9o before I muck it. People might tend to sympathize with you then.
I really like Jim Brier's answer. Contrary to what many people advocate, I see no reason to take the worst of it pre-flop with loosey goosey play, just to promote action or squelch a tight image. I much prefer to mix it up a bit more post flop because this type of image (in the right game), should provide additional opportunities to make money with the proper use of semi-bluffs and otherwise solid but creative play. Of course, posessing the necessary patience to stalk and wait out these opportunities before erring yourself, is the key.
Kevin
Hypothetical, but comes up all the time.
Let's say you hold A7o in the BB. Everyone folds, except cutoff seat raises, button and SB fold - you decide to call (right or wrong? I think its a must call).
Flop comes A93 - rainbow.
You check, preflop raiser bets.
What do you do?
This is what I do : If I think the preflop raiser is a good player (who may think I am a good player as well, and wonder why I am calling the flop bet) who will now check a pocket pair on the turn, I raise....thus forcing him to put more money in on the flop, and telling him that I will bet the turn as well. If they call, I bet the turn, and muck if they raise the turn, or I call if they 3 bet the flop, and check/fold the turn (unless of course, I hit another A or a two pair or a straight draw).
If the preflop raiser is a below average aggressive player, I will allow him his free cards, and just check/call him on the turn and river (he may have me beat already, in which case I do not want to give him more money...and if he has a pocket pair, I don't want to raise him out, instead I want him to keep betting it for me).
If the preflop raiser is a below average loose passive player, I will checkraise him on the flop, knowing that he will likely call the raise and also the turn and maybe the river as well.
I would call every time in this situation being half-way in against a potential steal raise. Against most players I like to simply lead at the flop and give my opponent the opportunity of getting out of the hand rather than trying to suck out on me. If I get heat, then I re-evaluate depending upon how good the player is. With a calling station, I want to make sure I collect something on every street so I would avoid check-raising since he may not bet.
Yes have to call pre flop.
After the flop I’m going to assume I’m ahead and try to get as much as possible in the pot. The question is do I bet the flop, check raise the flop, or check call the flop and check raise the turn? Depends on the opponent, and I also need to mix my play up a little.
With a drawless flop, I would tend more towards check raising the turn. If the opponent is hyper aggressive I might well check raise the river instead.
Hi all...
I haven't posted in a while because I usually post from work and for some reason, I always get the "incomplete message" screen even after I leave the name, subject & message. So anyway, now I have to do this on my personal time from home! (horrible, I know)
Anyway, here's the scenario. $10-20 online.
I am in the SB in a relatively loose aggressive game. The BB is very loose aggressive. I call with 9T off after 3 other limpers and the BB raises. All call. 10 small bets in the pot.
The flop comes 7 8 3 rainbow. I've got 2 overcards plus the open-ended draw. I check. The BB bets, 2 players call, and I check-raise. All call except the player to my immediate right who folds. Now only 3 players left. 8.5 big bets in the pot.
The turn comes a 5 putting 2 diamonds on the board. By checking, I think one basically announces the fact that you were on a big draw. But the big blind will call me down with anything better than King high. By betting, I might knock out the other player with overcards although that probably doesn't help me much in this spot, or I might get rid of a gotshot draw like TJ.
So my question is as follows: after check-raising the flop for value what do you do on the turn when there's not enough players left for a value bet?
Puggy
Wow. You are lucky the BB didn't reraise your check-raise and isolate you before the turn -- when you "check-raised for value".
Basically what you've done is call 2 bets before the flop out of position. This created the problem that you now have. As you can see, drawing hands play significantly better in back than in front.
When the lead bettor is on your left, it is much more treacherous to check-raise for value on the flop. On the turn, you are now left with 2 alternatives, neither of which are that good. If you bet, you may get raised, totally wiping out your implied odds, whereas if you check, you announce your draw and your weakness.
I think a check raise from this position is only a good idea if the person to your right bets giving you the opportunity to isolate and force position.
If the person to your left bets the flop he is most likely going to bet again when your card hits giving you the opportunity for some big bets.
I think a check and call is the best play in this situation.
My Worthless Opinion The Rookie
Puggy this is a great question to a problem that you yourself created by check-raising in the first place out of position with no hand. Whenever you do this most of the time a blank will come so you will usually be facing this dilemma. I think you should have either bet the flop with your open ended straight draw and two over cards or check-called the flop out of position like this. Raising on a good come hand makes more sense when you have position and can take a free card. Having said all that, I would probably check here and hope it gets checked around.
Jim, I have noticed that you usually bet out with your good draws from the blinds. I used to do this a lot myself, but have recently stopped doing it so much. I have been playing a lot online, and the online games tend to be very aggressive. As a result, betting out usually means getting raised, so thereby having to pay two bets with a draw when out of position. I have preferred checking. While check-calling may announce your hand somewhat, it has the benefit of only costing one bet (and you can fold if it costs two and don't have odds). And check-raising has the benefit of being able to perhaps make a better hand fold by betting out the turn if a blank falls, while it costs you the same amount it would if you had bet, gotten raised, and then check-called the turn. Just some thoughts. Any reaction?
Since I lead with made hands, sets, two pair, top pair, and other good hands, I feel compelled to lead out on a good come hand if the pot is unraised in order to camouflage all these other times when I have a good hand. Since the pot was raised and the raiser is marked with a good hand, in the actual hand I would probably just check and call.
I like the check-raise on the flop, since you are getting the right odds and are quite sure the BB will bet. With 3 other players, you'd be happy if you each pushed in all your chips at this point.
I think a check and call is your best play. If they do in fact have overcards or even a pocket pair, they may not bet after you showed a check-raise fearing you have 2-pair or a set.
I disagree with your assesment that checking the turn suggest you were on a draw. I agree with joker in that your check raise on the flop may have yhour opponents including the BB thinking that you may have two pair or a set and may check raise again. You may get a free card here or a check call at worse..
If you are going to check-raise, you have to be pretty sure that the original bettor will not re-raise; or that if he does, he will get callers. Otherwise, your odds get screwed.
And if you do check-raise, and then check the turn, you also have to sometimes check the turn with legitimate hands (you can check-raise these) so that it isn't completely obvious to the observant players.
Mostly, I think check-raising here depends on how good the BB is -- assuming he's got a hand, the right play for him is definitely to re-raise -- and how good the rest of the field is -- i.e., when checked to on the turn will they timidly give a free card.
As the others have indicated, the situation depends on your assessment of the players.
I would like to point out something that no-one else has mentioned. So what if you were to announce the fact that you were on a draw? It strikes me as highly unlikely that you will be able to win without a hand. If you play with people who tend to drop on the turn, then betting out seems good, but checking is also good. If you get a free card - great. If not, but some have folded, then maybe (just maybe) another one of those check raises may buy you the pot. However, I think it all to likely that you will be called down. Check and call.
Eric
I still think the check-raise on the flop is the best play. I'm about 2-1 to hit my nut straight draw plus I might have either a 9 or T as an out as well. Anyway, with 3 other players in there and the player to my left who is almost sure to bet, I think check-raising has to be right. As Joker mentioned, I would be quite happy if everyone pushed in all their chips at this point in the hand.
On the turn, I'm still unsure. If the 3rd player has some kind of pair + draw combo, he just probably improved with the 5 and might bet anyway if everyone checks. I'm also not upset if it checks around for the free card.
So I did check...and so did the other 2 players.
On the river, a 9 came and I bet. The BB folded and the 3rd player raised. I called the raise and he showed me TJ for the nut straight. A bet on the turn would have won me the pot.
Puggy
Another thing to remember is that since this is a close call, it is a golden opportunity to vary your play. Assuming you play with the same people frequently, by playing this type of hand in different ways from time to time, you will give away less information.
Well, you generally check on the turn.
If the bb bets and the other guy folds, you need to consider checkraising again on the turn because chances are that bb's got just overcards (otherwise he would have reraised you on the flop). On the other hand, if bb checks and the third player bets, you just call and hope to hit.
The flop checkraise is a little bit dicey because most bb's usually have big pairs when they raise preflop and are likely to rearise you on the flop (they may even do this with AK). If that happens, you have lost some players when you have a drawing hand (which is usually not a good thing) and are out of position against a player who you know has a better hand.
I am more likely to pull off the checkarise on the flop with a drawing hand where the preflop raiser is not in the bb (as that increases the chances that he raised preflop without a big pair).
I am in the BB with A8s and have reach the turn, having four outs for a 2, needed to make an inside straight. There are 4 players in the pot and the turn is a blank. The sb bet but as I get ready to call the bet the next two players drop out of turn. I now feel that I do not have the odds to call I drop and bb shows 10-10. Did I have a call after losing the other two players? I did not count the other aces as out and I wonder if this was a mistake. Thanks for the advise.
Possibly, but we need more details like the texture of the flop, the money in the pot, and the previous action.
CV
SB raised to 20-3 callers-$80 in pot Flop 3-4-5 rainbow-SB bet-3 callers-$120 in pot Turn 9 offsuit SB bets 20-$140 in pot. This is when the folding out of turn happens.
It's close but I would be more inclined to call since the other two players folded out of turn. Now it is much more likely that if you do hit a 2 or Ace your hand will scoop the pot.
CV
Is a fold here really correct? I don't fold it. Is this a leak in my game? Comments please.
50. You are in the big blind with the Ace of Hearts and the Seven of Hearts. Only Seat #6, #9, and the small blind call. There is $40 in the pot and four players in the hand.
The flop is: Seven of Spades, Five of Clubs, Four of Diamonds
The small blind checks. You bet $10 with top pair/top kicker. Seat #6 folds and Seat #9 calls. The small blind calls. There is $70 in the pot and three players.
The turn is: Four of Spades
The small blind checks. You bet $20. Seat #9 raises to $40. The small blind folds. Do you re-raise, call, or fold?
Answer: (Fold=3, Call=0, Re-raise=-2) Raises on the turn, especially with an open pair on the board, are very serious and in this case surely mean trips. You have a clear fold.
I would call. I think folding is a mistake here against most players. Of course, there are guys who you need to routinely fold this hand with when they raise, but most people aren't like that.
Unless you are up against a player who can read your mind or who knows exactly how you think, I believe folding is quite correct in a typical $10-$20 game against decent opponents. There is $130 in the pot and it costs you $20 to call. These are pot odds of 6.5:1. What are your outs assuming your opponent has a better hand? A Seven for sure but that is only two outs (23:1 shot). Is an Ace an out? Only if he doesn't have trip Fours or a straight. In the most optimistic case you have 5 outs which is an 8:1 shot so the pot odds are still not quite there. Bottom line is that there will be a high percentage of cases where you are playing with 2 outs making your call totally wrong and a small percentage of cases where your call is slightly wrong. In my book this makes calling a long term money loser. To play on here is to basically put your opponent on a bluff or semi-bluff. While these kinds of plays are written up in books and magazines, it has been my experience that they are relatively rare in these situations with that kind of board in actual play. If you are worried about picking off a bluff than in appears that you will obligated to call a river bet as well costing another $40 to see the hand through not just $20.
P.S: What do you do if you call now, a blank shows up at the river, and it gets bet again? Call or fold?
Jim,
This is a question I got right (Hero got wrong), but I thought it was close against typical opponents. Note that at the beginning of your quiz you said the game is typical. And above you wrote: ”Unless you are up against a player who can read your mind or who knows exactly how you think, I believe folding is quite correct in a typical $10-$20 game against decent opponents.” IMO, decent opponents are not typical. Typical opponents are mediocre and sometimes at least a little bit tricky
In games I play, a late position player might play a hand like Ks5s, As5s, and take one off on the flop. When the flush draw comes on the turn and they are head up, they might very well put a move on you. Other possible hands that might call the flop and raise the turn include 9s8s, 6s5s or any two high spade overcards.
I agree with the bulk of your analysis but we play a lot of California 15/30 holdem. Against some opponents, a fold would be correct. But if your opponent has much gamble in him, I think you usually have to pay it off. And many opponents do have a bit of gamble in them.
I would give two points for a fold, one point for a call, and minus three for the reraise.
”P.S: What do you do if you call now, a blank shows up at the river, and it gets bet again? Call or fold?”
If you call the turn, then you normally call on the river too. Your decision on the turn was whether or not it is worth $40 to win $150. In California, I would think you are beat about 80% of the time. But with the two sevens counting as decent redraws, it may even be more than close.
Regards,
Rick
PS: If my 20 year mid limit pro friend takes this quiz, he is a 3 to 1 favorite to answer call here (unless he is trying to anticipate your answer).
it's $20 more to win $150. and im glad someone good agrees with me. calling is NOT a bad play here. you need to revise the points on this one brier.
Dsf,
You posted under me but I'm not sure you were addressing Jim or me (that's one reason I use a salutation to connect my responses to the posts I am responding to).
Anyway, I wrote: “If you call the turn, then you normally call on the river too. Your decision on the turn was whether or not it is worth $40 to win $150.
You wrote: it's $20 more to win $150. and im glad someone good agrees with me. calling is NOT a bad play here. you need to revise the points on this one brier.
After you are raised on the turn, the pot has $130 in it. Assuming that the river will be bet too, it will cost you $40 of your money to win $150 in the pot (even though the final pot size will equal $190), since if you call the turn raise, you will almost surely call the river bet against a single opponent. The effective odds are 3.75 to 1 against. Of course, you will bet a seven and sometimes the river will be checked down, so these additional factors both favor the call on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
rick said: After you are raised on the turn, the pot has $130 in it. Assuming that the river will be bet too, it will cost you $40 of your money to win $150 in the pot (even though the final pot size will equal $190), since if you call the turn raise, you will almost surely call the river bet against a single opponent. The effective odds are 3.75 to 1 against. Of course, you will bet a seven and sometimes the river will be checked down, so these additional factors both favor the call on the turn.
i say: it's $20 (your first $20 is dead) to go after the $130 currently in the pot on the turn. there are several cards that will have you possibly check/folding the river, most notably a spade or a 5. still more reason to call the turn raise--your ability to get away from the river, strange but true. youre only going to call the river (which indeed may get checked down) bet from seat 9 if the river comes a blank or something that improves your hand (check-raise). i dont think there's any card i would bet out on the river with after having been raised on the turn in this case. is that wrong? would it be right to bet an non-spade ace? you might catch someone slowplaying AK who would raise you on the river. could get very tricky on the river..
I agree that the point scoring needs some work. I will do better next time. Is it $20 to win $130 or $20 to win $150? Good point. $130 is what is currently in the pot but if you hit your hand and it holds-up then presumably you might get another $20 at the river. Hard to figure. If your opponent is raising with a worse hand and doesn't catch anything you may not get a call at the river.
"When the flush draw comes on the turn and they are heads-up they well might put a move on you..."
At the time the player in question raised, the small blind was still in the hand. If he is semi-bluffing then he is doing this against two other players not just one and therefore it would have less chance of winning the pot outright. In Las Vegas a typical middle limit player on a draw would not raise here I don't believe.
For example, question #56 is one where I disagree but wonder if it has already been covered on the fourm. If it hasn't been discussed, I might have time to start a thread tomorrow since Jim's quiz is all over my desk.
I also wonder about question 39, which is arguable. We completely disagree with Jim on question 19, but I think whis one has been discussed on the forum. There are a few more but these stand out per my notes.
Regards,
Rick
None of these other questions have been discussed. It would be great if you were to post them individually on the forum. I recommend doing it over a period of time however, so we can get a maximum response.
i remeber there were a few questions where i knew what the 'correct' answer was and i thought something else was the correct answer. and i think in most of those cases you would have known what i thought was the correct answer. also, there was one where i thought something should be changed to more clearly demonstrate the point you wanted to make. but i have lost my answers to and my notes on the quiz, which should still be somewhere in my computer.
scott
Send me an email and I will send the quiz to you again if you like. I would love to get your input on this since I see you as one of the best minds on the forum.
Jim,
Could I bother you to send me a copy again.
I printed it out last time and I can't figure out where I put it. Probably in with some of my work files (doh).
Thanks again.
(n/t)
If I saw somebody start laying down good hands to a raise on the turn, I would start raising this guy with any kind of draw.
I say you have to pay off here. For one, its really close to whether its -EV to pay off here or not.
Also, if you start laying down top pair, ace kicker to a raise on 4th street then people are going to start playing you.
But Joe it is this phobia about releasing the best hand that makes this such a good problem. Players who find themselves rountinely paying off here all the way to the river are probably losing more than they have to over the course of a year.
I call the hand down. I feel I have the best hand here.(like I said maybe this is a leak in my game. Maybe I have a serious chip drain here) I doubt that the regulars in your Bellagio 30-60 would fold here. Some might even re-raise. With all due respect. Mike S. How is Tyson playing.(the young kid from Toronto) Did he move up to the 80-160.
What did Roy Cooke say? You gotta have heart. You can't see Indians behind every tree. Something like that.
This is supposed to be against a typical 10/20 opponent. Not a 30/60 opponent. Not someone who's been stealing at every opportunity. Not Roy Cooke. Not someone who would routinely semi-bluff a spade flush draw into a board with a pair and a possible made straight.
Generally if you call here I think you'll be giving money away. What do you suppose they are raising with? What would YOU raise with in this spot if the roles were reversed?
David
seems very weak to assume trips here. what did seat 9 limp with that has a 4 and then just call your $10 bet on the flop?
if you put him on a really questionable limp suited connector like 54s then a typical player wouldve raised on the flop against possible straight draw semi bluff bet coming out of the big blind. ditto for something like 64s. decent player wouldnt play that trash at all, but even so theyd want to raise with that flop. so that is not the hand. i dont buy that.
what else could he have? remember you said typical 10-20 so we're assuming seat 9 is not a complete idiot. that pretty much cancels out 74s or any other hand with a 4 except A4s. ah, but the hero here has one of the aces already! and two of the fours are on the board. so you are folding on the assumption that seat 9 has one of 6 possible hands. hmmmm....
absolutely worth calling down. it's much more likely that you will get shown something like 88, 99, a set with 55 slowplayed, even TT from someone who doesnt like to raise TT. so i think the hero will likely have second best hand (with outs on the river), but trips is certainly not the likeliest best hand. the hero could also win, a semibluff straight or flush draw is SUPER likely here as well i think if this is in fact a typical 10-20 table. seat 9 wants to know if the hero already made his straight or if he's full. a reraise would tell him that.
Trip Fours is just one possibility but a strong one given the betting action and the board. Like you state he could have an over pair or two pair and you are still playing 5 outs with insufficient pot odds. He might even have a set that is now a full house. The point is that when you sum your chances across the full spectrum of possibilities calling is bad poker here. All you are justified in playing is when he is semi-bluffing something like a Spade flush draw but there is also a third player in the hand which makes this even more unlikely. Not that it matters but in the actual hand he had Ac4c.
brier said: The point is that when you sum your chances across the full spectrum of possibilities calling is bad poker here. All you are justified in playing is when he is semi-bluffing something like a Spade flush draw but there is also a third player in the hand which makes this even more unlikely.
it's really not bad poker. you need to read your own question more carefully. the third player (the SB) has folded when the betting comes back to you. the odds ARE there; you are betting $20 to win $150 plus there will likely be betting on the river and you will be paid off big if one of your winning outs hits there. the hero may still have the best hand. seat 9 could easily have a 7 with weaker kicker (87s) as well as other hands rick mentioned since it wasnt raised preflop. when you look at the full spectrum of possibilities, even with the raise (which is of course unfortunate), there is a strong argument to call this hand down. the A4s you presumed he had when you wrote the question is one of the least likely hands he could have. only 6 chances he has that. rewrite please!
oh yeah one more thing, there's something to be said for NOT folding to a raise on the turn heads up. youre setting yourself up for strong players to take shots at future pots that are rightly yours.
I think Jim meant that when the guy raised the turn, the sb is still in the hand. The presence of the third player in the hand makes it less likely that the fella is putting a move on Jim with a flush draw or whatever.
Personally, I would tend to fold here but not always. I can't remember what Jim's scoring system was on this question but I don't think that folding is definitely the correct answer...but it is probably the correct answer.
I just went back and looked at Jim's scoring system (fold = 3 points; call=0 points). I would probably score it as fold=2 points; call=1point and reraise = -3.
I agree with you that the raiser may not have a 4. But the chances that he has a 4 are greater than the chances that he has 88, TT etc. With those hands, it is a near cinch that he would have raised on the flop. His most likely hands are a flopped straight, trips or a pair/flush draw (in which case he probably still has some dozen or more outs against you).
I think you are right skp. I need to beef up the rationale and alter the scoring system.
skp,
You wrote above: "I just went back and looked at Jim's scoring system (fold = 3 points; call=0 points). I would probably score it as fold=2 points; call=1point and reraise = -3.
At 5:35 a.m in this thread I wrote: "I would give two points for a fold, one point for a call, and minus three for the reraise."
Proof again that great minds think alike! :-).
Regards,
Rick
But at the time the player in question made his raise the small blind was in the hand and it was not heads-up. If he was making a semi-bluff raise here he is doing it with two other players in the hand which makes the play less likely since it will be harder to win the pot outright. Your $150 figure includes collecting an anticipated bet at the river which is far from certain. The turn raiser cannot have 8s7s since the 7s is on the board. If he has Eight-Seven suited than he does not even have a flush draw and you are assuming that he is now raising with top pair/no kicker and a gutshot straight but if he had this hand he would have raised on the flop not the turn.
When you say that A4s is one of the least likely hands he could have-only 6 chances you are assuming random probability when conditional probability applies. Given that he raised on the turn when the board paired the likelihood of him having trips goes up dramatically from what a random probability calculation would yied. To give you an example of this, the probability that typical player will be dealt AA pre-flop is over 200:1 against. Now suppose this player raises under the gun and caps it when it is 3 bet back to him with several players having called. Do you think the probability of him having AA is still 200:1 against? I would argue that it is much more likely than this.
With regard to setting yourself up for players to take future shots at you, this may be true but unlikely in a typical full tabled limit hold-em game. They have no idea what you had when you quietly muck. I think you need to balance this against the cost of routinely trying to take off cards here when it is pretty obvious you are beat with hardly any chance of winning.
This is a great thread and brings into focus many issues I see at the table and on this forum all the time. Most good players like yourself look for reasons for staying with a hand when they think they may have some chance of winning. There seems to be this phobia about throwing away what could be the best hand. But the reasons most players have trouble beating this game for anything more than trivial amounts of money is because they simply leak away too much money over the course of a year in common situations like this. Unfortunately books and articles cannot deal effectively with the multitude of real situations like this that come up all the time at a hold-em table.
Mr Brier-
Might it be possible for a lowly, miserable lurker such as myself to obtain a copy of your holdem quiz ? It would be GREATLY appreciated !
Thanks !
Steve Bleiler steve@math.pdx.edu
(n/t)
15-30 hold-em full table game.
I am on the button and come in first with a raise with Qh-Th. Both blinds call. SB is an average plus player and BB is an average minus, he plays way too many hands.
flop is KS,Kc,Qc $90 pot..... I bet both call.
turn is 7h $135 pot.... I bet both call??
river is Jd $225 pot... SB bets out, BB calls I fold
I have been playing about 4 hrs very tightly. I let them chop a couple of blinds already so they had to give my button raise at least some respect.
SB has AJo, BB has red 4-4..Can I ever call this? I guess SB knew he was going to call so he just bet. If the BB doesn't call I will. Maybe I should just ignore BB's call
You see this move a lot at lower limits -- I just posted a hand where I made a similar mistake. It's basically a mistake mitigation play where, just as you said, your opponent has resolved to call with a weak hand and decides to bet it with the hope of inducing a fold. It's hard to read because most people check their bluff catchers, but I guess some players have noticed that it sometimes works. With the exception of cases where a third flush card arrives, I would guess that 80% or more of these river "bet-outs" are weak hands, at least in low limit. I'll probably never fold to one again.
I think that this is the type of hand that the term "crying call" was invented to describe.
If someone had a King you have heard from them on the turn. I would call every time when an under card to my pair shows up at the river and the enemy suddenly bets even if there was an overcaller.
3 separate and very unlikely events occurred within 3 hours of each other in my last session. I thought if nothing else, this might make for interesting reading. If not, I'd still be interested in opinions on the following plays.
1). One of the 'best players' in my game open raised in late position with 72. Despite my 3 bet on the button with AK, I lost the hand when he flopped a duece.
2). The other 'best player' in the game open raised from early middle position with QJo. Again, despite my 3 bet with As Ac, I got crushed when the flop came Qc,Jc,4c and no club or lower pair came.
3). In yet another hand, this same player 3 bets my early middle position raise (even though I am not known to raise light, and take care to ensure my raises are to be respected), with 44 and once again crushes my AA when he flopped a set.
At first I thought I should be upset with all three of these hands. After all, these players know better! But no sooner had I thought this, than a warm fuzzy feeling came over me... Both these players had for the briefest of moments, relinquished any edge they held over me by allowing me to have very much the best of it in three separate situations.
Since poker is very much about obtaining small edges which can be especially difficult against good opposition, I feel as though I must have gained something even though I was unfortunate enough to lose all 3 hands. (This is provided I don't succumb to similar plays against them in the future). I have a great deal of respect for both of their play' but want to make sure I understand something. Were any of their plays correct?
I can't see it ever being correct to open raise with 72 with loose blinds and in front of a player if who were to 3 bet, would have you in deep trouble. Likewise, for raising with QJo in front of two such players. And 3 betting an early middle position raiser who is rarely out of line, with 44 and a number of players yet to act (the sb did eventually cap pre-flop), just doesn't ever seem like a good idea to me. Am I looking at this right, or are there times when any of these plays are justified?
P.S. If one of these players should happen to read this, I'd like to make certain that I am not mocking anyone's play. Just trying to learn some more about the game.
What makes you think that they are the best players in the game? Their play sounds wreckless.
I would agree with you, if you can get players to play like this, they are giving up an edge.
These plays did seem reckless and that's why I posted. As I asked Jim, I wonder if it's possible there were some highly sophisticated reasons for these plays that I do not understand, possibly setting me up for later? I will not respond in kind by giving their future raises any less respect than I normaly would in given situations. So I still can't see what these plays accomplished other than putting a lot of money in as a huge dog.
Then again, is it possible to be such a good player that you can afford to take the worst of it in order to create a certain image to the rest of the table?
The world's foremost poker theorist, David Sklansky, once stated that game selection skills are among the most important. If these clowns are the best in the game then I think you have a bright future in that game.
Thanks for the response. What's puzzles me is that I can assure you these two are not clowns, but local pros. I just wanted to see if these were plays that were completely over my head, or if I am correct in assuming I might have briefly held an edge even though they both normaly play a much better game than I.
If these guys are routinely coming with weak cards like this I think you can win. There is nothing clever or sophisticated going on here, just bad poker. Sometimes players supposedly make bad plays to help their image but the flaw in doing this pre-flop is that unless your hand happens to go to showdown, no one will know that you varied your play. I wonder how many times a player will have to play a hand like Seven-Deuce offsuit in late position before he get a board that allows him to continue with the hand all the way to the river. How much money gets thrown away in the mean time waiting for this to happen?
Even a good player can get bored and decide to gamble. They are also prone to occasional random blunders when a neuron or two misfires. This can be caused by radio waves, magnetic fields, or transitory neurochemical imbalances. This happened to me recently after I ate a bad taco.
MJS
Even a good player can get bored and decide to gamble.
I think this was the point of my post. Succumbing to boredom by playing bad hands with negative expectation is a leak and I'm not so sure it's a small one.
You'd love the fishies putting in 3 pre-flop bets and taking 72,QJo and 44 against AK,AA,AA respectively. If bad tacos promote this type of play, please tell me where you got yours. I will personally see to it that these pros never get the slightest bit hungry. : )
I read some where that it's good to change your play on occasion, 3 wierd plays in 3 hours, is it possible they read the same book I did?
SPM,...just a thought...
I agree it's sometimes advisable to change your play. However, this was not changing play. This was merely throwing money into the wind and hoping by some miracle, more blows back.
It happens all the time.
I certainly play a few hands in an absolutely atrocious manner almost every session and I know other good players who do the same. That's one reason why none of us (me and the players I am talking about) are world class limit players. But while it would be a mistake to assume that we are great players, it would be a bigger mistake yet to assume that we are bad players based on the odd brainfarts we have. And I will add that the brainfarts generally occur when:
1. Boredom seeps in and you decide to play a hand out of position to prevent dozing off and falling off your seat.
2. When You are running over the table and it seems like you have got the Midas touch every time you decide to jack up the pot.
If these guys truly do play well 90% of the time, I doubt that you can take much comfort from the way they played these hands.
Now this really surprises me coming from you skp but it does get at the meat of my post.
Are you saying that you are Ok with 'giving away' your money at least once per session? Or, are you saying that it's possible to be SO good as to have such an overwhelming edge over the rest of the table, that it just doesn't matter?
Maybe I'm a little anal, but I strive for zero mistakes per session. This rarely occurs, but it remains my goal every time I play. I do not want to be giving away an hour's worth of play just because I'm bored and about to fall asleep. I'd rather simply leave the game.
I do not agree that playing well 90% is enough, because you will be giving up too much the remaining 10% of the time. This still may be enough to win for a very good player, but must mean he is not winning as much as he should be. Especially against other decent players where his edge might not be that great to begin with.
Agreed.
One should strive to play one's best game at all times. All I am saying is that this lofty goal is achieved by very few players (I am getting better each year at reaching this goal but I have a long way to go).
My post was really directed at your implied question "what should I *NOW* do given that these truly good players are known to make some dubious plays now and then?"
I submit that you can't really gain too much.
To be sure, you will be in error in assuming that they never get out of line. But you will make bigger errors if you assume that they get out of line more often than they actually do.
He He! Where do you live. Give me some pigeons where I do not have to watch me P&Q's(probabilities). The great swami(hosh) may be looking for a field trip.
Don't forget who won these pots. I'm pretty sure they would let the hand go if thay thaught they had no chance of winning through a bluff or an outright win. Don't always play the cards you must also know your players.
My worthless opinion
Don't forget who won these pots.
Now how could I do that?
I'm pretty sure they would let the hand go if thay thaught they had no chance of winning...
What about "very little" or "almost no" chance of winning? I was waiting for this point to come up and it might be a good one. Of course, you're gonna say that hands like 72 and 44 are so easy to get off of when they miss. This is true, but... since neither are 3 and 4 bet hands pre-flop, and will miss MANY more times than hit, and the same does not hold true for QJo, I can't accept this because it seems more of an excuse than a legitimate reason.
"If these guys truly do play well 90% of the time, I doubt that you can take much comfort from the way they played these hands. "
Why not? If 3 hands per hour they play like idiots then how much can be leftover from their 1.5 BB hour rate (if they are that good).
Udontknowme,
I would probably suggest taking the approach that you take advantage of these players when you have the best of it. Obviously you were a favorite in any of the hands you mentioned. If you played them correctly, then you simply got drawn out on. If you truly believe these are good players, then I would not worry about it as your profit will most likely not come from players such as this in the long run. If they are not good players, then in the long run you will punish them as it sounds like you should be.
The only disclaimer I will make to my above comments is that I do not think that in any forum - meaning not at the table - it is possible to get a truly complete and accurate read on how the game, hands, players, etc., actually all played out. To stick to a strict set of guidelines when playing a hand or hands against any opponent seems to be giving up too much to me.
Just some thoughts...
Michael D. (Soccer/Sucker Mike D)
I cannot see any of these preflop raises being correct.
Is it possible you are the best player within this group by a good margin. If not I have to expect they were steaming.
10-20 Hold'em games.
During the last few games, I've been getting my fair share of large pocket pairs AA, KK, QQ to speak of.
I've recently encountered some strange plays that I question why the regular players would play like that.
The regulars in the game know that I don't 3 bet without a strong hand.
Anyways, I had pocket kings one hand. UTG limped, Player 1 limped, player 2 raised, I re-raised. Everyone else folds. UTG who is as tight as they come decides to fold, player 1 also folds, and player 2 calls. Heads-up to see the flop. Player 2 is a very tight tricky player. He hasn't played a hand in the last 3 rounds.
Flop comes 4 5 Q rainbow. He checks, I bet. He check-raises. I re-raise, he re-raises again. I call.
Anyways turn comes a 2 and river comes another 5. Anyways he bets the turn and river and I just call hoping he doesn't have a set or pocket Aces. He shows me 7c8c. He sure paid a lot of money to hit the gutshot, and why he still tried to go for the bluff afer I showed immense strength pre and post flop is beyond me.
Another hand I had red Aces. UTG open raises, two fold after him, I re-raise, and all fold the maniac on the button who caps it. UTG and I call.
flop comes 10 - 2 - 3 with two diamonds. UTG thinks for 5 seconds and then bets out. I had a very very bad feeling he flopped a set. But of course, I should never play with instints, so I raise. Button re-raises, and now UTG caps. Now there are 21 small bets in the pot and I call another 2 to see if I can hit a diamond on the turn or spike my Ace. Sure enough a dimaond comes. UTG bets, I call, and the button looks and mucks. River comes a 3 of spades. UTG bets, I cry-call. Sure enough..he has pocket tens.
Someone care to explain if I should have played either hand differently? Was I too aggressive or too wimped out?
Sometimes I just find big pocket pairs hard to release and over time I have learned to let them go when I know very sure that I am beat or drawing hard. But heads up, it's almost impossible to release it.
The Fish
On the first hand, I think you played correctly. Your opponent had a much weaker hand than he was supposed to and you just called him down with your big over pair in this heads-up situation. Your opponent may be tricky but he is not tight nor is he very good. It sounds like he got bored and decided to start gambling. His play on this hand was a sick joke from start to finish.
On the second hand you did the best you could. Some players might have lost even more money by raising on the turn having the big over pair plus the nut flush draw.
In a heads-up situation, an over pair is usually a through ticket.
I agree that you played the hands well. Regarding why the "regular" in the first hand would give so much action, he was probably thinking/hoping that you had AK and might lay it down. In poker, hope can be a dangerous thing.
$40-$80 Hold'em, Commerce Casino, LA.
I pick up KhKd, 2nd to act, and raise. Get 2 late position callers, BB calls. 4 handed, $320 in the pot.
Flop: 10c9c2h
BB checks, I bet, all call.
Turn: 3h
BB checks, I bet, 1 + BB call.
River: Jh.
Bet or check and why?
I vote for a check, possible holdings I believe are K10, KQ, but with your two Kings those holdings seem less possible, BB could have 87clubs, maybe late caller has pocket jacks, but he would have raised the flop, to see where you are.
Too much danager Will Robinsin, check.
SPM,...error on the side of caution...
I think a better play here is to check and call. I think that you are inviting the 3rd player to bluff at the pot when you check. You have showed strength and your check on the river shows weakness i.e. a busted draw yourself.
You don't risk a reraise by a player who did hang around to make his hand but you are still able to pick off his bluffs. I think that the overall chances of you gaining bets by betting and getting callers are less than the chances of gaining a bet when you pick off a bluff.
John Gaspar
n/t
Assuming the big blind checked, I would bet every time against two opponents one of whom has checked. You will get calls from all top pair hands that you can beat as well as anyone who was on a Club flush draw and picked up a pair like Jacks for instance. Yes, you will be sorry if someone played 87 or hung in there with KQ or hit a runner-runner Heart flush but I think these are far less likely than other hands you can beat.
I play mid limit games in the L.A. area 10/20 15/30 20/40 These games are very loose. A play that I have been seeing regularly is raising on the turn to get a free show down at the river when you have position. How good is this play? And how often should you use it? An against what type of player should you try it on? Are there any defenses against this play or is it a real strong play at the right time...
I use it when I have outs to a sure winner in addition to a hand that may be the best. This way I show the hand down at the same price as two calls and I can punish my opponent for another bet when I improve. Make sure to choose the correct opponent so that you're not paying 3 large bets to hit your draw. Also, some opponents will check their weak river holdings and then your turn raise is a mistake.
-Fred-
I like to pull this move if I have top pair and pick up a flush draw or straight draw with my kicker, much like Fred said. It's a strong play against someone who will probably not reraise or bet the river. As far as defending, it is difficult but if you know your opponent well you can reraise the turn and bet the river to extract the most from your better hands.
why is this a common play? It's only equity is that you may snap off the occaisional bluff. you also give strong players more chances to get more bets from you.
There are a couple of keys to this play : 1) You have a good hand that could be good now and you will call a bet on the river regardless of whether you improve. 2) You have outs to a better hand on the river that will most likely be the best hand. 3) Your opponent won't three bet you on the turn or bet the river after you raised the turn.
If these three criteria are met, it's a powerful play b/c you pay what you would've paid to see a showdown if you don't improve, but you get the extra bets when you improve
You raise UTG and get maybe one cold caller. You don't flop a pair. What is your strategy here? How does it depend on the exact texture of the flop? Or the exact nature of the opponent? Pleast be specific. I am having a lot of trouble with this one.
The first thing that you should be doing is watching your opponent when the flop comes. I will frequently not even look at the flop unless I get a read that my opponent likes the flop. If I feel that he missed it, I will bet.
It helps to know something about your opponent, also. If he has a wide variety of hands that he is willing to play for a cold raise, then you will frequently have the best hand on the flop. If he is a player that will call raises with mostly pairs/big aces, then it can be tougher. Head's up, I would usually bet, because I'm almost always going to bet with a big pair in this spot.
It's a good thing to also consider how you usually play. What works for me may be different than what is best for your style of play. It's important to have balance in your game. In other words, in general, it doesn't do you much good to be aggressive with AK in these spots if you are passive with pocket 10's when one over-card flops. It will make it too easy for a strong opponent to mess with you.
Against an opponent who has just smooth called on the flop, you probably won't run into a raise when you come out betting unless he likes the flop quite a bit. Of course, if it comes off rags, then you may be looking at an over-pair to the board in which case you'll usually have 6 outs.
When you miss a flop with AK, it's important to keep in mind that you've only wagered 2 small bets on the hand, the pot isn't very big, and there is no reason to become overly committed to it.
in general : bet the flop. if he calls, check/raise the turn.
That is very interesting advice!
Would you only check/raise if a rag hit or would you go for the check/raise if a A or K turned.
I am also assuming that if it gets checked on the turn and a rag hits on the river you would probably bet or would you check and hope.
What if he has something? The hand is only half over here. I assume that you fold to a re-raise on the turn and check call the river to induce a bluff. Or do you think a river bet will get the other guy to fold a good hand at the end?
Play AK like AA until you're sure you're beat and cannot convince your opponent to fold, and then either fold on the turn or river if it looks like even KK is no good or else check-call to the showdown if you think you might be up against 88-QQ or AK/AQ. Don't worry about seemingly taking a loss on AK. First, you won't. Second, you need to mascarade AK as AA/KK to boost the value of AA/KK and to prevent your opponents from putting you on AK, which they are very eager to do.
-Abdul
You wouldn't play it that fast in a loose game, would you?
David
I would because in this situation you have only one opponent. I like Abdul's advice here with slick in a heads-up situation. What is critical is that you follow through after the flop bet with a turn bet. If your opponent calls your turn bet and the river is a blank you can sometimes check-call knowing you can beat any non-pair hand.
What if 3 ppl call you instead of one? Should you check/fold if you miss the flop then?
See my post above on "Next Level Thinking".
If you have AK vs three opponents, there are at least 8 sb in the pot. Assuming you are up front, you should usually check. If soneome bets it you will be getting 9-11:1 odds on a call. If your call will close the betting you should usually call.
If your call won't close the betting, you should often fold unless you also have a backdoor draw or a gutshot straight draw.
The exact frequency of your calls and folds should be adjusted by your read on your opponents.
- Andrew
I totally missed the fact that it was head's up.
The post got me to thinking about a couple of players I know that play AK like it's AA with 2 or 3 calling stations in the pot. They bet all the way to (and including) the river when no A or K comes. Then they whine for the next ten minutes about their "bad beat" and how AK never "holds up".
If that play was somehow correct I was going to have to throw up. :-)
David
"and to prevent your opponents from putting you on AK, which they are very eager to do. "
Thank you for this statement. I find myself eager to put the preflop raiser on AK when I have the underpair. Too much so, I think.
Is it really optimal to play your AK like AA every time, even against a very passive opponent? If you only pushed your AK 75% of the time (and backed off on the turn 25% of the time), your chance of holding AK when you bet the flop and turn would be the same as your chance of having AA or KK. This is more than enough excuse for loose opponents to give you plenty of action when you have the goods. Why not slow down when head-up with a passive opponent who will call you down with bottom pair, but will usually not bet an underpair if you check?
AK is kind of a pain in the butt against a calling station, but basically your goal there is: (flop) you bet, he calls, (turn) you bet, he calls, (river), you check (if no pair), he checks. Obviously that would work better if you had position. You have odds to suck out on his little pair (usually), and there is some chance he's calling along with just a gutshot no pair. If you start checking early, he might start value betting his small pair, so you might as well lead on the flop and turn. Usually such a player won't value bet his small pair on the river if you showed strength up to that point. If your opponent does bet the river, well, I would call with AK high, except against the most timid of opponents.
-Abdul
This is great advice and I play AK this way myself.
Even if the flop misses you entirely there is still a good chance that you have the best hand, and it would be very wrong to give your one opponent a free card, or to advertise your weakness.
Betting into a disconnected flop with AK when it misses you is probably a +EV play VS one opponent anyway. But it also means that you will make more money on your AA and KK hands, too. You might get called down to the river by 99 if no A K or Q hits the board, and when you factor this in, it is definitely a +EV play.
-SmoothB-
This is a really big question. I think it depends everything you mentioned. P-)
I'll be interested in the responses from players who have the knowledge and time to respond. I like to throw my 2 cents in as well but this is just too BIG.
fairly loose 15-30 game: i'm on button with pocket 10's. utg limps three limpers to me , i just call. my mistake? flop; K J 4 with 2 diamonds. so right now there is six small bets in the pot. utg bets out , two callers to me, i fold firguring at least a king, maybe two pair are already there. anyway, three or four callers. turn is another jack. checdked around. river is ten of diamonds. utg bets out, one caller. so, very nice pot would have won had i stayed for the turn bet. did i play too timid?.i probably should have raised the pre-flop and had contoll on the flop. what do ya'll say?
In my opinion, you played the hand as well as you could have. I would not raise pre-flop in this position (you won't fold any limpers and if they call two bets, at least one of them will have an overcard that flops). I fold here if I don't flop a set and there are overcards on the board, espescially if there are a couple of limpers in front of me. This is just one of those situations where your miracle card fell on the river and you (correctly) weren't there. It sucks, but that's poker. Interested to hear other opinions on this.
The key phrase in your post is "fairly loose," which in my experience means that your raise won't get anybody to fold, especially the weak overcards you'd like it to. You can raise here I guess, but it would have made much difference when the turn comes and your pocket tens are staring at a KJJ4 board. With three or four callers ahead of you on a 2-overcard flop you're almost certainly playing catchup, and all that ten on the river means is that longshots do occasionally come in, not that you should be betting on them.
actually, i do know that. i'm a fairly tight player and i do probably fold sometimes on the flop when the turn card really helps my hand. although it didn'thappen on this one. where i was kind of kicking myself was the table check on the turn. and the utg player was the winner with a7 diamonds and he was the one who bet out the flop. anyway, they've been running bad for me lately so i hated to miss that pot. and earlier i said it was 15-30, well, it was 20-40 so it would have really helped my stack. my real concern was if i raised pre-flop, i could have taken contol, but the jack on the turn would have gotten me out if someone had bet. thanks for the responses. still lots to learn in this game.
I think there may be a reason why you're running badly. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just realistic.
Are there no smaller games available? In my post below (as with the others) I state that you played this perfectly.
Your thinking is that you missed out on a lot of money that could have helped shortterm.
This is not a post that should be coming from someone in a 20-40 game who is at all concerned about money. It may be a loose game bit it SOUNDS as if you are not qualified to play in this game.
PS - I also have much to learn about the game.
Good Luck
"would have made much difference" should obviously read "wouldn't"
You did nothing wrong here. Pre-flop it is close between limping and raising from the button with pocket Tens and 3 opponents. I might raise to get the blinds out plus I have good position but I would not fault anyone for just limping given the presence of 3 other limpers who will call your raise. Against one or two limpers I think you should definitely raise.
On the flop with two over cards plus a two flush, it would be rotten poker for you to try and take off cards here. You are playing two outs usually and the Td could give someone a flush so one of your outs is not squeeky clean.
fairly loose game ? ...oK , I would have raise preflop . To make pay loose player with drawing hand . The flop is KJ4 ? , If it's checked to me , I bet , otherwize I fold . If after a bet , there are callers , I don't put more money in the pot until a 10 hit the board , or a runner-runner straight . I could try a bluff if there is a 3rd diamond on the turn depending of the players who are in the hand .
No-one folds preflop when you raise. Tens are nice but far from a lock. Treat them as small pair from this point. Raise only if you want a nice big pot. Remember that tens may be best on flop but many hands against you may have positive EV if the pot is juicy.
On the flop. Must fold. What do you hope to hit. A Ten to make straight or flush for someone else.
On the Turn. If you mistakenly called the flop you must now fold here.
On the river. YES if I wasn't drawing dead then I win.
YOU PLAYED IT PERFECTLY.
I play regularly in a 10/20 Holdem game. When I first started to play in this game, I was weak tight on the flop when I was the raiser (always check folded AK/AQ when flop missed or routinely folded medium pairs when over cards floped) . The better regulars of course picked up on this and to bet me out of pots when I checked or they would safely fold if I bet out on the flop. This is fairly tough game with the regulars ranging from just plain tight to solid tricky types.
For the past couple of months I have been betting out whether the flop hits me or not (if I was the raiser). This worked well for a while as the regulars routinely folded unless the;y had a monster. However one or two of the regulars have picked up on this strategy and started to three bet me on the flop. So what is the next counter step in our little tactical battle. Find another game is not an option.
In an unraised pot, bet any piece of the board but check if it misses you completely. Try to put yourself in situations where if you bet you can stand a raise coming back to you. How can someone 3 bet you on the flop when you bet? Are saying that when you bet, one guy raises and another guy re-raises? If it is the same two guys and they only do it when you bet the flop they may be colluding against you.
Sorry - I meant my opponets were raising (or check raising) my bet on the flop. I was thinking of suggesting that 3 betting even if I missed might be an acceptable counter strategy. The situation I am talking about is almost always heads up after I bet out on the flop.
I'll assume you mean they reraise you on the flop now when you miss.
The first step in securing tactical advantage is to incorporate some variety into how you play the hand -- particularly depending upon who your opponents are.
The next part of the equation is to consider how many opponents took the flop. If it's just you and 1 or 2 other players, then you have a decided edge. Not only may you have the best hand, but even if you do not, you still have the best outs. Against a large field, checking and folding may be correct, as may checking and calling. Trying to run over a large pre-flop field is usually suicide.
So the following tactics are based on facing a short field before the flop.
Counter-plays. Instead of checking and folding when you miss the flop, you can do one of two things to throw them off (and make more money!).
My favorite play when I feel my opponent is weak or trying to run over me is to check-call the flop with nothing and check-raise the turn with nothing. It's amazing how many good players will fold even top pair. But you do need to know your customer. If you've got calling stations in there with you, don't make this play.
The other play you can make (once again, not against calling stations) is to check-call the flop and then bet out on the turn -- regardless of what comes. If they have nothing, once again, they aren't going to mess with you on the turn. Every bum and his brother will try to make you lay down on the flop, but when they have nothing and you bet out into them on the turn, they know that the gig is up and will try to get their head out of the trap with minimal damage.
These plays take more courage than your standard "make-this-play-with-this-hand-for-this price" kind of game, so you have to stiffen your resolve and play harder. Yet an added bonus when you make this play and lose is that not only will they be much more leery about messing with you in the future, but you will get paid off when you do have the goods on them.
Even with all that, sometimes you run into a real hand. You do still need to be very alert and observant about your opponent's actual holdings. Also beware of making these plays on highly coordinated boards. Knowing when and where to slip out the side door is a big part of the game.
Thanks Earl - That is the kind of advice I was looking for. Sorry about misstating the situation. As I told Jim above, the situation is usually heads up and they are now raising or check raising my bet on the flop.
Calvin
10-20 1/2 Kill 9 handed
I am in seat 9 with the 1/2 kill , 15-30 .
I post the 15.
Cards come and I look down to see QQ (I am having a very good night)
Preflop: UTG calls,Mid pos player calls , next calls , I Raise, Fold,Folds, BTN(loose loud mouth stuck big!! LLM )raises, blinds out, UTG calls, Mid pos player caps it.... calls around
5 players in a capped kill pot. $300.00 in the pot
Flop: 8c-8s-Qd
UTG Checks, MP bets, fold, I call (I decide to slowplay and let a few catch up) , LLM Raises (I thought he would),UTG folds MP calls , I call..(I am going to let LLM bet this hand for me.)
Turn: Jd
MP checks, I check, LLM bets, MP folds, I just call and yes I should raise but I want him to make a great second best hand)
River: Ks
I check..(I know he will bet this round no matter what hits) LLM bets, I raise, he re-raises (I have the fish on the line now)I re-raise, he comes right back at me "Raise!!!" I stop lean over and check the board..LOL
Re-raise!! He calls and says lets see the KK for the badbeat. He had 8Q
I show him the QQ and he says
"When did you like your hand Sir.?"
I replied: "When you re-raised the river"
Was this slowplay to slow given the cap before the flop ???
Best of it !!
MJ (having a very good night '_' )
My style is to pull the trigger on the turn because if an Ace or a King shows up at the river you may feel inhibited depending upon your opponent. I would be worried about AA or KK so I want to get as much money in the pot as possible on the turn when I know I have the best hand. Now if an Ace or King shows up on the river, I don't go to war, I just call.
It doesn't really matter, as long as you don't fold. You can't boost EV significantly no matter what you do. I like to decloak sooner, though.
---
Jim,
Your are correct. 95% of the time I raise the turn. This was one of the times I knew the player would bet the river. Looking back I should have bet the turn (he would have raised) then call the raise , Bet the river and then maybe reraise/call. King on the end slowed me down and I look and thought "Oh Man If he has KK". I did not think he did so I reraised and as it turned out he did not this time. Any other player I just call with the pot being capped preflop.
As we know in the "heat of battle" decisions are make in split seconds.
Best of it !!
MJ
Why did you act weak and then raise at the very end. A quick re-raise may have invited another re-raise by him if he was in reation mode. Instead he considered a way you had him beat and just called.
Excellent playing up til then. Pretty easy to play excellent on a good night with a flop like that. 8-)
Also why the little jab at his expense. Why not just say "all the way". Do you expect him back?
A quick re-raise may have invited another re-raise by him if he was in reation mode
After having some time to think about it the "Hollywood acting" was the wrong thing to do. Your right I should have just fired. The king on the end was not the card I wanted to see as Jim stated he may have had KK then I would have looked like a real fool slowplaying as far as I did but the way the night was going I was just having some fun with him...hehe
Do you expect him back?
This guy is a true regular.
As a side note he steamed off to an open seat at the 20-40 game.
Best of it !!
MJ
Did you put your name on the list? ;)
I'd be chasing that money around.
9-18 game, I'm on the button. everyone folds to drunk guy who opens for a raise. he raises alot. the best hand I've seen him raise with is K-10o. only UTG calls. UTG is loose and calls many raises. I have A-10o.
question #1: Do I fold or re-raise?
I chose to re-raise and unfortunately the drunk guy had big slick so I lost.
Question #2: What are the minimum hands that you try to isolate weak opponents with? IMO, A-10o is a very marginal hand to isolate with and I would almost prefer a medium pocket pair. most feedback and opinions will be appreciated. Boris
A-T offsuit, A-9 suited, a medium pair, or just two big cards would be good enough to 3 bet if you are confident you can isolate the drunk.
Do you assume a drunk guy is always a bad player?
I've been experimenting with coming in for a raise when I'm first in if I decide to play my hand, after reading some post from abdul, and am having alot of success with it. I've been playing my hands postflop the same as I always do with no adjustments, ie if I get alot of callers behind me, and completely miss the flop I check/fold. I was wondering if others that employ the raise first in regardless press their hands regardless of flop representing a big hand until they run into opposition. Anyway on to the hand. I'm in middle position and open raise with Ah 9h. The cuttoff, the button, and both blinds call. The flop is Jh Jc 8s. Both blinds check, I check as well, being there are 2 players behind me and I have no part of the flop, it gets checked around. The turn is a 3h, The SB bets out, the BB folds and its on me. Whats my play, and assume you didn't get any read from the Cutoff or the button.
I would be reluctant to always open with a raise from early position in a full tabled limit hold'em game because anyone who calls my raise will frequently have a better hand and I am out of position. The other problem is that players will notice what you are doing and start staying with you more and even playing back at you. I think in most cases this would be an expensive way to play poker.
On the hand in question, open raising from middle position with Ace-Nine suited is good poker. You have a decent hand which can easily be the best given that about half the table is out of the hand. By raising you can drive the remaining players out and get position over the blinds if you they choose to play. Your flop play is fine. On the turn there are 6 big bets in the pot and it costs you 1 big bet right now to go for your flush. Let us assume that the 8h is not an out since anyone with a Jack or an Eigth would have a full house. This leaves 8 outs to a flush from 46 unseen cards which are odds of 38:8 against or less than 5:1. I think there is enough of an overlay here to call.
Most of the time I think Jim's advice here is correct and I will not add much to it.
But to pull a classic DS or MM move, I could say "it depends". Which, of course, it does. Against some opponents you could semi-bluff raise here. Especially if there are not many opponents, the bettor is likely to be weak, or the remaining player(s) are likely to fold.
As for Abdul's preflop strategy, I think again it depends. For the most part I would tend to use Abdul's strategy more in tight games. You need to have some chance of everyone folding (and your stealing the blinds) in order to make open-raising all the time correct. In the loose games found more often at lower limits, you will rarely if ever steal anything BTF. So you need to have a decent hand to raise, and you need a reason to do so other than stealing the blinds. I believe that Abdul's strategy is more useful in the types of games found more often at high limit than low.
Anyone who seriously studies holdem though should be familiar with Abdul's strategy, as he does have some good ideas which you can incorporate into your game. But as is true for any published work on poker, no one strategy is a perfect template which you can blindly follow. You still have to think about it.
Dave in Cali
I think that raising on the turn may be preferable if the SB is a tight-aggressive type who is apt to bluff/semi-bluff in this spot and/or may be capable of laying down a small pair. A benefit of raising is that you are likely to drive out bigger aces and gutshot draws, improving your chances of winning the pot if an A or 9 comes on the river; of course, your chances of winning the pot without improvement would greatly increase (you are likely to win a two-way showdown if both you and the SB miss draws). Also note that your turn raise would reduce the chance of being bluffed out on the river.
MJS
I would bet the flop in this situation, if noone has a jack you could win right there, depending on the lineup. After checking you will get play from any pocket pair or eight, unless the player is the type who thinks you must be slowplaying.
Since it looks like you could have slowplayed AJ, I think the turn is a good time for a semi-bluff raise. This is particularly nice because you will often be able to check down the river if you miss, and ace high might just be good if your opponent was also (semi-)bluffing.
you are getting 6-1 for your overcall to the nut flush and maybe better if the cutoff or button just call as well. But of course you may be drawing dead and if there is a raise behind you you're odds are now very scued (or is that screwed :o)
I don't think this is a good spot for a semi-bluff raise either. (mostly because of the pair on the board)While the SB could be semi-bluffing himself, your semibluff raise will not cause the cut-off or button to drop if they are slow playing a J or better (if they are you will be re-raised ) and if they aren't you would rather they just call here and not drive them out.
I think a call is marginal here and a re-raise behind puts you to a very tough decision. Against solid tight opponents I probably would not call a re-raise. Against loose agressive opponents I may but would not be very happy about it.
... and try not to fault my tight play too much as my big pocket pairs and flopped sets were cracked often sat night and my behind is a little sore :o)
But I didn't go on tilt and was able to recoup most until I got tired and called it a night a couple hundred down (10-20). Not to worry it's all one big session right? G'nite
The sb's bet usually means a pair, and you're not going to get him off of it because he knows you don't have a "raising" pair. With your bluffing ability at nearly zero or much lower than needed to vindicate betting 2 to win 5 (or 3 to win 5 if you follow-up), I'd just call.
Calling is fine. But....
If you would also check AA,KK,AJ,88 on this type of flop, AND your betting opponent is astute enough to know this, AND your betting opponent would try and take a shot at the pot in this spot, AND it's not likely anyone behind you would've checked a jack... Then raising is a viable option. You are getting immediate odds of 3:1. Now many would say this is not enough since a). the board is paired, b). you are more than that to make your flush, and c). You could get re-raised. But this is hogwash provided that the first four parts of this problem are true. Actually they don't even have to be true, just likely to be true. The chance you could win immediately is significant. If called or raised, you usually will have outs which many times will be more than you anticipate because an ace will be good.
Pre-flop (something I learnt from Abdul) : I add some hands to the group 1 hands like A8s only if the game is extremly tight preflop. Stealing from early position becomes profitabe in this kind of game and the number of hands added is not enough to justify some adjustments from the other players. Besides I likely have outs if I am three bet.
For sake of simplicity let's assume the cutoff and button will fold even for one bet (they would very likely bet any pair and the presence of a jack in these two hands is remote).
I think the turn call is rarely correct. If you call the turn then the SB will have to bluff the river only 11% of the time for a call to be correct.(he would probably check a better ace)
Besides he would probably bet any pair on the river if he is decent.
So in this case raising allows you to invest the same number of bets while having equity in the pot. Another benefit of the raise is that you don't give a free card to the 4 to 6 outs the SB might have.
These two reasons drastically favor a raise. Of course the presence of a jack favors a call but it is too unlikely to change the correct play.
Raise the turn.
Ok now assume that you raised and the button, a TOM called, as well as the small blind. Whats your play when a blank hits, when you make your flush, when an ace hits.
Since the tight old man calls your turn raise I can't see paying any money on the river when a blank hits
If your flush comes I doubt you get much action, a check-raise will probably fail, I would probably just bet and hope for the crying calls.(unless it's the 8h, then check-fold to TOM: I can't see him calling the turn raise with a non nut draw, check- cry call to SB)
If an ace comes if I can see the showdown for one bet I may call, I don't call any raises.
The river is an As. SB checks, I check, Button turns over Kh Ks. The SB mucks, and I take the pot with Aces up.
After a cold caller, I wouldn't bet anything but the flush (and not one that makes 2 pair on board). I'd usually call if an ace came, depending on where the bet came from etc. If a blank comes, you can fold.
Assume typical mid-limit game...
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jim Brier would generally advocate limping UTG with 66, but folding J10s, Q10s and K10s.
I think (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that S&M would generally advocate limping UTG with J10s, Q10s and K10s, but folding 66.
If the distinction I have drawn is correct, I think a discussion of it might be rewarding. If it is not correct, then I apologize and would appreciate correction.
Certainly limping UTG with 66 is correct when another 6 is going to flop. If I knew when in the 8.5 times a flop hits the board that a 6 was going to be included I would make a lot of money.
However, there may be only 1 or 2 others in the pot, not giving me pot odds to draw to the 6 before the flop. Or worse, someone may raise further reducing my pot odds. Actually, I'm probably not even going to get implied odds to justify the call before the flop.
Bigger cards are more likely to hold up against a few opponents, besides flush and straight possibilities.
In a tough game I would fold all of them in early position before the flop, but I certainly feel JTs has more possiblities than 66.
Bob J.
hmmmm, I'm a newbie so I'll feel free to tell you my opinion on what S&M and Jim B. would recommend.
It depends ;)
Both would say....
If lots of players are seeing the flop for 1 bet, and the majority of flops are being seen without a raise then you MUST limp with all of these hands UTG.
If the pot is usually raised pre-flop, with only 3 people seeing the flop, then you must fold all of these UTG because you are not getting odds to draw.
I really don't think its a discussion.
i'd throw in a raise every once in a while with 66 utg (but only every once in a while, preferably while running real good)
brad
I think it depends on the game conditions. If early calling induces more calling then one might be more inclined to play these hands. If early calling is usually met w/a raise and a subsequent 2 or 3 handed pot would pbly want to drop these hands.
I understand that these are all implied odds hands that want to see the flop for one bet against lots of ppl, etc, etc... That was not the point of the post.
The point of the point is the DIFFERENCE between the types of implied odds hands that Jim Brier and S&M consider more valuable.
I recall specifically Mason saying that he would almost never fold J10s UTG. I know that Jim does not generally play this hand UTG. On the other "hand", I think (though I could be wrongthat Jim would see limping as appropriate with 66 UTG, while it's a group 5 hand I think for S&M, which would make it unplayable in a typical game according to them.
To reiterate, the purpose of the post was to highlight a DISCREPENCY between intelligent parties, not to get an explanation of correct game conditions for these hands.
...not to get an explanation of correct game conditions for these hands.
But game conditions determine expected value for starting hands. In some games one call is apt to draw other calls. When so, JTs is certainly playable. In other games, one call is more likely to become a target for isolation, meaning a raise and heads up or short handed with a re-raise. In this case, I do not like JTs and I don't care what Mason Malmuth says (although I'm not really sure what he'd say). I might not play 66 here either, but I would prefer it to JTs.
You don't want to discuss game conditions but I see no other way around it. In games with multiple players but with lots of raising, you should prefer 66. In games with less raising, you should prefer JTs, and you should still adjust from here depending on the amount of raising and number of opponents.
Oh,
To reiterate, the purpose of the post was to highlight a DISCREPENCY between intelligent parties, not to get an explanation of correct game conditions for these hands.
Have tried dialing them direct.
SPM,...just when I was ready to give and opinon...
I would personally play any pocket pair under the gun. pocket 10's or higher I would raise to eliminate the field of in hopes of getting the weak Aces and Kings out. The only time I wouldn't play any pocket pair under the gun is on a table that is somewhat aggressive-passive and tight with usually just two or three callers to see the flop. If I flop a set, I will get lots of action. If not, it's an easy muck.
J-10 suited in my opinion is a trap hand UTG. I don't like just limping in with J10 and if anyone calls a raise they could easily have me outicked should I hit either pair. Anytime I have a straight or flush draw, someone else will have usually have a big pair and it will be too costly to see the turn and river. I like J-10 suited in mid to late position with maybe a couple of limpers and I will call the raise given I am in good position to determine whether or not I can carry on after the flop.
The Fish
Your observations are correct. In a loose, passive game like the $1-$4-$8-$8 at the Flamingo with $1 and $2 blinds and no one is ever so rude as to raise before the flop, I would limp in under the gun with JTs, KTs, and QTs as well as 66. But most of the games I play in are not like this. I play $10-$20 and $20-$40 at the Mirage and I used to play $15-$30 and $30-$60 at the Bellagio. In these games, a fair amount of pots are getting raised and you frequently do not have more than 2 or 3 players taking a flop. I don't believe suited connectors and suited gappers play well in these situations. However, I believe that JTs is a much better hand than QTs or KTs and limping under the gun cannot be far wrong although I would not make it in the games I play.
Pocket Sixes is a better hand than most people give it credit for. You do not need to flop a set to win especially against a small number of opponents. There are hundreds of flops where the Sixes are an over pair to the board which makes them a strong playing hand. There are thousands of flops where pocket Sixes are an excellent second pair to the board (not top pair but higher than middle pair) and where the top card does not rate to help anyone (e.g.- flop of 7,3,2). However, pocket Sixes is right on the cusp between limping and folding under the gun so it is not a major poker decision.
Forgive me if this gets accidently posted twice but it appears my response was lost somewhere in hyperspace so I will try again.
If I were playing in the $1-$4-$8-$8 game at the Flamingo with $1 and $2 blinds I would limp in under the gun every time with JTs, KTs, and QTs. I know I will get lots of callers and the players are not so rude as to ever raise before the flop. However, it the games I play ($10-$20 and $20-$40 at the Mirage and $15-$30 and $30-$60 at the Bellagio) pots are frequently getting raised and you usually have no more than 2 or 3 players taking a flop. I don't believe suited connectors and suited gappers play well in these circumstances. However, JTs is a much better hand than KTs or QTs so it is close as to whether or not to limp in under the gun with it.
I believe that pocket Sixes is a better hand than most of you guys give it credit for. You do not need to flop a set to win against a small number of opponents. There are hundreds of flops where the Sixes are an overpair to the board and thousands of flops where they are a good second pair when the top card does not rate to have helped anyone (e.g.- flop of 7,3,2). However, it is right on the cusp between calling and folding so if you folded with it every time you would not be making a major poker error.
Jim,
I pretty much agree with you for the type of games you describe. Limping UTG with QTs, JTs, and KTs should only be done when the game is very soft, which is rare at this level.
Limping with 66 is marginal, only because I think your average situation will be having three or four opponents for about a bet and a two thirds (i.e, the pot won't always be raised but often will). In this spot a middle pair is a small money maker IMO.
Against tight blinds and if your image is right, raising with 66 might be the best play. But you really have to have a feel for the game to pull this off. I believe this raise is below Abdul's standards.
Regards,
Rick
It's difficult to cultivate the right image to make raising 66 UTG a +EV play if you're raising 66 UTG.
Is JTs really a much better hand than KTs? I seem to do better with KTs.
K10s is both more commonly dominated and has fewer ways to make a straight.
JTs is dominated much more than KTs is. KT is an example of a hand that dominates JT!! KT is dominated by AK KQ KJ and AT JT is dominated by AJ KJ QJ AT KT and QT
rob
Uh, Jim, when you say...
"However, [in] the games I play ($10-$20 and $20-$40 at the Mirage and $15-$30 and $30-$60 at the Bellagio) pots are frequently getting raised and you usually have no more than 2 or 3 players taking a flop. I don't believe suited connectors and suited gappers play well in these circumstances."
... you are supporting my position and undermining Mason's! By the way, in these games, my SOP is to muck both JTs and 66 UTG. I think both you and Mason are loose players. :)
But when you say...
"However, JTs is a much better hand than KTs or QTs..."
... that is unjustifiable. KTs can flop top pair good kicker; JTs cannot. Also KTs can make top two pair more easily, and when it does it's less vulnerable than JTs would be. JTs of course is more likely to make a straight. KTs' 6 card flushes are more likely to hold up than JTs', and with a 5 card flush KTs can put in more raises than JTs can. When you're open-raising with the intent of stealing the blinds or at least getting heads up with a blind, KTs is obviously the superior hand due to its high card strength. Bottom line: KTs and JTs are very similar in strength, with short-handed situations favoring KTs and many-way action favoring JTs.
-Abdul
I agree with mucking JTs under the gun. I believe mucking 66 is borderline and there are many good players who muck 66 under the gun in a 10-handed game but limp in with it in a 9-handed game. Your position may be correct on this.
KTs can flop top pair/good kicker if the flop comes Ten-high. I question how good your kicker is when the flop comes King-high. Furthermore, when the flop comes King-high you will find yourself paying off all the way to the river frequently only to have your opponent show you King-Jack or King-Queen.
KT suited can indeed make the top two pair more easily but either way flopping two pair, trips, a boat, or quads is about a 28:1 shot and any two pair figures to be a strong holding more often than not.
Yes, KT suited can indeed make a better flush than JT suited but once again a flush rates to win regardless so I don't believe the difference here is significant at all.
You should not be open raising from early position in a full tabled limit hold'em game with the intention of stealing the blinds. There are simply too many other players yet to act and too many other considerations.
I agree that KTs suited is better for stealing the blinds and in shorthanded situations because of its superior high card strength. But my sense is that in a full tabled limit hold'em game from early position in a "typical" middle limit game Jack-Ten suited will show more profit over many thousands of hours of play than King-Ten suited not only because it will make more straights but because you can get off the hand earlier in many cases when you catch a piece of the flop without catching a flush or straight draw.
The real reason that I muck the 66 is that I have to play a bit tighter early than you and Mason, since I'm normally raising with everything. In a looser game where I'm limping with some hands, I also often limp with AA and KK, and that means I can introduce 66 and a few other limping hands under the safety of the AA/KK escorts.
When KTs flops top pair with a ten, it dominates Mason Malmuth, who is in there with his JTs. When KTs flops top pair with a king, you can get away from it, like when facing two cold on the flop.
I made sure I didn't talk about flopping two pair. One more often turns or rivers two pair, and two pair is less likely to hold up with JT than KT.
On the turn, a jack high flush with 3 of one suit on the board is just as strong as a king high flush??!? No need to worry about river suck-outs in loose games by players holding one bigger flush card? Wrong!
Regarding open-raising from early position in tight games, well, believe me it works judging from my win per hour, and there are good theoretical reasons behind it. If you open-limp early with something like, oh, KJs, it's worth maybe a couple of bucks in $15-$30. In a tight game, like the ones you typically play, you'll steal the blinds enough to make more than a couple of bucks immediately, and when you don't steal the blinds, you will still have a decent shot at winning the pot, partially because you did raise preflop. On the other hand, if you limp, as you point out, a dominating hand that would have folded had you raised, like AJ, will instead raise to isolate you. You really need to stop listening to S&M on this point.
Ignoring balance considerations, in tight games weak hands want to raise, because the value of stealing the blinds exceeds the value of the hands when they limp. And strong hands like AA, KK, and QQ are worth much more than the blinds, so they want to limp (and reraise), because stealing the blinds is a disaster to them. I repeat this point simply because I hear you in several posts advocating the opposite.
The opposite is true in loose games, where you can't steal the blinds from early position. In loose games, AA, KK, and QQ can come out firing, while hands like KJs and certainly KTs and JTs would be wise to just limp.
-Abdul
Abdul-
I understand that long haul maximum edge, NOT variance is your primary concern, but I'm curious if you experience heavy swings with this "style" of play.
It seems to me that there ARE some hands where you would be simply giving up too much by folding pre-flop in early position, yet want callers to get maximum worth out of them. I understand that if the game is such that you're likely to find yourself in a raised short handed pot anyway, you're better off mucking these hands and waiting for a hand you can raise with yourself. But what if the game is the type where your call is apt to draw 4-5+ calls, yet a raise is likely to simply shorten the field? I'm thinking of a hand like QJs in a tightish game but where 1 or 2 players (particularily the blinds) are loose.
Kevin
My opinion is that limping UTG in a tight game with QJs is suicide.
No, I don't experience big negative swings, as my ratio of standard deviation to historical win rate is exceptionally good. My standard deviation is also low. I play in tight games, and I don't play many hands, and aggressive play tends to win smaller pots and win them earlier, so a low standard deviation is to be expected. If you want a high standard deviation, play loosely, like JTs UTG, and limp in to encourage multiway action.
If I have no chance to steal the blinds or at least get heads up with a blind, I switch from 100% raise/fold mode to a mode where I'm limping with some hands. But if it's simply the case that the small or big blind is a loose fish and everyone else is tight, then I'll be in 100% raise or fold mode, trying to get heads up with the fish.
You really should consider all your hands at once. If you try to play each hand as is best for itself, you'll not be playing as well as you could.
With regards to the QJs, usually I would open-raise with it early, but if there were a couple of loose players outside the blinds, I would either fold it and similar hands or go into a mode where I'm limping with some hands, including QJs.
-Abdul
"When KTs flops top pair with a ten, it dominates Mason Malmuth who is in there with his JTs."
But Mason Malmuth will have the good sense to get off the hand early with top pair/weak kicker plus position and will not pay you off all the way to the river. You on the other hand may well pay Mason off all the way to the river when you flop a top pair of Kings and he has limped in with King-Jack or King-Queen especially when you are out of position.
"on the turn, a jack high flush with 3 of one suit on the board is just as strong as a king high flush? No need to worry about river suck outs in loose games by players holding one bigger flush card? Wrong!"
What we are dealing with here is the probability of losing to a specific Queen-high flush when we have a Jack-high flush. Regardless of the game, this would not happen once a month for those that play daily.
With regard to stealing the blinds from early position in a tight game, if you start raising from early position with not only AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK, AQ, AJ suited, but hands like KJ suited, QJ suited, JT suited, AT suited,99,88,77, and maybe others your opponents will pick up on the fact that your early raises are not be respected. This will prompt two reactions. First, they will start to stay with you on hands they would have folded from a player with higher early position raising standards especially from the blinds which you are trying to steal. Second, the more astute ones will start playing back at you with hands they would have just cold-called with normally. In other words, Ace-Jack offsuit will not be folding against you when they see you raising in early position with pocket Sevens for instance. You may find that your King-Jack suited starts getting re-raised and isolated by Ace-Jack offsuit.
Jim,
I hope Abdul comes in to correct me but my understanding of his UTG "tight and tough" game strategy is to come in raising with pairs 88 and greater, AJ offsuit and better, and A8 suited and better. He dumps almost any hand that does not contain an ace or a pair. And he doesn't limp at all. What am I missing?
Regards,
Rick
If that is his strategy it will work initially but over time players will adjust when they see him raising. Tight players are not unaware players. A strategy like this will have you doing a lot of early position raising and the other players will adjust to your detriment I believe.
Don't attribute JTs UTG to me, attribute it to Mason. I only open early with it in very loose passive games when I am in limping mode.
I give up on trying to convince you that in loose games a jack high 5-card flush on the turn is much more vulnerable to a river suck-out by a single queen, king, or ace of the suit than is a king high 5 card flush on the turn to a river suck-out by a single ace of the suit.
You can argue all you want, but the fact is that I am very successful with this raise-or-fold opening strategy, as is one of the all time biggest money winners.
You point out that if I raise too loosely, my opponents will adapt to liberally call and 3-bet me. However, I don't raise too loosely, when my hands are considered as a whole. If someone 3-bets me with AJ, they are definitely going to lose a ton of money on average. With AQ I'm not so sure, but I still don't think they can play it profitably against me in early or middle position, due to the threat of players behind. One has to play significantly tighter against a raiser than the raiser's minimum raising hand, partially because there is no longer any chance of stealing the pot preflop.
If you want to talk about adapting, talk about how tough opponents would adapt to your open-raising strategy, where I assume you raise with not much more than JJ-AA, AK/AKs, AQs and maybe AQ: they must play significantly tighter in the face of your raise and would simply fold hands as strong as AK and TT, causing you to lose most of the value on your AA, KK, and QQ. I am not too loose; you are too tight.
You've played with me. Do I seem like an insane maniac to you? No, I sit there and fold, fold, fold. It's just not that many hands.
-Abdul
I openly acknowledge that you are a far better player than I am and that you know far more about this game. You and I are in violent agreement about not limping UTG with JTs and KTs in most of the mid-level games that are spread at the Bellagio and the Mirage. I limp in with pocket Sixes under the gun in a 10 handed game and you fold. I refuse to believe this is a major poker decision one way or the other. With regard to you open raising from early position in tight games on hands that I prefer to limp in with, you need to understand that when you start raising early with sub-premium hands because the game is tight you need to be able to play expertly on the flop and beyond. You are an expert but I question whether others who attempt to play this aggressively from early position play as well as you once the flop comes. I wonder if they will get your results.
P.S.: When are you coming out with your book that will fully explain all of this?
What's really important is what you do with each hand after you decide to play it. Over the course of this year(my most profitable year; coincidence?), I've come to the conclusion that any kind of 'starting hand chart' is one of the least important parts of successful play.
Picking good games/knowing your opponents/using your image and position are all infinitely more valuable than memorizing a set of starting hands flashcards, like you would for blackjack strategy. It's a very easy thing to seize on(hey, I did it too), esp. for the type of people who are likely to buy poker books to learn, but poker isn't blackjack or chess. I think that if S&M had it to do all over again(oh wait, forgot about the 21st century eds.), they'd like to qualify/rewrite/de-emphasize rote memorization of starting hands; maybe using a phrase like "broad, flexible guidelines; dependent on game conditions". Both have posted somewhat similar sentiments in the past.
As far as "typical" games go, JimB's and my typical games are light years apart, as are probably SKP's and RickN's, etc. FWIW I usually limp 100% w/66 and JTs(occasionally raising w/JTs) and 80-90% w/QTs and KTs. I definitely know how to get rid of all four, as well.
I'm most likely to play JTs early (in a reasonably passive game). Unless there are at least 5 players then I have to fold to a raise.
I'll dump the 66 90% of the time. I like pocket 8's or better and then I like to raise with them. 7's or lower I'm just going to be rid of them.
Greetings,
Here are some hands I recently played and wondered if I could have played them better.
1) 10/20 w/1/2 kill in a non kill pot. I had only been there for 20 mins and didn't know the players at all. But the game wasn't terribly aggressive so UTG i limped w/7's, . 3 behind me called cutoff raises button cold calls SB folds, and all others call.
The flop came 7h 3d 2d.
BB checks I bet, 1 player calls all fold to raiser who raises and button reraises. He says something to me like get in there. I thought about calling and checkraising the turn, but i suspected the button was ona draw, and the raiser may become scared and check the turn. I capped it. (button says ,"that a boy!") Only the preflop raiser and button see the turn of
6s.
I bet, but i think a check raise maybe in order, the preflop raiser may easily still think he has the best hand, and may think we are both on draws. They both called.
The river is 6c. I bet call fold.
Is a check raise in order on the turn? On the river? I thought the raiser was a reasonalbe young player, but the chance he might chicken out and just check down the river made me reluctant to try a check raise then.
2) Another 10/20 game w/ half kill. 3 limpers are raised by a fairly aggressive player Sb calls as do in in the BB w/Ad3d. all others calls.
The flop comes Kd Jc 4d. SB checks I check, and the player to my left (!) bets, all call but the SB call, I raise, and all call albeit w/some reluctancy.
The turn 2h. Giving me a gut shot also. I bet only the UTG calls.
I plan to bet the river no matter what, and do as a 8c falls. UTG calls, and shows AJo.
I suspect some might want to bet the flop and check/call the turn. But I make money by getting two bets in on the flop if i get more than 1 player in.
3) 3 early limpers are raised , one cold callers, i call in the SB w/55 BB and limpers call.
FLop is K Q 5 rainbow. I check and it gets checked around!!!!
The turn is a 3. I bet and BB raises, all fold to me and I reraise, dealer burns and turn before the action is completed. The floor is called, 5 mins go by and the BB is asked if he wants to call. Maybe I protested too loudly when I reraised. ANyway BB folded. (This hand happened before hand 1 (3 weeks before) and caused to think I have missed quite a few bets in scenarios like this...
All comments apprecaited.
On the first hand you played fine. Forget about trying for a check-raise on the turn with a big pot already out there. Just bet your hand. You do not want to run the risk of it being checked around on the expensive street.
On the second hand your play was inspired. I am not comfortable with your check-raise on the flop but with this many players and a nut draw it may well be right. On the turn you picked up more outs and betting is right with this many players. The river bet is mandatory with a big pot and only one opponent. The UTG's call of two bets cold after you check-raise having only middle pair with a two flush on board was bad poker.
On the third hand you should bet the flop with your small set. With that board they will stay with you. You missed a lot of bets here. Given the lack of interest on the flop and the turn it sounds like you were not destined to make much money on this hand.
#1 - I like your play. This will work against normal opponents.
#2 - I will ck turn because there is such a small chance of winning outright with all those opponents.
#3 - As much as I like #1, I hate #3 and so do you I think. With KQ5 you are destined to get action on your flop bet and maybe get in a 3-bet. Check that flop and you get ???
-Fred-
I like the way you played the pocket 77.
I don't like the A3s hand, I think you played a draw too aggressively.
You play flopped sets prety good.
No math used in my decisions.
SPM,...here's hoping all your draws win...
the WRONG math is used in most of MY decisions! :0)
N/T
Loosing sucks always.
SPM,...nothing in here get out...
I just enter a decent 15/30 holdem game I had been watching and I post a $15 blind as does the other new player on my left in the cutoff seat. Two typical players limp, I check my 8c 2c, the cutoff poster checks, the button folds, and the SB raises. The BB folds, both limpers call, I call, and the cutoff seat poster folds. The SB is a somewhat conservative but not very tenacious player post flop who would almost always raise with a pair of jacks or higher, AK, and perhaps AQ suited. Would anyone fold here?
The flop comes an As 5d 3c. The SB bets. He would always bet an ace, may slowplay trip aces (let's say half the time), and would probably bet KK, QQ, and JJ about 90% of the time with this flop. One loose, fishy limper calls and I call with 12 small bets in the pot, an inside straight (albeit to one card) and a backdoor flush with position. Would anyone fold here?
The turn comes an 8h. The SB bets and the remaining limper folds. I raise! My reasoning is that I have four clean outs (the 4's), and five pretty clean outs (the two remaining 8's and the three remaining 2's). The pretty clean outs are only beat if my opponent has trip aces. I estimate that if my opponent has KK, QQ, or JJ, he will bet the turn in this spot about 90% of the time but fold if raised about 75% of the time. If he has AK or AQ, he will just call and check-call the river. If he has trip aces he will reraise and lead on the river (unless a four comes, where he would lead about half the time and call my raise).
I've been pretty drained with personal responsibilities lately and wonder if my play is correct. Pretend that my assumptions about the SB's playing style are correct (I've played with him quite a bit) but do not have time to check the math and wonder if my instincts are letting me down.
All help and analysis is appreciated and I promise to post more often and in a more articulate manner after the holidays. After all, I don't want to fall behind Vince Lepore or “M” as a top poster in David Sklansky's rankings :-).
Regards,
Rick
This is a tough one for me, because I wouldn't put myself in this position. It would never occur to me to call a raise with 82, suited or not. From reading posts here lately, I'm beginning to think I play too tight, but I think this is really pushing it.
If somehow I saw the flop with this hand, I would be trying to fold before anyone bet. I just don't see the point of chasing with an 82. One of the reasons might be that I don't want anyone to see that I played it if I won, so I don't call here either.
If the even more unlikely event happened and I saw the turn, I still would think folding is best. How can the SB bet after being called on the flop if he doesn't have an Ace? I am loathing the 82 by now.
I guess you're going to tell us you won this hand, but I really think the time to get off of it was before the flop.
3-Bet Brett,
I just had time to skim the responses so far but perhaps some have misread the preflop action. I and a player to my left had just entered the game and had already posted $15 each in live blinds in late position. Two players limped, I checked (I could not fold here), the other late poster checked, the small blind raised, the BB folded, and the two limpers called. At this point there are nine small bets in the pot before I make a decision as to whether or not to put one more bet in the pot.
Some would fold here but it would be no worse than close, especially considering you have position over the raiser and are unlikely to face another raise (the late position poster on your left would have raised before if he had a hand).
Regards,
Rick
"Some would fold here but it would be no worse than close, especially considering you have position over the raiser and are unlikely to face another raise (the late position poster on your left would have raised before if he had a hand)."
Any two suited getting 9:1 is roughly EV neutral, maybe a tiny positive, certainly a bankroll churner. 82s is not just any two suited, it's the 2nd worst any two suited, true suited gumbo.
That said, I like the rest of Rick's play on the hand.
-Fred-
Sound like rationaliztion to me. I've slept on this one, and it doesn't look any better now than before. I'll admit you played it well after the flop, but why put yourself in this position?
I might have mucked this hand before the flop even if no one raised. It's that bad.
Brett:
If you believe this you must be folding too many flush draws on the flop. It's less than 7-1 against Rick flopping a flush, a flush draw without a board pair, two pair or a set. All of these hands should have a positive expectation after the flop vs. 4-5 players (that is, ignoring the preflop money).
Rick has a solid overlay on his call. Folding would be correct only if folding were free.
I think the preflop call is marginal, the flop call is clear, and the turn raise is excellent. I haven't done all the math, except to note that if you are correct about the SB having AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, or AQs, then his chance of having an ace (or two) in his hand is 50% (or less if he would not raise as consistently with AQs). Given the SB's propensity to fold an underpair to a raise, I think it is a profitable play.
MJS
I like your play. I think too many are playing too tightly, i only read the first two or 3 responses and I think to call preflop is ok. Folding on teh flop is out of the question, and the raise on the turn makes sense if there is a decent chance the adversary will fold.
Maybe we should ask what % of the time does the SB need to fold to make a raise profitable?
Rick,
I wouldn't call the pre-flop raise, but if I did, I might try the raise on the turn. Since you are pretty sure of the range of hands the SB would raise with, you know that if he holds KK, QQ, or JJ, but especially QQ and JJ, that he has to bet into this flop once he has raised. Certainly, he can't let someone holding KQ take a free card here. Might he also expand his range of raising hands slightly given that he's up against one limper you describe as "fishy" and two posts? If so, then your raise still should represent a threat since you called, and he must be familiar with your play as well.
Of course, as a math-impaired, lowly 5-10 player, I'm not sure that my agreeing with your raise will boost your sanity level.
John
given your assumptions of course it's correct. you have a .9*.9*18/(.9*.9*18+.5*3+12+3)is bigger than 40% chance of him folding. let alone your 4+5*11/12*.5 outs (he has trip aces one in 12 times and plays it this way half the time).
dont let people tell you to fold this preflop or on the flop either. you play a-o-k.
but yeah you're crazy.
scott
a couple of my numbers are wrong, but not important ones. to restate -- raise good cause fold likely.
scott
scott,
Is there any chance you could do the math in your above post with a little bit of annotation? If you do, I promise not to wake you and your friends before 3:00 p.m. if you ever crash at my place again. I got a migraine just looking at those numbers and I have no one to hit my on the head with a stone to cure it.
I ended up a bit surprised that my post flop play was generally supported without much comment. I wonder if people looked at your post and just figured you had to be right and my "sort of bluff raise" was correct.
Regards,
Rick
here is the math. not only will i annotate, but i will also get it right this time.
after the flop comes but before he bets, he has JJ(6), QQ(6), KK(6), AA(3), AK(12), AQs(3). he would bet with the wired underpairs 90%, top set 50%, and top pair big kicker 100%. this means we discount the comninations to JJ-KK (6*.9 each) AK (12) AQs(3) and AA (3*.5). when he again bets the turn, we have to further discount the wired underpairs by .9 because he would not always follow through his bluff. that we have 6*.9*.9 of each JJ, QQ, KK and 3*.5 AA and 15 AK and AQs. we know he will fold the underpairs to a raise, so his chance of folding to the turn raise is 3*6*.9*.9/(3*6*.9*.9+.5*3+15). which is almost 47% of the time.
clearly 'twas a good raise. and you dont have to let me sleep the day away. i can sleep when i'm dead.
scott
What a great image enhancing play! Of course you hate to call a raise preflop, but you are getting 9-1 for your call. Let's see the flop!
Then you get to see the turn for 1 small bet.(with correct pot odds) GREAT!
On the turn I think you are in the lead and your raise is fine but I may just smoothcall for a good chance to really mess with his head on the river.
Win or lose this hand I think it's a great way to show your opponents you are there to "gamble" and induce some sloppy play on their part.
Of course you are a VERY experienced top notch player and I would advice newer players not to attempt this but to just sit down and wait for the blinds to get to them before posting and beginning play.
Hope your "hand" held up and you put the entire table on tilt :o)
hillbilly,
You wrote: "...I would advice newer players not to attempt this but to just sit down and wait for the blinds to get to them before posting and beginning play."
When you are playing time charges and have almost perfect position you should post. This is especially true if another player is also posting. A corollary is that you should avoid taking a break when others are posting blinds and you have your big blind. Wait one more round if you can.
Regards,
Rick
sunny California and the land of time charges as I have never played in a time charge game. I just figured you liked your position and posted right away to be perceived as a gambler and not a tight player who would wait for the blinds to get around to them before beginning to play. Some players like to sit and get a feel for the game but as you noted in your post you had been observing the game for awhile and had your reads on your opponents already.
Before I ever enter a time charge game I will surely ask your advice on all the different strategies involved. Take care
Probably NOT in the lead on the turn. Yes, semibluff raise the best option if it may cause big underpairs to the Ace to fold. Sorry (for my game that is :o)
There's someone posting under Rick's name and using his email!
You must be under stress, 'bro, because this is NOT the Rick N. I was watching a couple of months ago. But seriously, folks, given your thought processes and if you really know your clients, I can't really find fault with your play. That turn raise was aggressive, to be sure, but who am I to tell you how to play?
How did it turn out?
maybe it was big narc.
or mr text.
scott the detective
Rick - as they say it DEPENDS!
(a) If I just sit down at the table and it was my first hand - I would fold to a raise.
(b) If I had already drank one Coor's light, I'd consider calling.
(c) If I had already drank two Coors lights, it's a no brainer - CALL
ON the flop you have to CALL!
On the turn you must (with two beers) RAISE! - Now you're playing my kinda game!
Whoa!
I think you've got everything backwards here.
I think the preflop call is shaky at best (although when guys like Rick and Chris think it's ok...it may be time for me to reconsider).
On the flop, you cannot fold. The betting is closed and you have got pot odds and implied odds to make a bike plus you have a backdoor draw to clubs.
On the river, you certainly must bet if you make 2 pairs or trips as the sb would surely have reraised the turn if he had AA (and that's the only hand that your two pairs or trips would lose against given Rick's assumptions as to what hands he might raise with preflop out of the sb).
x
I read the pre-flop decision, I read the post flop determination, I read the all the poster answers and comments.
Will you be renting the house in Any2card Town or will you be buying it?
SPM,...Mayor of A2CT...
SPM,
Poker players don't have any credit so I'll probably have to sleep on somebody's sofa.
Regards,
Rick
No charge.
x
Just some brief comments on the hand. I would probably call the raise preflop as you did. On the flop I would probably muck. However being there on the turn, and assuming that the preflop raiser would fold KK, QQ, JJ to a raise from you, then your turn raise has to be correct. If called I would only bet if I hit the straight or flush, I would check it behind if I hit 2 pair, and possibly even check down 3 8's depending on his reaction to it.
Interesting! I would more likely fold pre-flop but would call the flop bet for sure.
When it is time for you to call your raise, you are getting 8:1. If I were in the big blind with 82s and UTG raised and if I were getting 8:1, I would not call. To make this a profitable call, I think you have to expect to win about 25-28 small bets when the smoke clears. Generally, that ain't gonna happen.
This situation is a little different in that you have position but I still think that 8:1 may be a little light with this dog. I would have likely folded preflop.
Your play on the flop is fine given that your call closes the betting on that round.
On the turn, you have to call with your (probable) 9 outs so a raise can't be far off from being the right play particularly if you think that the sb will lay down KK, QQ etc. here.
In sum, well played postflop but the jury's still out on the preflop call.
Given your assumptions on his preflop raising standards out of the bb and his chances of folding KK, QQ or JJ to the turn raise, one can do a precise calculation of the EV of raising the turn....but I am too lazy to be that one.
Prseumably, you would be less likely to pull this move off against someone who would not raise preflop out of the bb with QQ and JJ or someone who would raise with any old AQ (i.e as opposed to suited Big Chicks only).
skp:
It's only about 25-1 to flop two pair or better (not including draws). So why does Rick have to win at least 25 bets in order to call with 82s? It would appear by your analysis that the value of him flopping a flush draw getting 3-way action is zero or perhaps negative.
I sort of went on memory on this one from a thread started by Puggy several months ago on calling a raise out of the bb with Q2s or something. My analysis (done on the back of a matchbook mind you:) indicated that you have to win a helluva lot of bets to make up for all those times you miss completely on the flop, catch something on the flop but then go on to miss or be outdrawn on the turn or river etc.
I don't claim to have the definitive answer on this...maybe someone more enterprising can work out a more detailed analysis.
Intuitively, it sounds about right. You need to expect to win about 10 big bets to make calling a raise with 22 profitable. With 82s, it has to be higher (although I realize that you are already in for one bet here with the late position post).
The analysis with 22 is a little different because 22 is a hit-the-flop-or-fold case. The only question is whether you'll win enough when you hit to justify seeing the flop.
With 82s, the most common way of hitting the flop is with a flush draw, about 8-1. The question then is whether a naked flush draw is a profitable situation after the flop, ignoring the preflop money. I submit that, vs. 4 opponents, it is. If 4 players bet equal amounts and Rick wins a third of the time, Rick makes money regardless of the number of bets they put in. And if Rick flops 2 pair or a set he has a big hand.
So when you add up the chances of flopping a flush draw or better, you should need only about 7-1 to justify calling. Rick had an real overlay.
This analysis is consistent with the discussion about calling raises in the bb in HPFAP and Abdul's starting hands advice.
"If 4 players bet equal amounts and Rick wins a third of the time."
Here, Rick ended up with 3 opponents although it may have been reasonable to assume that the player to his left would have also called the preflop raise.
In any event, I would say that the mere fact that you have 3 opponents preflop is no guarantee that you are going to have 3 opponents on the flop and turn particularly where the preflop raiser is in the bb which usually signifies a big hand. And if you do, your chances of winning the pot after flopping a flush draw will be less than a third. To be sure, Rick will make his flush a third of the time but there will be occasions when he will be outdrawn on the river or be locked out on the turn (and not know it). Those occasions will prove to be expensive.
I would also submit that flopping two pairs is nowhere near as good as it sounds on paper with a hand like 82 given the counterfeiting turn and river card problem. Trips are of course better.
Maybe my estimate of having to win 25-28 bets to make calling preflop profitable is off (Puggy can assist here as I believe he has done a more thorough analysis) but I don't think it is correct to say that 8:1 pot odds preflop gives Rick an overlay.
I been trying to learn how to fold these baby cards from blind positions. However you had reasonable position. You still must get very lucky to win this. (may even get re-raised behind you).
My home computer and email set-up have both crashed, so I'm sneaking you this answer at work. Haven't read the long list of posters as yet, so I'll give it a shot on my own:
Pre-flop: I fold. 8-2s is a piece of trash, I don't care how many players are in. Ciaffone would probably say it's worse when there are a lot of players in: more chance your pair of 8s are not good, more chance your flush is no good, etc. I calculate $135 in the pot when it's back to you; I fold for the extra $15.
On the turn: I fold. Backdoor flush potential to an 8-high flush is almost worthless to me.
As for your analysis of your raise: a 4 is not a clean out; I can imagine someone playing 7-6 on the flop, drawing, like you, to an inside straight, and now having an open end straight. Your backdoor flush is now history and you've made 2nd pair with no kicker. And I don't think in 15-30 anyone's gonna lay down an Ace to your aggression.
By the way, it's a pleasure to read your posts and responses; your good natured humility is a breath of fresh air, especially when some of the other posters get a little testy. And I agree with Sklansky's ranking of you. I'll now wade through the other responses.
OK, I've read all the respones and re-read your post. I didn't read it correctly the first time. There were only 3 of you on the flop and by the time the action came to you on the turn, it was heads-up on the turn.
This means that a 4 would indeed be a clean out; and your other 5 "pretty clean" outs are indeed just that. So I agree with the poster who said that since a call is correct, a raise can't be too wrong if there's a chance SB will fold.
I still would have folded pre-flop. I probably call on the flop.
After I raised on the turn, the big blind called without much hesitation. When a nine hit on the river I just checked behind and lost to AK offsuit.
I might try to do the math on my own or decode scott's answer. I was surprised that most did not dispute my post flop play.
I agree with the consensus that the pre flop call was marginal. In any event, it is a “Bankroll Churner” as NJ Fred said and my BR got churned on this one. Although pre flop calls out of the blinds (for a full bet against a raise or a half bet when there is no raise in the small blind) may seem to be a dull topic for the forum, it is still worth investigating as we are faced with this type of decision frequently so if we are off by much it will cost us a lot. Many of us seem to have wildly different standards, and a well-done poll might be a lot of fun. Maybe I'll start one in 2001.
Anyway, thanks for all the responses.
Regards,
Rick
Well, I did say I thought the SB had an Ace. I think your turn raise showed a lot of heart, and if he didn't have an Ace you would have won it right there. But I still don't think you should ever play 82.
here are my limping sb standards. if i can think of any reason to call, i call.
i think that's because i like to play poker. that's why, in fact, i play poker.
calling a raise from the bb requires 2 reasons to call, but calling the raise as a late position poster only requires one. that's cause position is the second reason.
scott
No question you play looser when you post in front of the button and the raise is in front of you than when you are in the blind and out of position not only relative to the raise, but to all other players (except sb.) But 8-2s is still junk and generally speaking GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. Rick plays awfully well. But I still think it's a losing play for him to play this hand in this situation. For those that play less well, like me, it certainly is.
the postflop comments will go one post per point, but preflop is all at once.
#4. i like to raise one or two limpers with AJo when i'm one or two seats off the button. i am very likely to be in good shape against the limpers. i would prefer the blinds to fold, which cant happen unless i raise. i want the button. i would much rather act last in a shorthanded pot than act second to last in a multiway pot with this hand.
#6. i want to reiterate that there are good reasons to not raise several limpers with 99-QQ. you miss bets when your set wins, but you win some pots with a pair that you wouldnt have won if you had raised. but this has been discussed a lot.
#14. i think you should fold. not only is AQo not in great shape against a typical utg raiser, but there are still several people left to act behind you. calling is worst, but i think folding is best. this has also been discussed a lot.
#17. reraising is fine. but if you plan on folding just because two overcards flop, then you should just call. but if you plan on going to the river almost all the time then you can reraise.
#19. folding is wrong. you are getting better than 5-1.
#24. same as above.
we have already discussed all but the first point, i think. there were a couple others were i draw the line differently (eg JTs utg and 76s on the button and KJo) but there arent any conceptual points i have to make.
scott
Scott,
My friend Greg is taking the quiz right now so I thought I would compare notes with you on a few of your responses.
”#4. i like to raise one or two limpers with AJo when i'm one or two seats off the button. i am very likely to be in good shape against the limpers. i would prefer the blinds to fold, which cant happen unless i raise. i want the button. i would much rather act last in a shorthanded pot than act second to last in a multiway pot with this hand.”
I also chose raise, especially because of the position. When raising, it helps to have blinds that are tight but play OK post flop. If the blinds are loose and play poorly post flop, then calling may be better.
”#14. i think you should fold. not only is AQo not in great shape against a typical utg raiser, but there are still several people left to act behind you. calling is worst, but i think folding is best. this has also been discussed a lot.”
I think you are referring to #12 here. I also chose fold and think it is close.
”#17. reraising is fine. but if you plan on folding just because two overcards flop, then you should just call. but if you plan on going to the river almost all the time then you can reraise.”
I reraise and am usually going to the river.
”#19. folding is wrong. you are getting better than 5-1.”
I agree with you here and disagree with Jim on this one more than any other pre flop question.
Gotta go. Friend Greg finished and wants to get going to Hollywood Park.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for your insights scott. A few general remarks before getting into the specifics.
A. The quiz was actually constructed about 2 years ago and since then I have learned a lot about the game from posting on this forum. I think some of my answers on pre-flop play are not exactly right and I think the scoring system is a little out of whack.
B. I believe the quiz puts too much emphasis on pre-flop play. Based on many of the posts I have read on this forum over the past year as well as comments made by David Sklansky (not about the quiz) I think that some of these pre-flop decisions are "fraction of a bet" discussions to utilize a Sklansky term.
With regard to your specific remarks:
1. In hand #4 I recommend limping behind two other limpers with Ace-Jack offsuit. Raising does have the advantages you cite in your post. However, there is no assurance that a raise at this point will drive out the remaining players and anyone who calls your raise will frequently have a better hand with position over you. I like opening with a raise from middle position with this hand when no one has entered the pot since I have an excellent chance of driving out players and getting in heads-up with on of the blinds if these choose to play. I wouldn't mind raising on the button against a middle or late limper with this hand since I think the advantages you cite make the extra bet worthwhile. But under the stated conditions of the problem the issue for me is whether or not I think I have enough hand to merit the extra action.
2. Whether or not to raise on the button with JJ after a bunch of players limp in is another debateable issue. I believe that you have more ways to win than just flopping a set. There are thousand of flops that make JJ an over pair to the board which is a strong playing hand.
3. #14 has you limping in under the gun with King-Queen offsuit. I believe you are referring to #12 where you cold-call an UTG raiser with AQ offsuit. This problem was put together before the famous John Feeney article in his book "Inside The Poker Mind" concerning AQ. We had a spirited debate on this issue a few months ago and if I were doing the quiz over again I would have deleted this problem. Folding is right against a decent player and not all that bad against a normal player.
4. #17 is 3 betting with pocket Tens from the blind when the button opens with a steal raise. I would not necessarily fold if two over cards flop. In fact since I am the pre-flop re-raiser I will usually bet the flop. I agree that if you are going to back off when a scary flop comes then calling would be better but it is wimpy poker not to be aggressive here.
5. #19 and you are absolutely correct. Folding is wrong. I have learned this since posting on the forum. Even Bob Ciaffone has reversed his position on this I believe. You should limp in with your baby pocket pair because of the huge implied odds you get from flopping a set. I did not have the benefit of your insights on this when this quiz was formulated.
6. #24 has you first limping in with pocket Sixes and then folding when it is raised and re-raised back to you. There is $105 in the pot and it costs you another $20 to call. Maybe I need to rethink this one but there are several difference here between this problem and #19. First, it could get raised again which further erodes your implied odds. Second, unlike #19 you know you are probably facing bigger over pairs like AA,KK,QQ, or JJ perhaps which means the set over set phenonmenon may be more likely. But this is another situation where it is probably close.
Can I assume from this that you have no problems with all the post flop quiz solutions?
In the next quiz for 2001, there will be no pre-flop questions. It will all be post flop questions and they will be more difficult.
In the games I play in it is usually much better to limp with A-Jo and pray that you flop 2 pair. It is very hard to get the button to fold 2 bets and the big blind to fold as well. Another reason I hesitate to raise, after several limpers, is that there are usually one or two good/decent/observant players in the game and i want to preserve my "raising equity". When I see someone on my right consistently raising with A-Jo I will definitely consider cold-calling and re-raising them more.
B. I believe the quiz puts too much emphasis on pre-flop play. Based on many of the posts I have read on this forum over the past year as well as comments made by David Sklansky (not about the quiz) I think that some of these pre-flop decisions are "fraction of a bet" discussions to utilize a Sklansky term.
Hmm. These don't sound like the words of the "tightest pre-flop player on the forum." :-)
I hope you agree that many pre-flop decisions are only fraction of a bet decisions if you play extremely well post-flop. We lowly beginners surely benefit enormously from staying away from trap hands.
#19 and you are absolutely correct. Folding is wrong.
Damn. I got this one right. I mean wrong. I mean...
David
P.S. I just re-read my paragraph that begins, "I hope..." and realized that the statement makes an equally good case for concentrating on post-flop play. Maybe that's what my subconscious really wants to do after all...
The doctors said this would happen if I went off my meds.
i very much agree with concentrating on postflop play. i think a good quiz may have to include multiple street strategy (ie on the flop would you call fold or raise, and how would you then react to a flop reraise and how would you play the turn/river if your opp does this and the cards are that?"
i am also unsure abuot how to score quizes like this.
i have some comments on the postflop portion, but i thought i would split it into multiple posts.
i will make one brief comment on #24 that, while you are likely facing a slightly increased chance of an expensive set over set, sets in general love heavy flop action. with this much action preflop you are likely to have the flop three bet or even capped should you flop a set. i think this mitigates much of what you lose in decreased implied odds.
also, JJ having lots of good flops without the set is why i advocate limping there. assuming you flop an overpair, you can usually charge chasers about four times as much if you limp preflop. (a raised flop in a pot half as big, instead of just a bet flop in a huge pot.) you do lose bets when you win, but you are better able to protect your "weak" overpair. it is unclear to me which play is better, but if limping there is correct with any pair, then it is most correct with JJ.
on #4. i agree anyone who calls the raise behind has you in bad shape. but if you call they sure wont fold and will likely raise themselves. if the button or the cutoff happens to have a real good hand, then that's just bad luck and it will be hard to avoid losing two bets preflop no matter what we do. a raise here will often fold KQ behind me, which i want. plus it will fold small pairs, suited connectors and one gappers -- hands that profitably draw against the top pair good kicker that i will likely need to play beyond the flop without the button in a multiway pot. also, i expect one blind to fold if i raise and that's another advantage, especially if you are able to by the button. position against three opponents is more valuable than position against four opp. limping not only invites the cuttoff and the button to try and see a cheap flop with position on you, but it reduces the effects of your good (or pretty good should someone limp behind you) position. i think you should by fighting to secure and enhance your positional advantage and that this is worth losing one extra small bet when i get three bet by KK on the button.
scott
In a post below regarding Jim B vs S&M UTG starting requirements Jim states:
However, JTs is a much better hand than KTs or QTs
Is this generally accepted? Is it true? My guess would be that KTs is a better hand then JTs.
http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm
has KTs better heads up against a random hand and the two hands about equal against 10 random hands.
comments?
Heads up K10s may be better than J10s. But when you limp UTG, you are expecting (or at least hoping) to be playing against a large field. J10s is a better hand in this scenario b/c it is much more likely to make a straight.
KTs is much better than JT suited heads up.
KT suited IS a better hand than JT suited in multiway pots, but you are more likely to win more money with JT suited than KT suited if the game is loose. Why?
With KT suited you might get trapped when you flop top pair. When you flop top pair with JT, not only are you going to be more cautious about it, but you are also at less risk of someone having a jack with a bigger kicker. People are more likely to hold onto king face than JX.
When you play JTs you aren't looking for top pair type hands in multiway pots. You want to make straights and flushes. You make money from all the other loose players paying you off when you hit. The odds of you winning are small, but in a loose game the payoff is there.
That is why you MUST NOT play JTs in early position if the game is tough. And I'll never play it in a raised pot unless I am calling one more bet from the BB in a multiway pot.
I think the suited connectors are highly overrated anyway. But that's another story. I can't remember the last time I actually won a hand with JTs, 98s, etc. Only pots I ever win are with AK, AQ, AA, KK etc. I will say that QJs has been very good to me lately though.
-SmoothB-
When I stated that I thought JT suited is a much better hand than KT suited I was giving my opinion based on how the hands play in a multiway pot against typical hands players come in with not how they fare in a heads up simulation. In a heads-up simulation a pair of Deuces is a favorite over big slick but big slick is a much better playing hand than a pair of Deuces. This is the problem I have with computer simulations and the type of analyses down by Lawrence Hill in CardPlayer magazine. They simply bear no relationship to reality.
I believe Jack-Ten suited is a better playing hand than King-Ten suited because not only can you make more straights but it is an easier hand to get away from when you catch a piece of the flop but have no flush or straight possibilities. Technically, there may be more hands that "dominate" Jack-Ten suited but in actual play when the flop comes AhJd2c and I have JsTs it is easy for me to get away from my middle pair/no kicker hand. Even when I flop top pair I can usually escape at a small cost if I get heat having no kicker and being vulnerable to a lot of over cards on the turn or river.
Basically, you shouldn't be limping UTG in a "typical" game with K-Ts, Q-Ts or J-Ts. But if it's the kind of game where there's a lot of pre-flop limping and you can generally see the flop for one bet with 4-5 limpers, and the players are not too aggressive on the flop, then you can loosen up your playing requirements and J-Ts in this situation is much preferred, IMHO, than Q-Ts or K-Ts.
One should be careful in making a blanket statement that J-Ts is "better" than K-Ts. For example, if you are on the button and all have passed to you, you would prefer K-Ts to J-Ts.
But if it's the kind of game where there's a lot of pre-flop limping and you can generally see the flop for one bet with 4-5 limpers, and the players are not too aggressive on the flop, then you can loosen up your playing requirements and J-Ts in this situation is much preferred, IMHO, than Q-Ts or K-Ts.
could you explain why you think this?
that JTs has better chances to make more potential straights and open end str8t draws as opposed to gutshots and fewer chances to hit a straight?
Along these same lines I believe it has more chances to make nut str8ts than 1 and 2 gappers
(just trying to do your light work here Andy! Hope I'm right :o)
With lots of players, one pair or no pair with high cards isn't going to stand up a lot. You want to play hands that have drawing potential since you're going to need to make more straights and flushes than in a tight game where you're typically up against only one or two opponents. Suited connectors are ideal for this. This is why is you're up against one opponent, you'd prefer to have K-Ts; if up against a bunch, you prefer J-Ts.
You like a passive game because you get to see the turn and river more often to possibly hit your hand more often than in an aggressive game.
All the replies so far in this thread have been very useful, but I still caution that overemphasizing 'horseraces of starting hands' can be unproductive and distract from more important matters. I posted this in the original thread below.
And incidentally, I consider Jim Brier to be by a ways, the most valuable contributor to this forum. Plus his quiz is great, though I'll be posting some nits shortly(I scored 63; 15 on first 28 ?'s, 48 on remainder; with 2 ?'s still under appeal).
*******************
What's really important is what you do with each hand after you decide to play it. Over the course of this year(my most profitable year; coincidence?), I've come to the conclusion that any kind of 'starting hand chart' is one of the least important parts of successful play.
Picking good games/knowing your opponents/using your image and position are all infinitely more valuable than memorizing a set of starting hands flashcards, like you would for blackjack strategy. It's a very easy thing to seize on(hey, I did it too), esp. for the type of people who are likely to buy poker books to learn, but poker isn't blackjack or chess. I think that if S&M had it to do all over again(oh wait, forgot about the 21st century eds.), they'd like to qualify/rewrite/de-emphasize rote memorization of starting hands; maybe using a phrase like "broad, flexible guidelines; dependent on game conditions". Both have posted somewhat similar sentiments in the past.
As far as "typical" games go, JimB's and my typical games are light years apart, as are probably SKP's and RickN's, etc. FWIW I usually limp 100% w/66 and JTs(occasionally raising w/JTs) and 80-90% w/QTs and KTs. I definitely know how to get rid of all four, as well.
IMHO
Pre-flop play is easier to categorize therefore you can memorize what are the starting requirement rules. No point in making the rules that much more complicated by using "broad" guidelines if they could gain you only a very small increase in EV.
The current guidelines are flexible enough. Enough so that when I re-read them I think "MAN have I been playing tight OR WHAT"!
Postflop, the art of poker comes into play. You must use your knowledge and experience to CALMLY make the best plays.
I agree that game selection/player knowledge is of utmost importance. Card reading should be in there as well.
I think position is too closely related to starting hand requirements to consider individually of SHR.
A very bad player (BP) limps early. A young Asian woman (AW) limps in the middle. An average player (AP) 3 off the button limps. Loose-aggressive but fairly knowledgeable player (LA) in the cut-off limps. I'm on the button with As9s. I raise.
The reason I raised is that BP and AP can both have very wide range of hands. AW probably has a legit limping hand, and LA must be very weak since he would very often raise in this spot.
Flop: 7h 3c 2s. Someone bets and all call.
Turn is 9h. It is checked to me and I bet. BP folds. Now AW raises and it is folded to me. I considered re-raising for a moment but just called. Now that I think about it, I should have re-raised. The board like 7h 3c 2s 9h has all sorts of draws against a bunch of week limpers so I think she would bet any set or two-pair here. Since I raised pre-flop but only called the flop, she’s likely to put me on a big ace and now try to (semi) bluff everyone out.
Please comment on my pre-flop and turn thinking. What river cards should I be afraid of? Thanks.
I suspect you should not be worrying about what the river is going to help her make; I think you are already way behind to a set and that there is no card that will make your hand. You have to call her down however.
The board doesn't really have a lot of great straight possibilities on the flop if (as I suspect) she has flopped a set of 7's. The flop is a rainbow, and the only holding she needs to worry about is 4-5, which is unlikely even for bad players. You have raised preflop, so she can safely put you on having not caught any of the flop.
Her checkraise on the turn indicates she already has a big hand and waited for the expensive street to pop you. If you had reraised the turn, I suspect you would have had it capped right back at you. My experience with AW is that bluffing isn't a big part of their repetoires.
David
Then how can she expect that someone will bet the turn? Especially, since i only called the flop bet. I think her action reeks of (semi) bluff here.
Additionally, my experience with AW is that they love raising on the come.
You are right, she can't be sure you will bet the turn, but as you said "someone bet the flop". Unless it was her, she probably has reasonable grounds to assume someone will lead the betting on the turn as well.
Your comment about AW is interesting. I know I watch them closely, not always for poker-related reasons, either. I don't see a lot of semi-bluffs or trick plays from them.
What actually happened in the hand?
David
River was Qs. She bet, I called. She showed Ah6h.
Then how can she expect that someone will bet the turn? Especially, since i only called the flop bet. I think her action reeks of (semi) bluff here.
Additionally, my experience with AW is that they love raising on the come.
Something went screwy during posting. Sorry.
I would have limped with A9s preflop, and I would not re-raise the AW. I would check call it down unless another 9 or maybe an A comes.
Derrick
Pre-flop I don't like your raise with Ace-Nine suited since I don't believe you have a good enough hand given all those opponents but it cannot be a bad play. The problem with your thinking is that you have so many players in the pot that you only have to be wrong in one or two spots to invalidate your reasoning here. If you had just one or two opponents that would be one thing but you have four and your assessment is unlikely to be correct across this many opponents. On the flop you are getting 15:1 to take off a card but what are your outs? Six outs to a pair which may not hold up given all these opponents and runner-runner flush draw. I think I would fold since a pair of Nines or a top pair of Aces with a Nine kicker could easily lose here. To re-raise on the turn with a pair of Nines is grossly over playing your hand. After being check-raised on the expensive street you should already be terrified before seeing the river card.
I don't like the raise with A-9s even on the button. This is a very speculative hand that can get into all sorts of trouble -- I'd much rather see the flop cheap with all these limpers.
On the turn, you have a legit bet. But once you get check-raised, you have to be very careful. A reraise is out of line because you play the hand for the same price if you just call the turn and river. Getting check-raised on the turn with only a medium pair is either a bluff, semi-bluff, or a big hand (a set perhaps). If has 2 hearts or a straight draw, she still has the price to continue even if you reraise.
As for the river, you should certainly be concerned about a heart. Otherwise, it's not so obvious what she holds. She could have you totally nutted here with 7-7 or be playing a busted big-connector hand.
What kind of troube can A9s get in here? I'm pretty sure that if any of the limpers had a bigger Ace they have raised instead. With position on 4 weak limpers, i think A9s is a great hand.
As i mentioned in another reply above, if this is how she played a set, she's played it very bad. I give her more credit then that.
Even if she does have the odds to call my resaise with a drawing semi-bluff, it doesn't mean it's wrong to re-raise. I have to make it as expensive as possible for her to draw and punish her semi-bluff raises, or else she's outplaying me.
What kind of trouble? There aren't many flops containing a 9 that will not have a draw with them. If you flop A-x-x, you'll never know where you stand (a lot of people will play A-small for a single bet, trying to flop bottom straight). The only hand you really want to flop is a flush or a 4-flush -- a longshot possibility there. But against a small field, yes, A-9s would be played for the best hand.
what happens when you make a marginal preflop raise like this is your aggression confounds you into continuing to overplay this even after youre likely beaten. (i like the raise with A9s but not against this many players).
example: youre considering a reraise against a checkraise on the turn and a board of rags with a hand you would have probably folded with on the flop had you merely limped. nevertheless i think you must call, but it is quite a pickle youve gotten yourself into.
these arent the worst mistakes but at 15-30 against potentially tricky players they will add up.
What hands would she likely have played this way? First, a set. We can rule out a set of 9s, she wouldn't have slow played them on the flop. A set of 7s, 3s or 2s? Yes, likely. A big pocket pair? Unlikely she would have played this way. Two pair? Conceivably 9-7s, but I think she would have bet out on the turn. A-3h or A-2h? Possible. The only other hand I can come up with is A-9c. So I come up with 9 hands that have your drawing dead (sets), one hand you tie (A-9c), and two you have beat but that have 13 outs to beat you. I suppose it's possible she has T-9c or T-9s, but I would think she would have bet this hand on the turn.
So it certainly doesn't look like a re-raising situation to me; maybe your call isn't bad, but I think a fold is better than a re-raise. As for the river, there's no card I would like to see, not even a 9 or an Ace. Since you called the turn, call the river unless a heart comes.
But what about Guy's thought (which I think is a good one) that AW could be putting Guy on a bluff on the turn. Guy only called the flop (it would be better if Guy had told us who bet the flop rather than simply saying that "someone" bet it). He then bet the turn. Someone in AW's shoes could easily put Guy on overcards and raise with any one pair hand to try and shut out the field and hopefully shut out Guy also.
I think Guy has an easy call on the turn. He should also call the river no matter what card comes out. If AW checks the river, Guy should bet no matter what card comes. She will likely call with any pair in that situation.
Unfortunately, i can't remember who bet the flop. I'm pretty sure it wasn't AW. I think it was AP.
Yes, it's certainly possible. But it's also certainly possible that she slow played the non-threatening flop.
I'm not generally a believer is assessing the possibilities of bluffs or semi-bluffs by the presumed general characteristics of a racial group, but I tend to agree with what some of the others have said: less likely that AW has a lesser hand than A-9 than the "average" player.
But I certainly understand your rationale for calling and for calling again or betting on the river.
I think there are some things we need to consider before we can answer. Is the game tight? Will these players lay down a strongley played hand? I feel, and I usually play agreessive after raising, that anyone betting into on the flop is testing the waters. If you raise you will most likely buy your self a card. If you get reraised you can reevaluate your hand and possibly muck.
My worthless opinion
I agree that you have no reason to put her on anything better than nines and more likely not even that.. If she had better, why would she give away the turn?
3-bet.
The thing that I love about a post like this, is that the 'poster' has placed all of the 'responders' in a horribly tenuous position, and we have to come up with a solution to extricate ourselves in the least painful manner. That's all I'm going to say about your play of the hand before the flop and on the flop.
My guess would be that AW either has you drawing extremely thin or dead, or has a big draw. If I were going to continue with the hand, (which I would usually only do if I had reason to doubt that she held a made hand), I would call. The reason has to do with the likely play of the hand from that point.
If I'm beat, and she has 9-7, a set or something else it will be very easy for her to 4 bet me, and I would have to consider a very marginal or horrible call. If she is on a big draw and misses, my position will be useful on the river (because she needs to decide if I'll call a bluff and this will probably make her think). In addition, if she check-raised with a draw, it is likely a very large draw with many ways to win, so she will not be making a mistake by calling my re-raise and my profit will not outweigh the downside if I've read her wrong.
"Outplaying him after the flop." "He plays well postflop."
This seems to mainly apply to short or headsup games but is also very important when the table is full.
What are the skills that are critical when we refer to outplaying postflop? I see this mentioned often enough but not expounded upon.
1) Do we mean "making good decisions?" (too general)
2) Aggression where one should bet or raise frequently?
3) Knowing when to fold and not chase?
4) Reading his opponent well?
5) Reading the board well?
What are the key skills and their order of importance?
Doesn't #1 take into consideration 2, 3, 4, and 5? Situational understanding and control is the key.
Ussally it means making the other person lay his hand down when you have nothing or very little.
I play with some ladys that i am more willing to call if they are the only ones in the pot because if they do not catch a part of the flop and i bet i win 90% of the time.
The simple answer is that "playing well post flop" means that you have the good sense to get out of the hand when you flop something like top pair/weak kicker and get heat thereby minimizing your loss when you come in on a speculative hand and fail to get a good draw but you catch a piece of the board instead. You decide to limp in from middle position with a piece of cheese like King-Five suited after several limpers come in ahead of you. Maybe someone raises behind you and you call. The flop comes something like K92 rainbow and none of your suit. You have to know how to play this top pair/no kicker hand correctly and not just routinely pay off all the way to the river.
When you hear of someone "outplaying" somebody on a particular hand don't take it too literally. Somebody folded a winner, somebody else raised into the nuts. Was there a mistake? Perhaps, perhaps not. "Outplaying" someone often means being dealt a great hand and not screwing it up.
This is too general but playing well involves 3 things: understanding, analysis and execution. You have to have a good technical understanding of the game and the way people tend to play it, what works and what doesn't, how to maximize profits, cut losses and so forth. You then have to correctly analyze the situation at hand, taking into account all sorts of relevant information, and to derive the best play. You then have to carry it out.
Execution tends to be a hang-up for a lot of players. Poker makes people so angry and scared that it's hard for them to consistently do the right thing, even when they "know" what they should do. When someone is said to "play well" after the flop it often means that they do all the time what others do only most of the time.
A mix of responses which should be expected.
Still, lean towards aggression, betting out and raising when you have a piece of the board...or
Playing more careful and not getting caught up even if you have top pair rag kicker?
Just to clarify things, my interest is when the hand is headsup or no more than 3 ways. Usually, mid limit games I play has the flop seen by only 2-3 players. I also play short so I am trying to get more definition of the term, "outlaying postflop." Thanks.
Reading hands and/or players is critical in the games you mention. If you can read your opponents and their hands better than they can read you and your hands doesn't it stand to reason that you'll make better decisions post flop? Also playing well post flop involves playing strategically well. Bluffing, slowplaying, raising, calling, checking, check raising, folding, value betting, semi-bluffing, etc. to acheive maximum EV is what I would define as playing strategically well.
Hello Folks:
I have been giving some serious thought to where one's profit comes from in Hold'em. I have concluded, and hereby request feedback, on the following:
In terms of one's profit margin as stated in an hourly rate, very little if any net profit is attributable to solid, tight, pre-flop play. Tight play will allow you to overcome the house rake and perhaps earn a couple of bucks profit, but, fundamentally unless in a game of loose maniacs, there can be no substantial contribution to the big bet an hour rate a good player seeks. That profit margin is built upon a foundation of reading other player tendancies and reacting to close decision situations accordingly. Examples include making loose passive players pay at every round of the betting, utilizing the agressive nature of some players to check raise, and, therefore, get more money in the pot, and knowing when not to bet into solid players on the end who will only commit more money to the pot when they have you beaten.
This theory dove tails with the concept that one can play a few more hands up front with poor players since the pre-flop negative expectation accepted can more than be made up by good reads on bad players post-flop. Also, in a tough game no player can be earning an hourly rate near a big bet per hour since, by definition, tough players do not have readable tendencies which can be exploited. This supports the theory that game selection is the most important factor in establishing a high hourly rate.
In conclussion, although solid pe-flop play is very important, the bulk of ones time devoted to Hold'em study should be in player analysis. Also, accordingly, no one can be at a significant edge to the field when one sits down to a table of unkown quantities.
Your comments and critisms are appreciated.
Frank Donnelly
In a full tabled limit hold'em game it will normally take the best hand to win. The bulk of a good player's earn over the course of a year comes from showing down the best hand not from stealing or buying pots. There are two ways a good player can end up with the best hand. He can start with the best hand and have it hold up or he can suck out on the best hand. Players who are able to manage one big bet per hour in a middle game ($10-$20 through $30-$60) over several thousand hours of play are doing so because their hands are holding up a higher percentage of the time than the next guy's. In addition, they are probably getting to draw out on their opponent more often than other players. When you have hundreds of players perhaps thousands engaging in an activity that is so dominated by luck, you will have some statistical deviates whose hands usually hold up and who don't get sucked out much. This phenomenon manifests itself in the form of a very high hourly earn.
Selecting good games and reading players is of course important in being successful but it is not a guarantee. Hand selections skills are important since without them you will be a loser. But as you have observed good hand selection skills will just keep you from being a big loser not make you a big winner.
My bottom line is that full tabled limit hold'em is not like chess or duplicate bridge where the better player always gets the best result. Not in the short term or the long term. The advantage a good limit player has over his less skilled opposition is statistical not absolute and we only get exactly what we deserve at infinity. Since we live in a fallen and finite world, our results are not necessarily reflective of how well we play.
Jim:
Thank you for your response but it leaves me discouraged. You are a man who is well respected on this forum and give all indications of being a "tough" player, but you are saying that in the long run no one can acheive a big bet an hour as a standard. I am flabergassed. What is a reasonable expected hourly rate for a good to tough player, and how much of that win is attributable to other than tight, solid pre-flop play.
Frank Donnelly
I agree with Frank. This is disheartening(sp?). I remember reading about this before - one can't play enough hours in their lifetime to get to the longrun. You kinda just have to hope that however many SD's you are from your mean that you end up to the right of 0. This means you could be a terrible player but be 3 SD's above your mean over your lifetime and be a winner. Conversely, you could be a GREAT player and be 3 SD's below your mean for a lifetime and end up a significant loser! But I suppose what one does have control of is their mean - the better you get the greater your actual mean will be. This doesn't imply you will ever hit your mean, it just increases the likelihood that you'll come out to the right of 0 no matter your luck.
But Jim, how do the best players in the world always seem to make it to the last couple of tables of the world series if we truly never make it to the long run? Is no-limit truly a game of skill where limit poker is mostly luck?
Thanks,
-Michael
Tournament poker and big bet poker (no limit and pot limit) are entirely different games than limit poker. I have no experience with tournaments and big bet poker but I have made some observations. Many of the top players avoid limit poker because of the high luck factor and the pressure to always end up with the best hand. On the Gulf Coast the best players play pot limit which is why you will hardly ever see a limit game spread above $20-$40.
Frank I am saying that there is such a high element of luck in this game that nothing is guaranteed over any finite period of time. Playing well gives you your best chance of winning but that alone does not mean you will win. I cringe when I hear about young guys who drop out of school or quit their job to wander around the country playing poker. Most of them will find themselves at the the ripe old age of 35 or 40 with no job, no future, and little if any net worth. We are really gambling here. Most of the locals I get to know who play the middle limits regularly win more like one small bet per hour over the course of a year not one big bet per hour.
"The bulk of a good player's earn ove rthe course of a year comes from showing down the best hand, not from stealing or buying pots."
I don't think that's quite right, Jim. In the course of a year, all players, both good and bad, will basically have the best hand the same % of the time. Bad players either call when they should fold or raise, or fold when they should call or raise.
I think the good player makes his money from losing less when he has a losing hand and winning more when he has a winning hand. I also think the very good players win a lot more by steling or buying a pot than do the less skilled players.
Also I think our results, in the long term are exactly representative of how well we play. Again, in the course of a year, the luck tends to even out and you'll find that the better players are winners and the poorer players are losers. Luck, as Branch Rickey said, is the residue of design. It's amazing how lucky the good players (like you) are and how unlukcy the bad players are.
Andy when I was younger I thought the way you thought. If you play well you will win and when you lose it is because you don't play well enough. I believed that in the long run everything evens out and the better players win and the poorer players lose. It is like believing that the good guys always win and the bad guys always get what is coming to them. Unfortunately as I have logged in several thousand hours at the poker table the empirical evidence has convinced me that this isn't really true. No two individuals are equally lucky. No two individuals get to have their over pairs and top pair/top kicker hands hold up equally over the course of a year. No two individuals get to suckout on the best hand equally often. No two individuals get payed off equally when they make a good hand like a flush or straight on the river. Differences in these situations is not driven by the individual involved. It is driven by what other players happen to have and what cards show up on the board. Small differences in suckout factors, holdovers, and payoffs can make huge differences in individual player performances over the year.
The idea that if you play well you must get a good result in the long run is an attempt to assign reason to randomness and by embracing that myth it may spur us on to become better players than otherwise.
The problem with the poker world is that all we see are results. If you have 1000 good players playing 1000 hours of $20-$40 not all of them will win $40 per hour. Some of them only get to win $10 per hour, some only $15, some only $20, etc. Some will actually lose money. The problem is that you only hear about the guy that wins $40 per hour and assume that he won at this rate because of his skill. But the reality is that he won because his hands got to hold up a higher percentage of the time than the other good players. He probably got to suck out more than most as well.
Many of these things we debate on the forum regarding whether you should check or bet, bet or raise, even call or fold are really "fraction of a bet" discussions over time and are not foundational to how much you really win or lose over the course of a year. The real key is whether or not your hands got to hold up or whether or not you got sucked out and how often. Obviously if you are a really bad player you will probably lose. But differences in results among decent players are usually driven by luck not skill.
I know of one player in particular who is an excellent player, usually the best at the table, but he has played almost 1000 hours of $1-$4-$8-$8 all over Vegas and lost almost $2,000. His problem is not his play. His problem is that he cannot get a hand to hold up and he simply does not make enough hands like straights and flushes to be a winner.
Branch Rickey did not play thousands of hours of limit hold'em.
The real key is whether or not your hands got to hold up or whether or not you got sucked out and how often.
As I already stated in this thread, I'm becoming more and more coninvinced that WHEN these things occur is perhaps much more significant than how often.
As an example: Everyone is going to be pretty close to hitting a 4:1 shot aproximately 1 in 5 times over the course of a year. The difference is, that some will miss a disproportionate number of times in significant pots, while hitting the remainder in the less important pots and some will be the opposite. I think THIS can make the real difference between who appears to a big bet per hour player and who is not.
Kevin
(n/t)
You are correct in two senses only: if you play well, it is no guarantee of winning. But you will either win more than a less skilled player would have won with the same cards or lose less than a less skilled player would have lost with the same cards. And you are correct when you say that the luck will not necessarily even up. Life ain't necessarily fair.
But in the long run, the luck factor certainly diminishes in importance. And the results among decent players vary quite a bit by exactly how decently they play, by skill. If we took three players, and rated them, on a scale of 1 to 10, a 10, a 9 and an 8, and if they played in the same game at the same time every day for 5 years, I'd be surprised if the 10 hadn't won more money than the 9 and the 9 more than the 8.
Now it is true, I would think, given fluctuations in luck, that the 9 might be ahead of the 10, or the 8 ahead of the 9. But I guarantee you that if we took 100 10's vs 100 9's vs 100 8's that the 10's, as a group, would be ahead of the 9's and the 9's ahead of the 8's.
As for your player who is stuck $2,000 in 1000 hours of play, every good player goes through periods where his luck runs bad. Mason has written on this; I don't remember where the essay is (Gambling Theory and Other Topics?), but the point of it was that the long run can sometimes take a long time. I don't think it's that unusual for a good player to be stuck after 1000 hours of play, although I'm not sure how many truly excellent players there are who play 1-4-8-8 (although if you say he is excellent, I would abide by your judgment).
A few weeks back I posted a hand in which I made it 3 bets on a flop. I had won the hand. You took me to task and, after considering your analysis, I believe you were correct to do so. Yet I had won a big pot. So what do I do in the future? Just say, oh well, luck is more important than skill, and those two players play about the same as I do, so don't worry about the decision? Wouldn't it be better to play correctly and, therefore, differently next time? Of course it would and you are one of the more able posters on this sight carefully analyzing both your own good plays and misplays as well as those of others.
As for the fractions of a bet difference between one play or another, I also think those fractions make a lot of difference. A good example is the HPFAP essay, which created a lot of controversey on this sight some months back, "When the Pot Gets Big." S & M point out that the difference between winning a pot 11 percent of the time and 14 percent of the time is a big difference. If you're constantly making the wrong decision, even on decisions involving fractions of a bet, you're going to be worse off than someone constantly making correct decisions.
I do understand, Jim, where you're coming from. I know that in blackjack, for example, the difference between standing pat against a 10 in a one deck game when you have 7-7 and drawing to the hand is very minimal. I don't know the exact percentages, but I know you lose either way, but you lose slightly less playing one way or the other. But the difference in this case is so slight that, considering how many times in the course of a year you will have 7-7 against a 10 it probably doesn't matter which way you play: the luck factor is more important than the "skill" of playing correctly. But I don't think this applies to poker as much because there are more than one decision made each hand and a wrong or right decision can win or lose much more than one bet.
I don't believe you really believe that it is a myth that if you play well you will do well in the long run. Maybe you won't do as well as an equally well playing person who was sucked out on less often, but Branch Rickey had a lot of good luck, and, from reading your posts, I believe you do too.
And if you think that I can only say this because I am younger ("when I was younger I thought the way you thought"), keep in mind I know who Branch Rickey is. I'm older than I seem :-)
Jim,
Have you heard of or done any studies of just how much play is required for one to reasonably expect results to resemble the long run (i.e. after this many hours you're 95% certain that your actual mean falls within a certain range and your standard deviation falls within a certain range)?
One would think that if you always make positive expectation plays that this will show up in your results after a certain period of time.
Thanks,
-Michael
"I know of one player in particular who is an excellent player, usually the best at the table, but he has played almost 1000 hours of $1-$4-$8-$8 all over Vegas and lost almost $2,000. His problem is not his play. His problem is that he cannot get a hand to hold up and he simply does not make enough hands like straights and flushes to be a winner."
The style of play that makes you money at $30-60 may not necessarily translate to winning play at $4-$8. Skalnsky's essay "why are easy games hard?" may provide a partial answer to your friend's woes.
Of course, there is the chance that he is extremely good but extremely unlucky. If so, he is an aberration and represents a phenomenon that most of us will not have to deal with in our lifetimes.
Not according to Mike Caro. According to Mike Caro, most pros who play full time will encounter a 1000 hour losing streak sometime in their careers. Mason Malmuth talks about a $30-$60 low ball player who can beat his game for $30 per hour and have a 4000 hour losing streak. In my opinion an extended losing streak of 1000 hours would put many good players out of action for good not because they run out of money but due to the fact that the game would no longer be fun to play.
Jim,
You wrote: "In my opinion an extended losing streak of 1000 hours would put many good players out of action for good not because they run out of money but due to the fact that the game would no longer be fun to play."
Losing for 1000 hours would be no fun AND it would break most pros. The problem with most I've known is that they do not save and build their bankroll when they have run good. Instead they spend or goof off (play less hours) as if they will always average $70 per hour playing 20/40. This is insane.
Regards,
Rick
I love this!! Young players hearing the truth and finding it very hard to swallow.
The idea that you can make a living playing poker has the same truth to it as the idea that you can make money day trading futures or the stock market. Yes, there are some who are doing it, but of that very very small group, some are riding the positive side of the SD, and there are a very few who have a true edge,ie,some top tournament players.
I have shown a profit for many years now, but I would never confuse a profit, with earning a living at this game. Now for the geeky stuff:
Poker, the word poker is what scientists call a meme(pronounced meem). A meme is a self-explanatory symbol representing a complete idea. Memes are those packets of compressed information that create instant comprehension.
If you want to take a concept and chunk it down to a symbol or a single word that comunicates the essence of that idea, then you have a meme.
The word, POKER is a powerful meme that represents a concept to most people as easy money, free lifestyle etc., etc. Very few people associate POKER with Gambling, (which it is).
It's very hard to believe that the simple word like POKER can drive human behavior, yet that is exactly what happens. Just one example and then I'll stop.
At some point in human evolution, a number of people had a notion of some kind of spiritual entity which exerted an unpredictable and sometimes maleovent influence on their lives. Then some individual coined the word "GOD", or one its variations. Suddenly there was a way to chunk the idea down into a single word (MEME) which represented the whole concept. The same thing has evolved with poker. The word was there first but the concept has been socialized through countless movies and books, legends etc.
Poker has become a meme that represents an untrue concept, which is a huge problem for many people. Because of all the yarns and books etc,many players s believe they can life the life. . Its not true folks. seeya
You can't really dissect hold'em strategy like the original poster proposes. If you couple great postflop playing ability with bad preflop playing, your bad preflop playing is going to seriously hamper your postflop play.
However, stealing pots postflop in heads up and 3-way situations is where the big bucks are, in my opinion. When you can determine when your opponent does not have a hand or has a hand that he can be pushed off of, then you can win the pot without a hand yourself.
Note that I'm not saying that you can play very loose preflop. You need the credibility and outs from tight preflop play to power your postflop semi-bluffs, and you also need to avoid playing dominated hands.
Take any of the best $30-$60 pros at Bellagio and stick them in a $10-$20 game, and they'll run over the game. They'll certainly win over 1 big bet per hour, and I know it's heresy to say, but I believe most would win over 2 big bets per hour. And they would do it largely through theft.
Remember, I'm talking about a player who is vastly superior to any other player at the table. One small bet per hour is a more reasonable estimate for a player who is good but not quite the best at the table.
-Abdul
In the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio, I wonder how many of the players could win $90,000 over 1500 hours of play. This would be $60 per hour for about a year's worth of play. Roy Cooke, arguably the best player in that game, has won a little over $30,000 this year for about 600 hours of play. I don't believe there are more than a half dozen players whose win rates approach this. Many of the good players who log in more than 1000 hours per year in that game could probably make more money playing in the $10-$20 game at the Mirage.
Jim, I've noticed that more of your posts lately are from hands at the Mirage. Is the 30-60 action at Bellagio drying up?
No, there is plenty of $30-$60 action at the Bellagio but my earn is much better at the Mirage playing $20-$40 and $10-$20 plus my swings are much smaller. I plan on resuming my play at the Bellagio after the holidays. I wanted to make sure I ended the year having won a decent amount of money.
From statements Roy Cooke has made in the past about almost never having a losing month and expecting to win something like 80%+ of his weeks, I inferentially calculated that he must have an expected value in excess of 3 big bets per hour. So, this must be a slow year for him to be winning only 5/6 of a big bet per hour.
You say there are no more than 6 players who win 5/6 of a big bet per hour or more in the Bellagio $30-$60 game? Hmmm, I'm one. Who are the other five? Seriously, I think there are more, but your point is well taken: there are so many pros butting heads in that game that it's doubtful many are making a killing.
-Abdul
I would guess the top money winners in that game for the year 2000 are Roy Cooke, Mike Halford, "Alex", yourself, maybe Chris, maybe Melissa. I think the rest of them just swing money back and forth and I doubt that the rest of them make even $20,000 a year at that game. Even the top money winners like Roy Cooke frequetly don't play enough hours to make much more than $30,000 at that game for the year. I can make more than this playing $20-$40 and $10-$20 at the Mirage if I played a full year of about 1500-2000 hours. Furthermore, I will not be swinging anywhere near the kind of money the rest of them swing.
"I can make more than this playing $20-$40 and $10-$20 at the Mirage "
This goes against "structure" logic. Perhaps you are just a better player at these limits. Maybe you have a comfort level below what you believe it to be. Besides you never mention the 15-30 game at Bellagio which has to be a better game than either the 10-20 or 20-40 Mirage game. I have also sat in 10-20 games at Mirage in which it seemed that someone had delivered Mount Rushmore to the table. It's funny because I never thought any of those stone faces could play poker.
vince
Jim,
You wrote:
"When you have hundreds of players perhaps thousands engaging in an activity that is so dominated by luck..."
This sentence and the gist of your post taken as a whole implies that luck is as important or perhaps more important than skill in poker.
I can't agree with this at all.
Clearly, luck plays a part but its importance diminishes over time.
Almost all good players are winning players in the long run (I use "good" here as a relative term vis a vis their usual opponents). Lady Luck will not hinder them.
Almost all bad players lose money in the long run. Lady luck will not assist them.
Your view of the long run is way too long in my humble opinion.
If someone can't show a winning record after about 1000-1500 hours, he is probably not a "good" player(again relative to his opponents). There is of course a slight chance that he is "good" but has just been extremely unlucky. If you think 1000-1500 hours is too light...fine...maybe I can put it this way...Over a 7 or 8 year span, you should not have more than one losing year.
Personally, if I ever have a losing year, there is no way that I would say that I have been extremely unlucky. I would say that my opponents are "good" and that I am a "bad" player. I would try and find a softer game and therefore become a "good" player again or...quit playing poker.
You further wrote:
"In a full tabled limit hold'em game it will normally take the best hand to win. The bulk of a good player's earn over the course of a year comes from showing down the best hand not from stealing or buying pots."
While this is of course true on its face, I would not downplay the importance of stealing and buying pots. In addition, a big part of winning poker is recognizing when you don't have the best hand and minimizing your losses. That is predominantly a function of skill and not luck.
You further wrote:
"Our results are not necessarily reflective of how well we play."
True...but there is no doubt a positive correlation even when you are talking about a span of as little as 150 hours.
Great post. I especially like that last line. that's really something to focus on - the positive correlation between skill and results. How highly do you think they are correlated? > .5 ?
I really couldn't even guess as to how high but clearly, there's a positive correlation for sure. I think that is a given.
>>My bottom line is that full tabled limit hold'em is not like chess or duplicate bridge where the better player always gets the best result. Not in the short term or the long term. The advantage a good limit player has over his less skilled opposition is statistical not absolute and we only get exactly what we deserve at infinity. Since we live in a fallen and finite world, our results are not necessarily reflective of how well we play.<<
Here is what I think Jim is stating:
It takes a long time, a lot longer than what we want or expect, for a typical winning limit hold’em player to have their results be totally dominated by skill rather than luck.
I would consider “totally dominated by skill rather than luck” to be + or – 10 percent of EV for the time played. If this more or less captures the gist of what Jim is stating then I agree with him.
Allow me to restate something:
>>I would consider “totally dominated by skill rather than luck” to be + or – 10 percent of EV for the time played. If this more or less captures the gist of what Jim is stating then I agree with him. <<
to
I would consider “totally dominated by skill rather than luck” to be a certainty that the results of the player fall in a range of 90% to 110% of EV for the time played. If this more or less captures the gist of what Jim is stating then I agree with him.
Well, I don't know about the phrase "totally dominated" but I would say that it takes a much shorter time than what Jim and you appear to have in mind before one can say that skill becomes a more important factor than luck.
I have fully expected to be ahead around 1 big bet per hour (give or take) after some 300 hours of play in any given mid limit hold 'em game that I have played in. If I were to sport a losing record or even a break even record in that time period, I would question how good my game was compared to my opponents. If I sported such a record after about 800 hours, I certainly would not play in the game. I did not fare very well at Paradise when I played there earlier in the year (about 180 hours playing mostly Omaha Hi) which meant only one thing to me: I suck at Omaha.
Here is where I am coming from. If your win rate is 1 big bet an hour and your standard deviation is 10 big bets an hour. To cover 99% of possibilities use 3 standard deviations. Therefore your expectation is 300 big bets and your results can vary by + or -
3 * 10 * sqrt( 300 ) = 519.6152 big bets.
Therefore your results after 300 hours can range from + 819.6152 big bets to –219.6152 big bets or from between 2.732 big bets per hour to – 0.73205 big bets per hour.
If you played 90000 hours (45 years) your expectaion is 90000 big bets and your results can vary by + or –
3 * 10 * sqrt( 90000 ) = 9000 big bets.
Therefore your results after 90000 hours can range from 99000 big bets to 81000 big bets or from between 1.1 big bets per hour to 0.9 big bets per hour.
I think 1 big bet per hour may be a little generous as a win rate and the 10 big bets per hour standard deviation is probably close for limit hold’em. Most people will probably be within one standard deviation, the vast majority will fall within 2 standard deviations, and the will some that are between 2 and 3 standard deviations. If I did my math right then I think this pretty much bears out Jim’s point. I used to think that variance wasn’t that important but if you expect to make money over the long term consistently, variance becomes a crucial consideration in the games you play and the plays you make.
Here's how lazy I am...I have never ever bothered to figure out my own standard deviation...
...Just win baby:)
The above is said only half-kiddingly but I didn't know how to put up a half-smiley face.
(n/t)
I would agree with you about chess, but less so about duplicate bridge, Jim.
You could be sitting there North-South,minding your business, and some EW pair comes along and they're the only pair in the field bidding a thin slam and it peels. Did they 'earn' their top board and did you deserve the zero anymore than some doofus chasing you down on a big pot on a 2-outer? In the 'long run', most of those thin slam bidders and slim draw players end up on the rail, but that didn't help you much on the hand in question, did it?
I do better than virtually all my opposition in LL HE because of a lot of factors: I read and study the literature, I glean a lot of information from this forum, I have better hand selection criteria than most of my opponents, I read hands a little better than they do, and I bet my hands MUCH better on most occasions.
Maybe I have been a little farther to the right on the curve over the past four years than the statistical norm, but how would I know this for certain, or quantify it? I sure don't want to rely on it. It's been said many times, but the harder I work, the luckier I get.
I agree that pre-flop play no matter how solid, is not enough in itself to become a significant winner. Most of the money in limit hold'em is made by superior post flop play.
Since I am not a mathematician, I am reduced to common sense when evaluating this luck thing. I am on the fence. On the one hand, I think Jim Brier makes very eloquent and accurate points. And to these points, I would also add...
In addition to the relationship of how often you hit your draws to missing them, [and] making your hands hold up to getting sucked out on, there is yet another dimension to this luck factor. It is the timing of when these events occur. Some players seem to be able to hit their outs [or] make their hands hold up in big pots when it counts, much more than others.
Just today, I hit a gutshot (4 outer) heads up. I won 4 small bets. Unfortunately, I missed a 9,8 and 15 outer draw in 3 other humongous pots! I would gladly trade the long shot I did hit, for any one of the other draws. The same is true for made hands. Some players seem to be able to get them to hold up in the big pots, saving the times they do get bad beat for the smaller pots. So it's easy to see that when you combine all the different aspects of sheer chance, that one could run so horrendously bad that it could take an almost impossible amount of time to make up the lost ground.
But as I said, I am on the fence. I also truly believe that good play beats bad play and that you shouldn't need more than a lifetime of play to prove or realize this. I feel that provided you are playing in a good game relative to your skill level, 1000 hours should be sufficient to arrive on the side of zero that you belong. In other words, you may not be near your true hourly earn, but you WILL be in the positive, as long as your mean is reasonably above zero. Of course, it's possible to run more than 1 and even 2 means outside of your standard deviation, but odds can be bent out of proportion for only so long and so far. Eventually, these odds must succumb to the laws of statistics. It's possible they will never aproximate your true mean, but at the very least, they should make clear whether your edge is positive or minus. So THIS is what keeps me from becoming depressed about luck when I'm running bad. Unfortunately, I'm not sure my thinking is logical. I'm only hoping it is.
Kevin
I have a theory that profits are highly correlated to the forced bets (blinds). How you play them, the cards your dealt in those positions, and of course, the number of wins you get out of the blind positions. My reasoning is that blind hands exhibit unusual profits because of the perception, or at least the lingering thoughts among even the best players, that blinds don't receive good cards, and if they did they are not in position to make moves or steamroll late position "tough" players. In addition, these bets are forced and could be considered a cost of playing which must be overcome to make a profit. I know there are a thousand other aspects to the game, but I'm trying to directly address Frank's post re:profits.
While your argument may hold some truth from a statistical standpoint, a good player in a weak game has such frequent opportunities to be getting an overlay from almost every bet that he/she makes that they have very little chance of losing over a significant period of time! I think what you are saying is tantamount to saying that in the world of craps tables, some are bound to lose!
I have yet to meet a player who claimed that they were running bad, or couldn't win for extendend periods that didn't have significant leaks in their game. The margins in the game are frequently not that large, and any small number of consistently losing plays made repeatedly will negate any edge gained by good play in other areas even in small games. Players who fail to take responsibility, suffer poker myopia, and fail to objectively evaluate themselves are doomed.
It's my opinion that a tremendous hole in otherwise "solid players'" low limit tactics is calling when they should raise.
Granted, bad runs can be longer and worse than a person could imagine, but most cases of bad runs are caused, at least in part, by the player him/herself.
I agree with this. The other important aspect of this is solely in attitude. A good player who strongly believes in himself as a winner creates a self-fulfilling attitude. There is a wide range of gradations from the totally-tilted loser to the great player on speed, and often the only notch between each gradation is the amount of confidence in one's ability.
"...a great player doesn't make his money catching someone bluffing. He makes it when he has a top pair with a kicker and figures someone else for a top pair with a smaller kicker. And he squeezes all the money he can out of him."
Similar, I believe, to the Abdulian theory that the money making hands are those that are dominated--in the hands of your opponent.
All players are unknown to me...
4 players limp, SB calls, I check with Qd8d in the BB.
Flop is 8h7h3h. SB bets. I raise. MP cold caller and SB calls.
Turn 7c. SB checks. I bet, not wanting to give a free card to any player with a heart. MP calls, SB raises. I fold.
All comments welcome.
Well played. You did what you could when you thought you had the best hand. But when you get check-raised on the expensive street given a paired board plus a three flush with a third player in the hand, you do not have enough outs to continue on here.
Definite fold. Good raise on the flop. I think the cold caller probably had the Ah. Once sb check raises you he is telling you he has a big hand so I think he has a flush or a fullhouse at this point and you have very few outs. It is very unlikely he would make a move on you with a third person in the hand so I think your fold was correct.
You played it right. Even if you have the best hand at this point (very, very unlikely), there are tons of draws that beat you.
I open raise with Ad10d on the button. Only BB calls (player is unkown to me).
Flop is 10s7c3c. BB bets, I raise, BB calls.
Turn is Ks: I bet, BB calls.
River is Jc. BB bets.
I am getting a little better than 7:1 on a call on the river. Do these odds justify a crying call?
Tough call here. You do not want to have a reputation as someone who will fold too easily but I think you are almost certainly beat here. BB likely has a flush or K-T or J-T. I think it depends on what you think of the opponent but against most opponents I probably fold here.
Of course he is likely beat. But is he 86% beat?
I say no way. And even if he is only 90% beat, I still say he has to call to keep people from taking shots at him.
Remember - When they know you're going to call, they're not bluffing.
You have been showing the strength all along. Now the third Club comes on the river after a two flush has flopped plus there are now two over cards to you pair now on the table plus this card makes a straight possible. I think I need about 20:1 to muster a call here. I would fold.
Your gonna fold heads-up when the 3rd flush card hits? Man, I wish people played this way heads up with me. I would be betting out everytime the 3rd flush card hits.
This is another area where you need to know your opponent. I see this play all the time - is he the type the check-calls with a draw and when he misses but a scare card comes up, he bluffs.
That's a great play - I'll be looking for the situation to use it in the future. But again, you need to know your opponent before you employ such a play. And I suppose you need to consider what it will do to your image if you're caught.
My favorite play heads-up is the semi-bluff raise on the turn when a scare card hits. This works incredibly well.
Joe you not only lose to a flush but to a straight and even a measly pair of Kings or Jacks. What do you suppose he could have that he cannot beat a pair of Tens at this point? If he was on a draw, he got there. If he was not drawing than he has a hand that beats yours pure and simple.
Its online 10/20. All he needs is an ace. Or an inside straight draw.
The Jc is the single worst card in the deck for you. It makes a flush, straight, and is a likely kicker if he has a 10. Fold.
I think you have to call here. Unless the guy you are playing against is not tricky in the least.
If you start folding this hand heads up, people are going to start taking shots at you all day long.
ok, i cant seem to win online to save my life, at least not at paradise, but my last 4 sessions in vegas have been shining examples of disciplined hold em playing on my part. i walked away from each a solid winner. these were 4-8 games at horseshoe and one at palace station. easy pickins.
i would like to try a 10-20 game next week while im there. any honest recommendations on ones i might stand a chance against? i play tight and carefully, am careful not to bluff too much i think and i like to raise into passive crowds. hmm.. im not sure what i can really say to help round this out. i guess it's obvious and fair to say that im still learning new things all the time so i could get eaten alive by slowplaying sharks big time.
so if anyone can help with a little tip on the softer games than thanks. if this is totally out of the question than sorry in advance. i made a trip to the bellagio poker room the last time i was there and i was really impressed to see it teeming with people on a monday afternoon, but i get the feeling i should play somewhere not known for its abundance of pros..
If you want to play $10-$20, you will probably have to go to The Mirage since that is the only room that gets this game on a consistent basis. I believe that the Horseshoe often has it, and Bellagio has $8-$16.
You might want to start in the Bellagio $8-$16 and see how that goes. It's a very soft game, loose and not usually aggressive, and there will only occasionally be a starving $10-$20 professional in there. Once you win a little, or get disgusted by the bad beats, take a shot at the Mirage $10-$20, which will have a radically different atmosphere - a rock garden, most likely.
-Abdul
excellent, thanks for the tips. 8-16 sounds about right.
how liberal or tight is the bellagio with their buffet comps for poker players??
thanks a million!
I played about 4-5 hours of 4-8 and 8-16 there in mid-October and they comp'd me for the buffet. Killer. Make sure you have a couple of the creme brules. Limited number available per shift, though. Comps, not the desserts. Ask at the back desk by the cage.
Even if you can't get a comp, they will give you a line pass. Almost worth the price of admission alone, because the line is usually huge.
When I clicked on the above post, I was sure he would say this question belongs on the Exchange Forum ;-). - Rick
Marriage definitely softens your perspective on things. I would guess that being married will reduce Mason's earn anywhere from 15%-20% over the course of a year.
Gilmore,
Been to Vegas many times and feel that the 8-16 game at the Bellagio would be good place to start. It's full of very loose players with lots of money as the Bellagio is not the cheapest on the strip. Any levels beyong that would be a mistake as I'm not the first to think of this concept.
Good Luck and Play Tight
"Rook"
I've seen it played normal, w/2-5 blinds, and as a 3-6-12(10-20) kill.
Far looser & easier than B's 8-16 last time I was there.
10-20 Game. My play is fairly respected at the table.
Here is the hand. I open raise from late position (Two players behind me) with AsAd. The cutoff, arguably the toughest player in the game, reraises. The button, also a tough, tricky player caps it. Both blinds fold. Three of us see the flop. It comes 9s7s4d. I bet. Both players behind me call. (I find this interesting).
The turn is the Qh. I bet, the cutoff raises. The button now 3-bets. I respect the play of both players. What should I do at this point? Results to follow.
You MUST call! It would be different had you open raised UTG, but the problem here is you were never given the opportunity to properly define your hand. It's important to consider what they put YOU on...
Tough aggressive players will use their position to pressure the pot. The 1st player could have KQ,AQ, maybe even JJ, etc. while the 2nd player could have KK,AQ, etc. The point is, you beat many of the hands they might play this way. You might wind up looking at a set (although you'll soon find out), but many times your AA will be good.
.
i dont agree with robert
If i know the player who 3 bet a bit and i know that when he 3-bet, he has the nuts, i fold savin 2 big bets or more since u would prolly have to call the river as well and the original raiser might cap it on the turn...
Charlie
Charlie-
How can Matt be so sure that the player who 3-bet has the nuts when it's unlikely the player who 3-bet can know for sure Matt has AA?
Kevin
Thanks Robert for the response. I agree with your assessment that I have never been able to properly define my hand. You stated that I must CALL. Would you consider capping here? It truly defines at minimum an overpair held by me, and places extreme pressure on the player in the cutoff.
Matt
What would you be trying to accomplish with this re-raise? You are out of position, certain to get called, and have no way knowing whether AA is any good. This makes the river even less clear. I'd rather take the chance that the cutoff does not have many outs and if AA is good, you collect an additional bet from him when he calls the re-raise. On the other hand, if he has a monster, he obviously won't succumb to any amount of pressure and your re-raise just costs you extra money.
btw- It's not important so I won't go into it, but I retract my retraction of the cutoff having JJ. I think this was still a possible holding on the turn.
Tough choice. Although, I'd be inclined to call here. Here's my thinking.
The cutoff re-raised you in a possible steal position, so his hand doens't necessarily have to be a big pair or AK. He could even have down to 77 or an Ace-Face. He could have a big hand, but w/ you having AA he is less likely to have an Ace.
The button probably has a big pair or AK to three bet, unless he'd discount your initial raise as well as the cutoffs(as an isolation raise). I'd give him credit for a big pair, possibly AK. Maybe AQ if he'd discount the raise and reraise.
When noone raises your bet on the flop, I think you're good. Unless one of htem made a set of nines, I'd be inclined to like your chances at this point. When the queen hits and the action breaks out, I'm worried about QQ, but why would they sleep on that w/ that flop.
I call and the big decision comes if a spade hits the board and theres a bet and raise to you on the end. If the spade hits, I check and call one bet w/ out hesitation. I pay off w/ out thinking if a low non-spade hits.
I might be too loose for this game b/c of the way my home game plays, but I make the call.
Thanks for the well thought analysis. Both players are extremely capable of making isolation type plays. And they both know that my holdings in this position could be as weak as KQ or AJ. I am in steal position.
As a quick note, the player to my immediate left I felt would reraise with a holding such as A-10s because of my position. Once the button capped I put at least one of them on a big pair. I do not fear a spade coming on the river in the least, for I hold the A-spade. It is VERY unlikely either of them is on this draw. In fact I would bet out if the spade hit.
The point you make that I like very much is "Why would either of them sleep on this flop with QQ?" This is where I feel my thoughts should dwell.
Matt
Yes, it's a tough call but one you have to make. If you do not have the best hand at this point, you have outs to the best hand.
"If you do not have the best hand at this point, you have outs to the best hand."
If I do not have the best hand at this point, I have at best only 2 outs. There is currently $285.00 in the pot. That is 7-1 odds at a 22-1 shot.
Matt
I think it's a fold here. The only two hands that look even possible at this point that you can beat are the cutoff having AQ and the button having KK. But would the cutoff re-raise you before the flop with AQ and would he call the flop when pre-flop it was capped with two other callers besides himself. If he's a tough player than he has to give one of you credit for KK of AA. It looks like it's very unlikely that neither of these players have a set. My guess would be the cutoff has KK and the button has QQ. To three bet, the button must know that he can beat both you and the cutoff, one of which he must credit with an overpair. It's tough to fold AA, but this is one of those situations that I think it must be done.
Mike
I think one of these guys flopped a set of 7's or 9's. The other has either KK or AQ or QQ; probably AQ since he didn't raise your flop bet. The flopped set makes sense given the smooth call on the flop, then the renewed interest on the turn.
I expect that you're beaten and drawing slimly, and the fold may be correct if you really know your opponents well. However, if you've ever seen the three-bettor on the button get out of line, you may have to strap in and call this hand down. I don't see much point in raising here because you're unlikely to get a better hand to fold (and if by some miracle you are currently ahead, there collectively aren't many outs against you unless one of these guys is taking a stab with KQ of spades.)
They probably both have A-Q, although a set of 9s or 7s is not out of the equation. However, they flat called your bet on that raggedy board, so I think it much less likely that you will end up looking at a set of Queens, as the Q-Q would've wanted to protect his hand before the turn. I believe you still have the best hand and I would either raise or at least call.
They probably both have A-Q,..
Wow! This guy is REAL good!
Kevin
Earl is officially uninvited from ever playing at the same table with me. :-)
Matt
Thanks Kevin, Matt ... I'll look you two up when I need a backer for my next shot at the WSOP ... ;-)
I ahve not read any of the other responses yet.
I would say that the better of the two hands agaisnt you is one of: set of 9's set of 7's, AQ, AA, or KK.
Therefore, call, and check-call the river.
I don't think that you are up against a set of Q's, since you would have been raised on the flop.
Steve
This was a very difficult decision, and one that I NEVER would have made heads up. I folded. If heads up, I'd have most likely reraised. In fact, had the button actually folded in this spot, I 'd have 3-bet.
Well, the cutoff called. The river was a blank (actually it was the 3rd spade but this was nonconsequential). The cutoff check called the button. They both turned over AQ.
I was shocked that both players were able to call the flop bet with this hand, but they did. I did fold, it didn't work out for me on this occassion. From the posts so far, it seems that folding may have been an error, if only because I wasn't raised on the flop. I would still appreciate any additional feedback on this play.(folding, calling, raising) I think that it is very much so a situational play and not necessarily should it follow a strict guideline to what is the proper play. Is this a correct thought? Thanks.
Matt
I still think folding was the worst play you could make. They showed no aggression on the flop and then spring to life on the turn. Only 3 probably hands like that board (A-Q, 9-9, and 7-7), and it's much more likely that the preflop raisers had A-Q than 9-9 or 7-7. As I noted above, Q-Q is improbable because of the protection factor on the flop. Additionally, I believe the chances of a set were reduced because you didn't get popped on the flop, a place where you could not have accurately gauged a flop since they raised BEHIND you also preflop.
In one regard, you are correct. Quite often you should NOT call 2 bets on the turn with a single pair. But this wasn't a case of you being check-raised by someone laying in the weeds with their small set. This was a case of someone with two overcards betting their hand "for value" when they hit top pair on the turn.
Earl:
Thanks for the great analysis! I can live with the decision I made at the time, but had I truly thought through this hand, and how the action progressed, I would have to agree. Calling is a must. Thanks again!
i enjoyed this post and the discussions. the main point i got here was the strength of the raise by the second AQ; that put the tuff decision on you not him good luck happy holidays...
Matt -
If memory serves, there was no bet on the river. The button checked it down saying he "smelled a chop".
It seems to me proper concern should be placed not only with the existence of these 4th street raises, but also with the possible scenarios under which they might occur. From it's onset, this hand had undertones of a 3-way steal/re-steal situation with different positional considerations for each player. As you've already stated, the addition of a 3rd player complicates matters exponentially.
I may not have faired any better than you in this spot, but I think it's a classic case of getting inside your opponent's head and understanding what they are thinking and why they are thinking it. You won't find the answer to this type of problem on page 164 of any book.
Kevin
I guess that it really depends on the players. In the games that I play, most players wouldn't three bet on the expensive street without being able to beat an overpair. Especially if pre-flop it was capped. This is one of those hands that the biggest issue is your charecterization of the players.
Mike
Tough call Matt but I think you have to make it.
I wouldn't spend the money yet but one likely scenario is that cutoff has AQ and button KQs or KK based on your description of the contestants. They have no idea that you have AA. I don't think either would slowplay a set with 2 spades on the flop.
If you call and a spade hits the river I would bet it out since you have the As you shouldn't get raised.
ps. If cutoff thinks button will raise the flop he may have just smoothcalled.
Hey Matt,
Since I was there and know the outcome I say, STRAP A PAIR ON AND RERAISE!!!!!!!!!!!
Your Buddy,
Adam
Mat
I don't want to be to critical but this was a booboo for the following reason; when you bet the flop if the players held and overpair why did they not raise you to find out if you were on overcards or actually had a big pair? Moreover, these two players are very aggressive and there is no way they want to give anybody a free card if there overpair is good and you had overcards.I think when the Q came you thought somebody hit a set and there is no way in the world with those two aggressive players that they would not have raised you on the flop.Here's something to think about when your playing,when you bet and people check to you on average they generally have weak hand if they spring to life on the turn you have to ask yourself why and if that holding makes sense the way the flop came down.The only other holdings would be a set on the flop but would they do all that raising with 99's or under? I doubt it with those two. Lar
An unknown Early Position player calls I am next to the button with AsQs and Raise. All fold except the early postion play who calls.
Flop: {Ac,Kd,4h}
Early player Checks I bet he calls.
Turn: {Ac,Kd,4h};{5h}
Early player checks again and I check to induce a bluff on the end. I don't think this was the right play because of all the Gutshots that could be out. I'm thinking JQ QT JT, not to mention all the AJ AT hands he could have. I also believe my hand is still the best.
River: {Ac,Kd,4h,5h};{6s}
Early player comes out betting. I raise, Early player thinks for a couple seconds then reraises. I figure I'm beat, but call because I'm getting 8 to 1. I should have folded because it turns out I was up against Aces and Kings, but my play of trying to be tricky on 4th street made me think he might be overplaying a pair of aces with weaker kicker.
CV
:(
A solid player limped against me last sat night with AK UTG and then let me bet his hand for him. He trapped me good with a checkraise on the turn and then bet the river. I of course paid him off. Said player is definately OFF my christmas card list :o)
Do you think in your and my situation there might have been any way to lose less.
If I did bet the turn I would have lost the same ammount. Could we have gotten off the hand? I guess in my situation I would be tough because the Turn gives a flush draw for a hand like QhJh AhJh. Maybe if the turn wasn't a Flush card I could have saved some dough.
Any Forum players willing to Dump this hand for a Check Raise on the turn from a normal player? I guess one problem is that if he just has Aces and 4's I would still want to play.
CV
I think you played the hand well and since you were headsup I don't see how you get away from your hand.
Your opponent caught a great flop to slowplay his top two pair on the flop but took a chance not betting the turn when the second heart fell IMO. Too bad you didn't have AhQh. But of course you didn't so let's not go there.
If you had bet the turn and then he checkraises, I don't see how you can fold being headsup unless you know this opponent like the back of your hand.
Our opponents just suprised us with limping in with a raising hand UTG.
I think I better start documenting hands where I get check raised since a checkraise heads-up usually implies that I've been had.
CV
In my opinion, late position limping sometimes indicates a weak Ace. When he hits top pair/weak kick on the flop he's going to check call you down. When you check the turn you're possibly indicating that you have middle pair? Then suddenly he comes alive when the six hits? I don't think a raise is warranted but definitely a call.
What if he pulled the trigger on the flop and check raises? What are you thinking then? What's your best action? Will you bet it out if he checks it to you on the turn?
Basically, the river raise was bad, but I think you already figured that out.
~stephen
"In my opinion, late position limping sometimes indicates a weak Ace."
You mean early position here, right? You can't mean Chris as he raised preflop, and the EARLY player did limp.
"What if he pulled the trigger on the flop and check raises? What are you thinking then? What's your best action? Will you bet it out if he checks it to you on the turn?"
Great questions and am interested what the pro's are thinking here. Personally I feel since we're heads up I would just call the check-raise and then check call to the showdown. If there were more opponents I might be inclined to re-raise the checkraise on the flop and then bet out on the turn if checked to. (to make all the draws pay) Or is this overplaying my hand?
Yes, I think you should have bet the turn here for the reasons you state plus if he folds you should be happy to win what is out there. If you get check-raised on the turn you are frequently looking at 3 outs at best and depending upon the player I might well fold. Against an LOL or a TOM I would fold every time.
Chris, You made a statement that bothers me " I figure I'm beat, but call because I'm getting 8 to 1." It bothers me, because I fell into a slump last fall and found cards sticking to my hand when they should have been in the muck. I think you should trust your intuition and good play. Merry Christmas!
Thanks for the warning.
When it comes to heads up play I find it impossible to dump a decent hand on the end. This is mostly due to having some people overplaying their hands against me. I need to start figuring out the differance between desperation and manical play, and being caught with second best.
For now I'll stick to playing a bit loose heads-up on the end till I start seeing where I can save some bets.
CV
In a live $10-20 game that is generally loose/passive I find myself with 4h3h in the cutoff position. 4 players have limped when the action comes to me and I decide to play the hand (limping in, of course). The button raises, the SB folds, the BB calls, and all of us limpers call. There are 7 players and a $145 pot.
The flop is Ah Jc Th. An early position player bets, there's a fold, the next player raises, there's a call, and the action is to me. While I have a heart flush draw my hand is going to be very expensive to play; it's 2 bets to me already and the pre-flop raiser has yet to speak. And even if I make my flush it is guaranteed to lose to any other player also on the same draw. So I chose to fold.
Here are my questions. (1) Normally I would muck a hand like 43s without a second thought but in this situation I expected to see the flop for a single bet against at least 6 opponents. Did I make an error by limping pre-flop? (2) Folding my hand on the flop was a difficult decision. Was it correct?
For those who need to know how the hand played out it turned out that the heart flush did come in on the river. However, the board paired and the winner was a player who flopped a set of tens and ended up with a full-house.
-- Manzanita
Against typical opponents I think the only time to play 43s would be for free in the BB or for 1/2 or better yet 1/3 of a bet in the SB.
If you had a REALLY GOOD read you could see the flop for one bet from the cutoff position with really weak opponents maybe, but in your case it backfired and your fold on the flop was correct IMO.
You got one of the best flops for your little piece of suited cheese and you decide to fold. I think you answered your own question about the wisdom of limping in with it in the first place. I think you should call on the flop and go for the flush. Yes, it will be expensive but I think the odds are there. The most likely reason you are getting all this action is because of the coordinated nature of the board and not due to someone else being on a Heart flush.
This is one of my favorite hands, when I'm on tilt. Your fold on the flop expresses all my pain and suffering for playing the hand over the years.
SPM,...welcome to Any2card Town, where hope lives eternal...
You're looking at 10-1 on the flop and probably around 7-1 effectively taking into account the times you'll have to pay to draw on the turn. The draws that beat you aren't going to be there often enough for you to justify walking away from this action.
You're preflop call was probably within a hair of break-even, but much worse if you'll fold this flop.
The more I raise with AK from early position, the more I am begining to believe, not raising is a wiser decision. The myth, fear follows the early raiser is just a myth. Yes, No, take a stand.
SPM, ...on quest for the truth..
SPM,
In a soft game with little chance of blind stealing or narrowing the field AND with aggressive opponents in late position, limping now and then is a good move. You will often be able to limp reraise (forcing early limpers to call two more bets cold) or checkraise the flop when it comes to your liking (since the aggressive players in late position are so likely to bet an ace or king high flop).
But in most games, you want to enter with a raise.
Regards,
Rick
I know when I first started playing hold'em I thought raising was the best way to play AK. I found in the lower limit games I was playing in it was sometimes better to wait and see if I made a Big Pair or Better on the flop then try to knock players out.
Now that I'm playing tighter games I like to come in for a raise most of the time since AK can sometimes win without hitting the flop. So I find in the tighter games it pays to raise with AK because unless you are up against a Big Pair you have that extra advantage of winning because the other players are afraid that they are big dogs against you.
AK loves respect.
Along the same lines, this is also the reason to re-raise if you are going to play and are after a possible steel raise from late position. It stops most people from continuing with the steel on the Flop.
CV
There are exceptions, but I believe you should normaly charge your opponents a premium to take inferior holdings to the next street. Whether they have sense enough to be afraid or not.
Kevin
IN my low limit game 4-8 i do not raise in ealy pos. b/c i would rather trap them when they play a bad Ace and then pay me off.
Also when you raise and a rag flop comes and they bet into you you have to take one off b/c you are getting the right odds, but i do not seem to hit the turn very often. So i like to just call and see the flop cheep.
I still say you should raise with AK. Many times you'll still have opportunities to trap and in addition, you make the extra money pre-flop.
As to having to take one off on raggedy flops, I think much depends on your number of opponents and the texture of the flop. You do NOT have to take one off with Ac,Ks against 5 players and a flop of 9d,8h,6d. However, I'd more inclined to call and perhaps raise on a flop of 9c,5c,3h or 862r, depending on the # of players and situation.
Kevin
I have been finding out through my own play that raising everytime is good. It's easy to fold if the flop misses being in for only 2 bets. If the flop hits then most likely you're going to showdown.
What I've been noticing more and more lately that if I limp with Big Slick in the blinds it has been more effective for deceptive purposes. The only time that I will re-raise from the blinds if there was a late steal raise or it's heads-up with the other blind.
~stephen...just 2 cents and a partridge in a pear tree.
It depends...AKo wants isolation, but AKs play well multiway. Soooooo... I like limping with AKs and raising with AKo. This gives one a 3-1 raise vs limp ration and lets the cards (i.e. a random element) make the decidion for you. Let your opponents outsmart the deck ! :-)
: )
Mayor
Why would you want to let more people in to draw against your AK. You might be able to narrow the field and win unimproved. As Kev said you should be charging hands worse than yours money to draw. Sure they may beat you, but in the long run big cards rule in limit poker. If you keep taking inferior cards up against big cards you'll either lose all your money or win a lot less than you should if you play well post-flop.Remember AK is a drawing hand and it's 2-1 aginst you hitting the flop meaning your only going to hit the flop 1 out of 3 times.In addition,if you don't raise with this hand you've really narrowed down the number of hands your raising with and a good player will crucify you since he has a pretty good idea what your playing i.e big pairs. Good Luck Lar
Suburban,
There are many reasons to raise. Build a pot, define your hand, find out where you are, clear the field…. Etc.
I do not like AK off, in multiway pots. Raising in early position, or as the first or second one in, is a perfect way to clear the field. If they call two bets with worse hands… fine. Don’t sweat it. Stop raising with this hand in early position in the games you play in and it will be sure death. Limpers with Kxs will catch your king and chase you down..etc. Clear the field. It is much better to take down many small pots than lose a few big ones.
So maybe it was your fear of AK, not your putting people on hands in your 15-30 game that made you lay down AK preflop????
You keep working on your game, you’re going to scare me suburban…..
No I was very sure my hand was dead in the 15-30 game. I should have used some of that insight tonite, East Chicago, : (
SPM,...able to leap tall odds with a single card...
I COME IN RAISING IN EARLY POSITION AK SUITED,THE 4 SEAT FOLDS, THE 5 SEAT MAKES IT 30,FOLD,FOLD,FOLD LAST TO ACT CALLS 30 COLD. THE FLOP COMES K 7 BLANK, I BET, FOLD CALL,CALL. THE TURN COMES A 2, SEEMS LIKE A INNOCENT CARD,I BET, FOLD, CALL, RAISE, I CALL, THEN A FOLD. THE RIVER COMES A BLANK, WERE HEAD UP NOW. I BET 20, CALL,THE LAST TO ACT HAS TWO PAIR 2'S AND 7'S TAKES DOWN AK SUITED. GO FIGURE.
At least you kept the story short for a bad beat tale.
Amazing. Losing with top pair to a five outer.
It's never happened to me, but I've heard loose talk of people who have suffered this beat and never been quite the same afterwards. Here's hoping I can steer clear of this one for at least a while longer.
YOU SHOULD WIN THOSE HANDS. YOU MUST PLAY BAD.
Once again the myth that 72 is the worst starting hand in hold'em, is a lie. Who ever wrote that has lived in the Valley of Patience too long. The worst starting hand in hold'em is the one you call to the river, and watch your chips going to another player.
SPM,...bad beats always happen to the wrong players, you deserve better...
Wait a minute. Are you trying to have us believe that you lost with AKs??
You should not be betting the river when raised on the turn. You should check-call the river. You were lucky the guy with two pair didn't pop you again on the river. Losing to a five outer from someone who had no business in the pot in the first place really hurts. If this happens often enough for a long enough period of time you will probably have to quit poker. That is why many otherwise decent players give up the game. The top players who make one top bet per hour in these middle limit games cannot have this happen to them very often.
"If this happens often enough for a long enough period of time you will probably have to quit poker."
Jim,
I take it this is your attempt at humor?
Vince
(n/t)
Jim:
While I concur with the first part of your response above, I cannot do the same with your conclusions.
Chances are that the player calling pre-flop three bets with 7,2o will be wiped out from the game much sooner that any solid player playing good starting hands. In the meantime, players playing trashy hands will occasionally zap you, but most of the time will contribute to the game rather than end up winning.
Jim, I enjoy reading your posts and have developed respect for your poker advice/analysis. I think, therefore, that you were rather kidding when making such a response.
I am playing in my usual 20-40 HE game which I usually do quite well in. The game is very loose with a lot of inexperienced novices that play any two cards. It is quite common that UTG players raise with Axs, low pocket pairs etc. There was probably one solid player in the game besides myself.
Last night I experienced my worst losing session that I can remember. Playing 4 hrs, I did not win a single hand! I had premium hands cracked, missed just about every flop, and had aces go down in flames 3 times, and if I hit a fop w/ AK it would lose to pocket 7's making a set some where along the way. The type of night that you hear happens to someone else all the time. Well it finally got me.
My last hand of the night and two questions below:
I was in 6th position and raise with AA. 7th position mucks, next player cold calls (this player is capable of holding anything), and the button raises (button also capable of holding anything but more solid and aggressive than the 8th position player). I cap it and make it 4 small bets to go, both players call. Flop comes K Q 10 (rainbow). I fire a small bet, the 8th pos calls, button raises, I think very little and considering my opponents and the size of the pot I call the additional 1 small bet. The turn brings a Jh, with now two hearts on board. At this point I am holding the nuts and hoping for a blank on the river. I bet, 8th calls and the button raises (I am now thinking I had this guy beaten on the flop and he caught up on the turn w/ something like AK). Naturally I fire another raise; to make runner-runner flush draw or FH draw pay dearly, 8th calls two bets and button caps it. All call. Can this be the opportunity I have been waiting for all night, to win a split pot. The river card is launched, a black queen. The last thing I wanted to see was the board pairing or a heart. Naturally I check and hope for no one to bet. 8th position checks and button raises. What the heck is he doing? If 8th filled up and checked, this could cost us a lot more big bets. I call, and remarkably 8th mucked (must have been a broken flush). Moment of truth, the button yells out chelupa! And shows KQ off.
The two questions: 1) Did I play this hand as well as I could have played it? (I believe I did) 2) Has anybody ever experienced a 4-hour session like this without winning a hand? (I quit after this hand because I was tired and did not feel motivated at all after this beat) Besides, there is always tomorrow.
Thanks for you constructive comments in advance.
I think we all have days like this. I can remember a few of them. The worst of the bunch was this crazy 15-30 local game where any 2 cards ruled and gamblers were flying chips like there was no tommorow. Nearly eveyr pot was capped with at least 4 or 5 players to see the flop. On average once every round there would be 10 way action before the flop. Somethin I definitely had never seen before. (Collusion?)
Within 3 hours I managed to drop over $2000 from solid hands being cracked and draws being missed while paying a premium price to not get there.
When I first started playing Hold'em I got very upset everytime someone made some fluke hit. My hot temper didn't help much as I went easily on tilt which cost me even more. On the bad days I get, I either leave the table or find another game.
Discipline and self-control have save me a lot of money over the long run.
The Fish
Q1
I'm not an expert, but I think you played good.
Q2
It surprises me that you've been playing poker (I assume) for 15 years and never had a bad night like you described. You must be a lucky player.
Many people (including solid players) experience a bad session like that over and over, day after day, session after session. You just had one bad session. That's nothing. Good thing you're not experiencing bad session"s".
By the way, after I went through bad sessions, mentally it became easier to play cards. Maybe this is just me.
Don't make the one bad session affect your play.
Soh
Soh, Thanks, I did not say I have never had a bad session, what was said was that I just experienced my worst session.
Thanks
PS:Got it all back last night +a little xtra.(Not my best session)
I think anyone that has played for a while has had more than one session like this. It comes with the territory and there's not much you can do about it.
As to the particular hand I think you played it exactly how I would have. Button 3 betting with K-Qo before the flop is insane but you have to love having a guy like this in the game.
The flop is not very good for you. Someone could easily have a set or two pair but you have to bet anyway. When button raises I would just call as you did. When the J hits on the turn though you have to love that. Again when button raises you he is playing very stupid. He must know that you have an Ace, what was he thinking here? Obviosly you have to pop it again as you have the nuts right now. The river is a bad card so you just have to check and call like you did. Button got very lucky and youplayed the hand fine... although I don't know if that makes you feel any better.
We all have sessions like that. There's not a whole lot you can do except minimize your losses. I eventually reach a point where I become so frustrated that I just quit. Tomorrow always will have another game. Your final hand personified your session. You have pocket Aces and the flop really isn't to your liking, but you caught up on the turn, only to lose it on the river. Not a whole lot you can do about it.
Bruce
I witnessed a similar thing two nights ago in a 4-8 game in Sacramento. Thank god it was not me this was happening to.
Anyway this guy is a good player and I think is a tight-aggressive type. However Wednesday night no matter what his oppnent/s needed, they got and killed many good hands of his. I even cracaked his set of A's when I flopped two pair and made a full house on the river. Like I said whatever his oppenent needed, they got.
In a 5 hour period I saw him buy at 6-7 racks. he was dropping over $100 per hour in a 4-8 game.
Stay tough.
Bullet
I'm sorry it was not a set but rather trips. He had AK and I had A7 the flop came AAJ the turn was a blank and the river a 7.
It happens. You played correctly. Nothing you can do about it. Take the loss as something that happens. Go back and play the same players the same way and your edge will prevail.
Vince
You played correctly. In $20-$40 I once had a week where I lost $5000 and a month where I lost $8500. My standard deviation is $350 per hour in $20-$40 so in a 4 hour session I could lose $2000 one time in a hundred. I could lose $1300 one time in twenty. I would lose $600 one time in six.
This is very useful information....to know that a good player like Jim can have bad things happen to him also, should make all of us feel an urge to keep truding on when the hard times hit.
I haven't read any of the other responses, but against these players I can't think of too many improvements to the way you played this hand. You had them paying dearly for some mighty thin draws and they hit. Oh well.
As far as your losing session goes (4+ hours without a winner, good hands considtantly cracked, etc.), maybe I'm a really poor player, but this sort of thing comes around to me a once ot twice a year, sometimes lasting two or three days. You just have to put up with it untilit's are over. Sounds like you did the right thing.
whenever i start out a session bad, i just remind myself how much i am up from the previous sessions(s).
like i drop a 500 (20/40) in the first hour, and i say to myself , well, counting last 2 sessions and this one (so far) im still up 1000+.
kind of stupid but keeps me in a good mood.
brad
Four hours,Laugh you have been running very good. Expect to lose for a lot longer and with no hands. You are dealing with the laws of large number and a lot of outcomes can happen. Remember the old bell curve in high school. Well some people are above the curve some people are at the curve. Remember the people at the bottom end. Well they are the people most people do not hear about because they are going broke. Through your career as a poker player you will go a lot more hours with out winning a hand. You hope for the best to happen but prepare yourself for the worst each time you play. All the best play well and have fun.
Since I've started playing 10-20, I've noticed a gaping hole in my game. The situation that gets me into the most trouble is incorrectly playing hands that don't win very much money but can have you paying off with second best hand all of the way. Hands which cost one bet in mid-late position preflop such as a weak suited King with a King-high uncoordinated flush or flopping a four-flush while holding medium or small suited connectors.
It seems that these are the types of hands which define you as a player.
The last few sessions I've become even tighter preflop than normal by not even considering playing these hands. In essence I feel like I'm paying a bet for the chance to get a perfect flop. If I don't get it, then I'm potentialy losing money on hands that I could win with if played properly.
Any advice on how to play these types of hands postflop in different situations is appreciated.
-Thanks
I would suggest only play marginal hands pre-flop if you are before the button or on the button and no one has raised and there are many callers. If you have a lot of players limping in, then you get better value in a multi-way pot. For example, if I have 5-6 offsuit on the button, I wouldn't limp in unless there were at least 2-3 callers before me because I am getting value for my bet.
Post-flop, if you have a King with a weak kicker and someone bets on the flop with a King on the board, I would fold here since you are probably out-kicked and it's not worth calling to the river. You may call and see the turn if you hit your two pair but chances are that you won't.
CaptainQ
I think you've found the key to the problem already. If you start with a trouble hand, that is usually what you find later -- trouble. You are riding a much finer line when you get involved with potentially second-best drawing hands. If you don't flop perfect, get your head out of the trap.
When I flop a flush/draw to K-small suited (a hand that I will only play for a single bet in good position), I'm looking to flop the Ace of that suit with a flush/draw. The value in this hand increases considerably when you flop that Ace-high flush/draw not only because you are drawing to the nuts, but because the Ace is the perfect card to drag in all the suckers who play A-small or Ace-anything.
On the other hand, with a hand such as 5-6 suited, I'm NOT looking to flop a flush draw, I'm really looking to flop a straight/draw and only intending to play the suited aspect as a backdoor out.
If you cut out hands like Kxs all together you probably wouldn't be making much of a mistake. Even on the button Kxs is a marginal holding. Kxs is a hand that really only has one way to win, the flush (or lucky flops like 2 pair or trips though both would be vulnerable with Kx).
With only one way to win, you really have to play better than your opponents post-flop to make them profitable. If you are paying off a lot of second best hands, you probably are not significantly better than your opponents post-flop.
If that is the case, don't play them but when you get them, think about how you would play them and try to figure out which sort of situations you might be able to manipulate certain opponents into making mistakes post flop. After many sessions of doign this you may find they are only profitable against a couple very predictable players and only when you are on the button. Or you may come to some other interesting and profitable conclusions, the point is to sit back, take a break from playing them and just think about how and when you should be palyign them.
Another problem area with these sorts of hands (weak suited) is calling in a 1/2 or smaller small blind against few callers or calling a non-steal raise from the big blind with them.
Good luck,
Paul Talbot
Thanks for your answer,
You say "with only one way to win, you really have to play better than your opponents postflop to make them profitable", this was the aim of my post. What type of moves do you make with these hands to "outplay" someone?
-Thanks
You have to be able to fold top pair on the flop and only proceed if you flop a big draw or catch a flukey flop with two pair or triplicates with your kicker. If you are unable to release top pair than you probably shouldn't play the hand until your reading skills become better.
Bruce
I agree with Bruce's comments above, it is really about hand reading skills and then knowing 1) when your king is good, 2) knowing when you can get another (higher) king to lay down, 3) recognizing those times where your opponent may be bluffing and a paired King or small card might win it for you and 4) recognizing bluffing opportunities yourself. None of these skills are easily mastered so I suggest a long period of just watching and analysing.
I also think you can't play just a little bit better than your opponents, but probably have to play a lot better than they do in order to make these hands profitable.
You may also want to run some turbo sims to get an idea of what sort of flops are best for such a hand. Say you have K4s. Is a better flop K87 with none of your suit or is 487 with one of your suit better? Which can you more likely win on the flop? Against what sort of players? I don't think there are any "moves" that can be listed right off, things are very flop and player specific at this point.
If you have any records of specific hands you should post a few of them to the forum.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
You are describing hands that are not really marginal. A marginal hand should come close to breaking even, but what you describe are hands that are clear losers. In my book POKER ESSAYS there is an essay called "Marginal Hands?" that addresses this precise topic.
As the Mayor of Any2card Town, we have a Street that's called Standard Deviation Ave. playing these marginal hands qualifies you to live on this Ave..
If your interested in living there for a month please send secuity deposit.
SPM,...able to leap tall odds with a single card...
Suited kings, medium and small suited connectors are clear losers coming in from mid-late position?
In some games maybe, but in other games I think a big part of your profit comes from hitting straights and flushes with the medium suited connectors and that the suited kings -- if you can get away from them when you flop a pair -- can be marginally profitable.
Bottom-line -- I think these cards depend on the kind of game you are in. I might stay away from K5s in the typical 30-60 game at the B, but I'm happy to play 67s in many of the 15-30 games.
Do you disagree?
The SPM was the big blind in a 15-30 hold'em game. The bet returned 6 way action caped, SPM mucks AKo.
Reson; Early position player three bets, many callers are tight aggressive players. A couple soft action players.
Flop 2 3 5 Trun 6 river 7
EPP who 3-bet pre-flop Pocket aces won.
Was my descision sound.
SPM,...liking it after the fact...
i love your fold in this exact case, i hope i have the smarts to make the fold you did if given the same scenario.
if they were suited i think youd probably have to call.. anyone disagree? since you have an A and a K, AA or KK are even less likely.
only criticism would be why are you playing in a 15-30 game where "many callers are tight aggressive players"?
SPM-
I like your fold on the preflop. Big unsuited connectors go way down in value with this many folks in and the 3-bettor or (more likely in a TAG) one of the callers would have to have a hand that crippled your high card strength IMHO.
If you were suited a fold would be incorrect as nut flush draws go up in value with this many folks. Not that one would call 3 bets cold, but you're getting a good deal more than the 6.5-1 or so you'd want to look to flop a nut flush draw, again IMHO.
Good fold. I had a similar hand a couple of months ago. I was on the button with JJ and it was capped to me, two of the raisers were tight so i mucked. The two raisers had AA... of course a J hit on the flop and i would have won but that is besides the point... at least that is what i keep telling myself.. lol.
But seriously when you know your opponents you can safely fold this hand.
Nice fold. Are you sure you're not running for mayor in the Valley of Patience?
n/t Your not surpose to open when you see the n/t get out of here before someone sees you. :)
Means end of message.
Good laydown. Against these types of players, you want to pick spots where you can be on the offensive. Your position was weak and the raising pre-flop would keep you in the defensive role through out the hand.
Your fold is correct. It is almost a certainty that with this much action the other players have cards that you need to improve and the possibility of running into AA or KK is quite high.
i had the same senario in a 30/60 game and i was in the sb with qq and it was capped and pre flopped and i layed them down in this situation with AK you have no hand and if you make a hand it would have to be QJ10 and that would at best be a tie
A good cheer for all the posters on 2+2. May your Holidays bring you all joy and happiness.
Suburban Poker Man
...and may all your hands be the nuts...
Happy Holidays returned to you. Thanks SPM and have a great holiday.
Matt
Sitting in a 20-40HE game up about $600 after a few hours. The game was loose-aggressive with the usual suspects who I knew very well. I pick up aces in the BB. 3 people limped and the SB(Best or 2nd best player at table) raised. I flat called and automatically put him on a group 1. He would make this play with 78s or 89s but not with only 5 players. Everybody called. THe flop came 445. He fired a bet very quickly and I took a little time to make it appear as though I had a 5 and then raised. # others folded and he re-raised stating he could beat a 5. I capped it. He called. The turn was a 6h putting 2 hearts on board. He bet and I raised. He called mumbling about me calling pre-flop with a 4. the river was a 7 making the board 44567. He checked and I bet. He called and my aces took it down. He pitched his hand into the muck. I never ask to see somebody's hand when I beat them but I am sure he had Kings and maybe Queens.
My questions are this: 1: Do you like the flat call pre-flop? If I re-raised this player, a neon sign goes up with aces too everyone. 2: Do you raise on the flop or trap a few players. 3: Do you raise on the turn? On the river?
My very next hand I was dealt 2 Kings in the SB. One limper who always saw a flop called and one other limper and I raised. The BB folded and both limpers called. The flop came JJ2 with 2 hearts. I bet, the 1st limper called and the button raised and I re-raised.The button capped. The turn was a Queen and I checked. I wasn't sure that I had the best hand. The button sometimes raises a flush draw, but I have rarely seen her re-raise and cap it on a draw. Both players checked. The river was an offsuit 4 and I bet and won the pot. I discussed my check on the turn with a player whom I respect and he said I should bet the turn in that situation 100% of the time when no flush shows up. I disagree. I checked for information. What if I bet and the limper calls and then she raises. If I call the limper could have the Jack and re-pop it and the button could cap it and there's $80 and I don't even have my hand any more as the other way I save a little money. Now the limper does like to bluff a lot so what if I check and the limper bets and the button raises. Can I possibly make this call and be drawing at 2 outs. I could also be ahead in the hand. I still think I played the hand right but your criticism and comments are welcomed.
Russ
I think preflop you should re-raise even if you think it lights a neon sign over your forehead that says "pocket aces" because you should make the original limpers pay to beat you with their random holdings. To counter the neon sign thing why not occasionally re-raise with 66 or JTs preflop to keep them guessing
Your raise on the flop drove them out anyway and you could have had some extra small bets from them preflop I think. Once you lose all your customers and are heads up with the SB (who you read perfectly) you played it great. He drove his overpair hard and maybe your smoothcall of his preflop raise did garner you some x-tra action from him, I probably would have slowed down a little if I was him.
In the second hand I see your friends point as checking the turn gives two opponents a free shot at a flush but the flop was capped and I could see your fearing a J.
I don't see any major leaks here at all and you are thinking hard and have a reason for all your plays. Congrats on what appeared to be a very prosperous session for you
On the first hand you should have made it 3 bets pre-flop instead of allowing all those limpers to see a flop for only one more bet. Forget about deception when the pot is big and your opponents are many. If they all folded back to the small blind that would be just fine. You would have both the best hand and the best position. Once the flop comes, your plays were fine.
On the second hand you have to slow down when there is an open pair on the board and it gets capped on the flop. If he is fooling around on a flush draw so be it put he has paid dearly on the cheap street for his free card. I don't blame you for checking the turn here.
In hand one, I would have re-raised pre-flop. With 1 big blind, 3 limpers and a raise, the pot is big enough to where I would no longer be concerned with deception. If one (or all) of the limpers fold, fine. If not, they're going to pay a premium to see a flop knowing that the sb could re-raise again. I would also have raised on the flop with 3 players behind me and continued to do so, until there were no more raises left. Heads up, I think it's Ok to just call the sb's re-raise in order to pop the turn.
In the 2nd hand, you don't mention what the 1st limper did after you re-raised the button. I assume he folded? Depending on the type of player the button is, I might opt to play the flop slower and lead the turn. You say you checked for information, but what information did you get other than that the button had a hand she would cap the flop with and continue to bet the turn? This doesn't seem to be useful information. The information gained by BETTING the turn and seeing how the button reacts could be useful. If you thought the button to be the type of player who would continue to bluff at it, checking and calling might be Ok. That's my take.
Kevin
I'll just give my first impressions.
You must reraise preflop neon sign or not. If you let everyone else in you can run into quite few problems on the flop. If the neon sign will make them fold all the better.
Now on the flop you are pretty lucky that none of your opponents which you let in cheaply didn't have a 4. I don' thtink your raising on the flop will convince anyone you have a 4. MOst anyone will just call here if they had a 4, and raise the turn.
If you got it heads up and he reraised on the flop, it looks like he will bet the turn and you can raise on the turn. I suppose it depends if he will let go of his hand on the turn but i guess that is unlikely.
In my limited experience (1-2 years)playing in a local 10-20 hold-em game I have come to notice that my biggest pay days were in the "Rock" games. I was playing 15-30 last friday with wide range of players. There were the regular tight aggressive players and half the table were loose passive. I would consider my play to be medium tight aggressive. It would seem that any raise would invite more action. On a cape raise preflop one "gentlemen" called 60 cold with four seven off. Needless to say he won with sevens full of fours runner runner.
What do you think is my best play? Do I avoid the real loose games and go were the "Real" game lies or do I grin and bear it because the pots are so Big?
You comments and opinions mean alot.
Badley Beaten "Rook"
Rook
When you play in a real loose game it depends if it is loose passive or loose aggressive.Loose aggressive you have to buckle down an play good cards because the small pairs,suited connectors,Axs,Kxs are all implied odds hands and need to get in cheaply. If the pots are getting raised they are destroying your implied odds i.e it's costing to much to see the flop and you will get destroyed. Loose passive come in since it's costing you only one bet if you hit your hand your implied odds are there. I wouldn't avoid the loose aggressive game i would adjust my strategy. But in the game your playing there are a couple of guys who play well pre and post flop and i would stay out of there way unless you know you got them beat and you know who they are. Good Luck Rook. Larry
...I have come to notice that my biggest pay days were in the "Rock" games.
Hey, aren't I always in those games? (must be a coincidence).
In very loose/aggressive games, I think you need to be prepared to make adjustments in two areas. 1). Your hand selection, and 2. Your bankroll. If you happen to run unlucky for any length of time, it can take a while to recover from getting 4 bet hands cracked by 74.
Kevin
Hey Kevin,
Part of my problem is the slow burn I go through continually get my big hands cracked on the river by a gut shot or runner runner. My patience grows thin as I see these %$&@# people with horrible calls. I understand that everyone takes one off from time to time but this was ridiculous. I think I need more patience or take the tough beats better. I do agree about hand selection. I tend to get "LOOSER" as I lose more and more hands to bad cards.
See You Next Week
P.S. You might want to count your lucky stars you missed that game. All the regulars had tough days.
Maybe this is where your "rookieness" is coming into play. The looser you get the more you get stuck, the worse off you'll be in the long run. And as they say, you're playing for the long term, not the short term.
In loose games, and I don't know if this is the correct strategy, I tend to adjust my hand selection from big pairs to more suited/non-suited connectors. I also never lead at a pot if the action was behind me from one of the looser guys. Check calling in these situations saves you tons of money.
~stephen
In very loose games, your swings can be very big. The pots are big, so you play to the end more frequently. Plus there are so many players in, that almost any card helps someone. As each player comes in, the previous player's "bad" call becomes less bad as his pot odds increase.
Also, a game with big pots can be good or bad depending on how they get big. If the pots are almost always raised and re-raised pre-flop, this is a very different situation than a game which has a lot more players in unraised pre-flop pots, even though the total dollars in the pot when the flop comes may be similar in the two.
As for "rock" games, I think it is very difficult to beat a game where you are the loosest player. To me, the best games are in between: games with some loose players, some rocks, but, most importantly, some bad players. I don't fear playing with a few players who play better than I (which is usually the case, given how I play), so long as there are some who play badly.
Andy,
I feel the same way you do. I'm not saying I'm neccessarily the bets or the worst at the table. Maybe I'm having one of those bad streaks, which sucks, I'm sure I'll pull through. The frustration has just got the best of me. I also think I am too agressive at times, which is my style of play, which would/could cost or make me more money in these games.
Thanks for your input. Rook
You got sucked out on many times in a game. If you want to play poker long-term, learn to deal with it. Play your hand the way you should play it and those 74 offsuit cards will be paying you through their nose. Accept the fact that you will get sucked on, just as you will suck out on people. If you go on tilt jus because someone laid a bad beat on you, you will turn out losing a lot more money. Patience is the key.
As for the loose or tight factor. I like playing a wider variety of hands in loose games. Suited connectors or unsuited connectors are my favorite. In loose aggressive games I like any type of connector that 9 - 10 and up. I don't like small connectors because they have much less value for draws and the flushes are vulernable to bigger ones.
You must learn to beat all types of games. I suggest you try some of the things the previous posters have advised. Each time you walk into a card room. You survey the room for the best game and thats the game you should be in. That is usually the one with the highest earn. With loose games the fluctuation goes up. In tight games the fluctuation goes down as usually does the earn. When you play poker you must be emotionally ready to play the game that suits you and only you at the moment. Maybe yesturday you had a rough day and do not want to take the fluctuation well you play in the tight game. Maybe today you want to try to have a big day you go to the loose game. It is up to you but you should always try to play the game with the highest earn most of the time.
Hello Rook:
The area where I will make the biggest adjustment in my game if the game is VERY loose is in how aggressive I play. (My game is usually VERY aggressive). If the game is loose, I tend to become slightly more passive. Meaning I am more inclined to check call with top pair. If the game is truly loose, I expect certain players to bet regardless of their holdings. I will rope-a-dope with fairly strong cards. Extremely loose players are very unlikely to fold until all cards are seen.
I think it is EXTREMELY important to not get caught up in making poor drawing decisions simply because I watch others make poor plays. I also think it important to remember that there are really no blanks in the deck in a game like this. The 5 of clubs on the river may make somebody 2-pair. (Or even give them their set).
This game will play with a higher variance. You WILL be outdrawn and sucked out on. You will also be paid off when the odds remain with the favorite. Hence, the pots you win will be larger than normal. But don't think that you can get someone to fold their gutshot. If a loose player holds suited cards and flops one of his suit, he is not going to fold. Players that continuously draw to runner-runner type hands will support your bankroll in the long run. But they will win sometimes, and tilting will only allow them to gain a temporary edge on you.
To answer your question, No, don't avoid these games with many loose players. Play slightly less aggressive. Be prepared for a higher standard deviation per hour. But above all, maintain your edge by maintaining your composure.
Matt
10-20 holdem, pretty aggressive but a couple of really bad players in the lineup.
I limp in early position with JJ, six other people see the flop for one bet. I didn't raise here because the action has been pretty loose and I'd expect to get several callers and likely a reraise if I raise. Would anyone raise anyway in this situation?
Flop is A-Q-J rainbow giving me bottom set. I bet out and get a call from an average player and then a call from a tight passive player.
Turn is an offsuit 10 putting 4 to the straight on board. I check, average player bets and tight-passive raises. I know him well and he would not raise this board without a straight. I muck my set of jacks.
Comments? Results later.
You should always raise with JJ first in.
I woulld never fold a set unless i think there is a bigger set out there. You have 10 outs aboout 3.5-1 to help your hand and they will alays pay you off with the nut str.
Actually, Joker's muck might not be that horrible in this situation. If they both have broadway cards (a reasonable assumption), he is in bad shape. If they both have a K, giving him a full house or quads to win, they should sandwich raise him on the turn, making him pay 4 bets to see the river. There are 5 BB already in the pot. That would come out 13:4. If they both pay off at the river, that would give you the necessary 3.6:1. However, it is almost a definite that one of them holds one of your outs, so a 15:4 payoff may not be good enough.
Another possible scenario is that only one of them has the straight and that the other player bet out with two pair. In this case, you might have as few as 4 outs (if he holds AQ or AT), or as many as seven (if he holds TT, but I doubt it). Assuming the other player with two pair or TT (if he had AA or QQ he would have raised before the flop), will just call the turn raise, you will be receiving 4.5:1 odds on your call. That is probably not good enough, depending on how carefully you play the river. Often times you will get raised if the two pair makes a better full house, and might not get a bet from him at all if he doesn't.
Of course, if one of these players has something like 98 or A-9, this all goes completely out the window. But given reasonable players, I think its pretty safe two put at least one of them on a K and the other one either on another K or two pair.
You should raise with JJ in early position. On the flop you should bet out and hope that it is raised. You could go for a check raise with this flop, but you said this game was aggressive, so I like you bet on the flop. The turn you should call the raise and fold if a blank comes...
With 10 outs to a full house, I believe you have a call despite it costing you two double sized bets to hang around here and take off a card. There only has to ultimately be about 7 big bets in the pot to make calling right here. Pre-flop you should have raised with your pocket Jacks having what is probably the best hand. You want to make eveyone behind you pay a double bet to take a flop and you don't want the blinds to geta a free/cheap flop.
I agree.
The tight passive player and the average player probably wouldn't have been in the hand had you raised BTF. My luck has been bad with J's as a whole, but this illustrates that you MUST raise with Group 1 hands when you open!
In this case, the weak players would have called BTF and the strong players would have folded (assuming they see you as a coompetant player). And you would have taken it down without seeing the turn.
It's not often I disagree with Jim, but I do here. I think you have to fold here. The turn bettor very likely has two pair or the str8. You know the raiser has the str8. Your full house draw is weakened by the nature of the flop, it may be further weakened by two pair being out there, and it may very well be raised and re-raised. I take a minute or two to talk myself into it and fold.
You definitely should have raised from early position pre-flop. Had a couple of people already limped, I understand (but still disagree) with your thinking. If they're going to come, charge them the price
I didn't raise preflop because I am pretty sure to get several callers. HFAP, p. 25 says "If no one has opened and you are in an early position, it is usually best to raise with JJ in a tight game and to just call with it in a loose game. With two jacks you would prefer either to have no more than one or two opponents in the hope that your hand holds up without improvement, or to have as many opponents as possible when the majority of your profits come from flopping three-of-a-kind. The worst scenario is when exactly three or four opponents see the flop with you. This most likely would occur if you called in a tight game or raised in a loose game."
I am happy to see 6 players limp in after me. Now I know I am getting the right price for my set and I can get away cheaply if overcards fall (about 50% flops I think). I don't believe I could have gotten it heads-up or three-handed.
As for the muck on the turn, Winger and hetron have already hit on my thinking. I think the bettor has at least one of my outs, if not two. The raiser likely has one of my outs with his king. Tight-passive is much more likely to play K-Q, K-J, K-10 than K-9 or K-small. So I am looking at 7 or 8 outs instead of 10. The pot has 5 big bets preflop plus one for the bet and 2 for the raise, so 8 big bets plus future action.
I see 3 scenarios - 1. They both have the nuts and jam the pot making me pay 4 bets to see the river. That's 4 big bets I pay to get 15 big bets if I hit. I have 8 outs out of 42 unknown cards. Clearly I'm a loser in this situation, - $7 in EV.
2. Raiser has the nuts and bettor has one or two pair (I eliminate a set because he would have raised at some point). He knows the raiser has a straight and will not likely call the raise with one pair but may with 2-pair. If he calls with 2-pair I am down to 7 outs. If he doesn't improve and I do, he will not pay a bet on the river but raiser will, and I'll pay 2 big bets to get 10. I am at a dead-even, no profit no loss in this situation. BUT if he improves AND I also do (a small percentage but worth considering), I lose another 2 bets.
3. The bettor has only top pair and will fold on the turn for the raise. If I know he will fold, I have 8 outs to win 9 big bets. I am a very small winner here if I call, $2 in EV on this hand.
So, considering the 3 scenarios, I am either a small winner or a bigger loser. I believe I made the right play.
Results are I fold and original bettor folds, so I would have made $2 if I called (scenario #3).
I think it is interesting since it includes many subtle factors including likely actions behind you, implied odds, outs that aren't really outs etc. Note how good a play it was for him to raise with the made straight rather than slow-play it til the river.
Believe me I didn't consider all this in the game! I knew I was getting almost the right price, but I also knew it could be capped on the turn so I bailed. It does help to go thru the math though, in case a similar situation arises I'll have a better idea of the right play.
i asked this at the small stakes page but no one really knew so ill ask you big boys here:
how much can i loosen up my preflop decisions for 7 and 8 handed low limit games vs a full ten person table? the hold em i play is normally missing at least two players. i generally like to use sklansky and malmuth's hand groupings and i play early: 1-4 limp (raise 1-2) middle: 1-5 limp (raise 1-3) late: 1-6 limp (raise 1-3)
In some cases you should actually play tighter. You'll need to reduce the "mix" of hands you play if other players are properly adjusting to short handed play. Your implied odds also figure to be at least slightly reduced from that of a loose/passive 10 handed game.
Also, while I can't fault your use of hand groupings, you should realize that hand values can change greatly depending on situational aspects and game conditions. This is especially true in short handed play.
I realized after I hit the post button that I may not have fully answered your question.
The question should not be so much as "how much to loosen up", but "where to loosen up".
Be inclined to give big offsuit cards more value short handed. Hands like ATo or KJo may not only be playable in a short handed game, but can become 3-bet hands in some spots. I should also add that I wouldn't change strategy too much from 10 to 8 handed. I think 7 is on the cusp. 6 handed is where short game strategy starts to really kick in and come into play.
Let's say you are on the next after UTG in a 9 handed game. UTG is an ok player, with average aggressiveness. He raises.
You are next to act.
With which minimum hands would you call with? (my answer is never to call, either to raise or fold in this spot) With which minimum hands would you raise with? (AK/AQs/99)
any thoughts? Abdul had posted that he would call with AK/AQs/99 vs an UTG raise if he was on the button. I am saying I would raise with the same cards if I was next to UTG. Does this mean I am playing too loose or too aggressive?
much of my answer depends on what I have seen UTG raise with on past hands and what kind of action I am expecting from the rest of the table. If the table is loose I prefer the pocket pairs to AKo.
I would re-raise with A-Ks and flat call with A-Qs. My reasoning here is that with AKs, if you make your flush, you're not very likely to get paid off because you hold both the first and second nut cards in your hand. Therefore you should get as much money in the pot as possible before the flop. With A-Qs there is a possibility of someone chasing you with the second nut draw so you can make money on the later betting rounds.
I don't see this as a raise or fold situation. Against a typical player I would call with JJ and TT. I would 3 bet with AA,KK,QQ. I would fold 99 or lower but 99 is right on the cusp and calling may be correct here. I would call with AK offsuit and sometimes I might 3 bet. I will usually 3 bet with AK suited but I might just call. In this way I am varying my play. I would call with AQ suited, AJ suited, and KQ suited. I will usually call with AQ offsuit unless I know the player to be very solid (See John Feeney's article about this in "Inside the Poker Mind"). I fold everything else. Bottom line is that you need a very good hand to be hanging around here in early position against a UTG pre-flop raiser marked with a good hand.
how do you post all day and never say anything new? He is raising one of these hand -----------insert--------------(AA-KK-QQ-JJ etc.)-------using bayes theorem------------------your chance of being good is..............
Because many of the questions are very similar with some being almost identical. There is only so many ways you can tell someone that 2+2=4 and not some other number.
Except that 2+2 does not equal four. It equals S and M (plus R)
2+2=4 is a beautiful and wonderful thing, i'll not challenge that. but sometimes 2+2=3 or 2+2=5 can be just as wonderful and just as beautiful.
reason only satisfies the rational side of man's nature and that is but one twentieth the totality of man.
scott
ps you had to be aware the dos allusion when you picked the name. why dont you use it more?
" 2+2=3 or 2+2=5 can be just as wonderful and just as beautiful."
True that 2+2=3 can be beautiful for beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I wonder whether it can be wonderful or not.
"reason only satisfies the rational side of man's nature and that is but one twentieth the totality of man."
And just what makes up the other 95% O' Ghandish one.
Vince
2+2=4 ?
I totally agree with you, backdoor. Whenever I read a thread, I usually look for Jim's posts because they are well thought out. I have to commend Jim for repeating time and time again what must be second nature to him.
Rahul
Backdoor, I second your statement regarding Jim's posts.
Indeed, he is to be commeded for taking out his time and poker skills and generously share them with some many of us out there - the lurkers. It puzzles me as to why some some pros would feel uncomfortable regarding Jim's instructive advices/analysis of other players game. What is otherwise the point of this forum if not to infrom, educate and promote the game to the interested individuals?
Personally, I am greatful to Jim and many others, I might add, on this forum who are always unselfishly ready and willing to respond with sound assistance.
let me tell you the point. the point is for us to help each other and to develop new, as yet undiscovered, ideas that will help our play.
while i too like to help less advanced players trying to improve their game, i devote far less time than jim and do a far worse job of it. but there is no poster save perhaps the authors that is here primarily for other's benefit. even though we may spend most of our time helping others, we are just waiting around for the one in a hundred thread that helps our own game and the one in a thousand thread that contains an idea we haven't yet thought of.
scott
Scott:
The point is quite obvious: sharing/contributing to this forum vs. free riding.
When individuals like Jim generously share their time and knowledge with less advanced poker players - majority of visitors on this forum, it ought to be recognized and properly commended. Yes, I believe all repeat visitors find something useful here to enhance their respective games, but Jim and some others do not neglect other solicitors in terms of assisting them to improve their plays. I do not lose the sight of the fact that he does not have to do that. For this reason, he truly serves as a great poker ambasador.
DITTO:: I am a fairly new hold-em player, 1 year now and discovered this forum about the same time.Although I have read a couple of books to improve my skill level I don't tnink books can do the job this forum can do in that regard. On a question that I am interested in I will read most if not all of the answers and found many of the respondents to be very informative and knowledgable and I certainly appreciate their insight. But I will always read Jim's responses and would like to thank him for all the time he puts into answering our questions...After all thats mostly what this forum is all about. learning to be a better player and being entertained at the same time. The best Hold Em forum on the web!!
I didn't mean for the post to be so harsh, I just thought it would get boring explaining the same thing over and over. I too, always read Jim's posts. He does a good job. And believe, I know how to hand and UTG raise.
(edit paste)
Seriously,
Keep up the good work and thanks for the valuable info.
As a fairly new player (1 year) I never tire of Jim Brier's posts. I can only get 8-15 hours in a week at the tables. Brier's posts reinforce good solid play and gives me "valuable experience" without actually having to spend 40 hrs. a week playing.
Jim Brier,
Backdoor,
I would say you could think about folding AQ, if AQ is the minimum hand UTG would likely raise (and sometimes limp) with. At best, you're playing for a chop and it could still get re-raised behind you.
Kevin
Gee, I didn't even notice the KQs one in there. I definitely agree that KQs should be mucked versus a tight raise heads up and am actually surprised that The Tightest Player on the Forum (TM) would recommend that. Maybe Jim is just trolling, hoping that his posts here will give him "advertisements" for a loose image that he doesn't actually have to pay for. Seriously though, every damn time I ever played KQs versus a raise I ran into either AK/AQ, so I don't do it any more. Multiway I'd be tempted, but not heads up.
For those of you keeping score of your own progress, I've now counted 3 ways where I'm tighter than Jim. 1) Playing KQs versus tight raises heads up, 2) Playing T9o after limpers, 3) Defending the big blind versus a tight raiser heads up with hands like AJ or KJ. Perhaps some of you can consider nominating me for the new Tightest Player on the Forum crown? On second thought, I'd probably have to stop defending my blind against a steal raise with T5s to get the award, and I'd rather not do that.
-Sean
I don't think that you should ever call with AQ offsuit. This is either a reraise or fold hand in this spot.
Jim
you said "I will usually call with AQ offsuit unless I know the player to be very solid (See John Feeney's article about this in "Inside the Poker Mind"). "
you KNOW this one is going to open a huge can o' worms!
I haven't read past your post here yet but I can already see that your post has generated a huge response!
Way to stir the beans Jim!!!
Dave in Cali
I like your choices but...
What opponent hands are dominated by 99? In most cases it may be none. Some folks will raise UTG with 88 or 77 but rarely A9s or worse. If that's the case then 99 is no better than 55. TT is only marginally better than 99 for much the same reasons. JJ will have the drop on a few more hands so it's clearly superior but I have my doubts that 99 or TT play better than 55.
-Fred-
Afterthought - When 99 makes a straight it will get action from other big cards that connect with the board while 55 won't. Also 55 get counterfeited more than 99.
99 is still better than 55 because of the small blind and big blind left to act, among other reasons. As far as the more marginal hands go, provided you play ok after the flop, it's just splitting hairs to decide where to draw the line provided you're not talking about hands of the 55/AJo/A9s ilk that you really don't want to be playing vs a tight raise.
-Sean
Against an average player I'll call in this position with A-Q, 9-9 or 10-10. I'll re-raise with A-K, J-J or better. If I pick up that it may become a multi-way I may add A-Js and K-Qs (two hands I don't like to call raises with).
UTG to a raise is dangerous because of the re-raise possibility and also because you may very well be UTG after the flop with people playing off the pre-flop raiser.
I think that in general you should usually reraise or fold. but -
sometimes you might have a hand that would be better to call with than to reraise with. AKs might be an example in a very loose game where many will call one raise. AQs is an even better example. these hands don't mind lots of players. I am not saying that you should always call here, often you should reraise, but you should take each situation independently and not necessarily look for a steadfast rule. I believe that in most of the games I play in I would just call with the AQs but reraise with AKs, but I might go either way.
dave in cali
As is everything in this great game of Hold'em, it depends. How many players are seeing the flop? If it is a loose game with 6 or more players always seeing the flop then count me in with all pocket pairs. In fact, I would rather have a pocket pair then the AQs or AJs I'm sure that some would say is there starting requirement. I don't want to have AQs against AA,QQ, or AK which is what an up front raise usually means assuming this player is not an unassuming maniac and would raise up front with any holding. Some of you might say you hate pocket pairs. Well, you just have to play them right. If you don't flop it, drop it. If you want to take one off, make sure you don't have to face a raise or that you're drawing dead. If your unfortunate to flop a set and someone else has a higher set, be thankful you're not playing pot limit and lose a little money and make it up with stellar play for the rest of your session. So, my response is,
IT DEPENDS
HAPPY HOLIDAY HOLD'EM TO ALL
RUSS
It was one of those nights at the local 10-20 game I was in. Crazy and all, with lots of fish and gamblers at the table. There are probably only 3 solid players (myself included.) Anyways, big starting hands are getting slammed by tons of runner up cards and it's wild and crazy with lots of raising pre-flop and on the flop.
I've been getting dealt mostly crap for about 3 hours and I'm down about 300. It wasn't a good night for anything I held. Best hand I had was JJ and it turns out I was only 3rd best before the flop as someone else had KK and QQ. Flop came A K - 2 and was an easy muck for me. But the guy that had KK lost to some other guy hold 10 - 3 offsuit on a runner runner bicycle.
Anyways, I'm not on tilt but I am getting frustrated cuz crappy hands are totally dominating in this game. If this was a home I could swear the deck was stacked.
So, the last hand of the night. I've got a loose gambler to my right whose raising a lot. Two limpers before him (UTG and Player 1). The guy to my right (player 2) raises. I look down and see As10s. I call. The guy to my left (button) makes it 30. SB and BB call. SB is somewhat a mediocre player and BB will play anything in multi-way action. Everyone else calls. 7 players to see the flop. $210 right now in the pot.
Flop comes 10d-10h-7d. All check to me and I bet. Button raises as I suspected and all fold to BB who calls two bets. At this point I put him on a flush draw. UTG and player 1 fold. Player 2 (the original rasier also folds). I 3-bet. Button calls and BB calls. Turn comes a 2s. BB checks, I bet, Button calls. River comes a 5s with no flush or straight possible. BB checks, I bet, Button folds. BB check-raises?????
Now, do I pay him off? I have never seen a check-raise bluff before.
Results later.... (Yes, this is a bad beat hand as well.)
You must call with trips and the top kicker. Make him show you a full house.
Fish, I hope you are kidding when you ask "do I pay him off". You HAVE to pay him off. You are getting 20-1 on your call and he needs a big hand to beat you. Many players like to wait until the river when they flop trips. The bottom-line is you will win this pot way over 5% of the time so a call here is mandatory. Mike Minetti
You're kidding when you say, "Do I call", I hope. Depending on the player, the only question I ask is do I re-raise.
After moaning about he had pocket sevens, I paid him off.
He showed me 10c5c and hit his kicker on the river.
So, that pretty much ended my Christmas eve night and I was stuck for $400 in just 3 hours. I left after that hand because I was going to seriously go on tilt.
I know this has nothing to do with it, but in the last half year, many times where I have flopped trips, someone else has flopped trips too and of course I am either outkicked or out hit. I find that laying down trips is incredibly hard given that the other case card is highly unlikely out there, but even when you have a strong feeling it is (and strong feelings are usually right), you have to pay to find out.
The Fish
I find that laying down trips is incredibly hard given that the other case card is highly unlikely out there, but even when you have a strong feeling it is (and strong feelings are usually right), you have to pay to find out.
To elaborate, it's not just that you have to pay to see the other case card, but against loose competition who could be holding a very wide variety of hands, it can be pretty difficult to put people on trips with a particular kicker because it can be hard to tell exactly what their idea of a "good hand" is, or even what their idea of a "good kicker" is. In other words, you can't necessarily lay down your hand.
For example, in this hand, you say the board is TT752, and you get check-raised on the river after leading the action the whole way. You wondered if you should lay down because you'd never seen this guy check-raise bluff before. Well, against an opponent who's willing to call several bets cold with T5s, how exactly can you figure out what his idea of a "good hand" is? He could easily hold something like AT or KT and think it's the best hand. And he only needs to have that AT/KT about 1 time in 15 or 20 for your call to be correct.
-Sean
Fish,
You wrote: "Now, do I pay him off? I have never seen a check-raise bluff before.
I only have a moment but this sentence struck me. I rarely see check raise bluffs from any opponent, but even if they are capable of this play they would do it so rarely that I may not ever see it (or in my case remember it ;-) ).
The pot is big. There should be enough doubt at the time of your decision. Pay him off.
Regards,
Rick
Now, do I pay him off? I have never seen a check-raise bluff before.
if you don't pay him off you will likely see several check-raise bluffs from people who saw you folded to a check-raise on the river.
I played a very similar hand not long ago.
On the river I held the nuts (Me: "JT", Board: J,J,T,7,X - the board was three-suited, but the "X" was the flush card so no str/flush was possible).
I was first to act and went for a check-raise; there were four others in the hand and I was pretty sure the bet would come from my left.
So of course it gets checked around to the button who bets. I know that a raise will cost me money - it was very possble that both of the others would have overcalled if I had just called, but if I [check]raise I will probably lose both of them. I wasn't even sure the button would call...
I WASN'T EVEN SURE THE BUTTON WOULD CALL...
If I'm right and I win this pot without a showdown, the bettor (who ABSOLUTELY had a hand - my guess was a small flush) was going to be the unfortunate victim of every bluff I could fire at him for the remainder of the session. The other two fold to my raise, the button looks at me, flashes the 98 of hearts - he had the straight on the turn, the river gave him a flush to go with it - shrugs his shoulders and MUCKS. Of course (being the gentleman I am) I show him my full house, then congratulate him on a "nice laydown".
My raise probably cost ME at least one and maybe even two [big] bets.
His "nice laydown" cost HIM three pots during the rest of the session - total value ~ 20 big bets - each of the three to me.
THE RIVER IS NOT THE PLACE FOR BIG LAYDOWNS
- not if you like money.
BTW, the other "stolen" pots were not all check-raise bluffs; two were your garden variety - opponent bets, you raise with nothing, opponent folds.
It's hard to make a fortune off weak-tight players; it's even harder to lose to them.
P.S. After the third time, I stopped calling him on the river with anything less than the nuts, which in effect meant I never got to call [or raise] him on the river - since he wouldn't bet with less than the nuts. The only exception was a hand where it was clear to all the world that I had flopped a monster; when he hit his draw I not only paid him off, I PURPOSELY stepped into a checkraise. I didn't want him - or any of the others - to start doing to me what I had done to him.
My name is J.D. - and I pay off on the river when I'm beaten; it costs too much NOT to.
J-D
I wrote, "there were four 'others' in the hand" - I meant to say there were four OF US [three others] in the hand.
of course you pay him off. Your logic sucks. You bet and the button raises "as expected." Well if this if true then you can't put him on a flush draw because he would have raised anything. So, you are playing blind man poker. Of course you should call and of course you did call in the game. And the only reason you are posting this is so everyone can tell you what an awful beat you took. My bet is that you are not a solid player.
The description "Fish" gave of the action on the flop was a little confusing - most likely a typo...
"All check to me, I bet, button raises, *ALL* fold to the B.B. - - -
( obviously there is only one player between the button and the B.B.)
who calls two - at this point I put him on a flush draw - I 3-bet, button and B.B. call".
I often have trouble following these posts, but even YOU should be able to infer that "Fish" was saying he put the BIG BLIND on a flush draw, NOT THE BUTTON.
- While we're on the subject, this seems like a very reasonable [albeit, incorrect] read of the situation; a player checks then calls two cold - a draw would have been my first guess, if the B.B. had flopped a big hand, slowplaying it in a pot this large would be both poor and strange play unless he had flopped the nut full.
I don't know why you chose to direct so much of your hostility toward the author of this particular post ( although I have come up with a few theories ); even if everything you accused him of is true - he just wanted sympathy, he's not a solid player, his "logic sucks", he is "playing blind man poker" - SO WHAT !
Personally, I find it more interesting - and amusing - that you found the time to tear into him but were unable to find the time to read his post more carefully.
Or perhaps you did read it carefully. Fish may not be a solid player; I find his posts to indicate otherwise, but what do I know ?
I do know that he is usually able to correctly infer what others are trying to say - a skill in which you seem to be lacking; I also know he has never, to the best of my knowledge, attacked anyone personally - even if they did state an opinion or ask a question that irritated him.
Finally, I find it interesting that when somebody uses this forum to "rip someone a new one", they always seem to accidentally forget to add their e-mail address to their post. I mean, you don't even have to use your primary mailbox; ever heard of "Hotmail" ?
Seriously, I'm probably being to hard on you. I'm sure you were just having a bad day.
But for your own good, please try to remember - in order for it to be fully effective you need to take the medicine at the same time every day.
And you can't tinker with the dosage, no matter what the voices tell you to do. Have a wonderful day -
J-D
P.S. - - - on second thought, skip it - I doubt it would have done you any good.
If a solid player raises UTG Calling with AQ-KQs-99 in early position is very debatable. I think that you should fold these hands if your in early position. Is this playing too tight? I think if you make this call it's a negative play over time...
-$
I don't think you lose much (if anything) by folding these hands UTG to a raise. I do call with A-Q and 99 usually (depending on the raiser). The key is to play well enough post flop to eat it if you think you're behind.
It depends upon the raising standards of the player. The looser the player is, the more likely I am to stay with him. Against a solid player I would probably fold these hands. John Feeney wrote an article about the merits of folding AQ offsuit in the face of an early position raiser.
If an UTG raise is played with such respect, wouldn't players be well off raising with *any* pocket pair (esp. the very low ones) as they could easily steal the blinds or alternatively get an heads-up against BB in which case they will still be about 50-50 favorites with best position to boot.
And, if they get a few callers, they might still flop the set, bad odds I know, but add the good chance of stealing the blinds, and I think it's a mathematically good play in a tight game.
Lars
The post refers to calling a raise from early position where there is the danger of several players still to act. In later positions, with more info on the hand, it is easier to call a raise.
As Jim pointed out the reputation of the raiser makes a big difference. If I see someone raising with 4-4 UTG, they will get a lot of action from me, regardless of position.
Your response seems to make a good case for generating action for your valid raises, if by chance you can show down that mid pair (tight games only). But then again you generally don't want all that action and would prefer your early rasies to be respected. That is IF you can do it early in the session , get away with it, then put the brakes on it. Advertising loose play then playing tight, as an unknown early, can't be all bad. What a game !
This hand comes from a very tight and rather tough eight-handed 20/40 holdem game. This is the type of game where most hands are head up or three ways and there are a lot of blind steals. So far I've been holding my own in this game, with a tight and somewhat aggressive image.
I have Ad Jd UTG and come in for a raise. All fold except for the big blind who calls. In soft games some might say ace jack suited might be a calling hand pre flop but in this game it is best to come in for a raise every time since you don't get much multi-way action and the suitedness of the hand adds only a little to its value. Note that the big blind is new to me but it is already apparent he is tight, aggressive and competent post flop based on the hour or so he has been in the game. He has shown that he can be aggressive, tenacious and tricky; at the same time I've seen him lay down a pair head up if he is pretty sure he is beat.
The flop comes Ts 8h 3d. The big blind checks, I bet and he checkraises me. I call. My thinking at this time is that he figures I will bet a big ace and most overpairs (he is right) and he will get more information and perhaps more value if he checkraises me rather than coming out betting where I will probably raise him back anyway.
Flop Questions: Would anybody fold at this point and would anyone consider a reraise on the flop? If you reraise and are called what is your plan of action? If you reraise and the big blind makes it four bets what is your plan of action?
The turn comes a Kc. The big blind bets out. I raise with the inside straight draw but what I am really hoping is that the big blind will think I have hit my king and will lay down a pair or might lay down on a follow up bet on the river unless he makes two pair or trips.
Turn Question: Is this a sound raise? Don't peek at the next paragraph before answering ;-).
After I raise the big blind reraises me. I'm pretty sure he has at least T 8 so I need to hit my gutshot draw to win. With 9.25 big bets in the pot I call for my gutshot. It is 10.5 to one against hitting but I'm pretty sure I will pick up at least one and probably two bets on the river if I hit. In addition, it is almost certain my opponent does not hold a queen so my “realistic pot odds” are slightly better. Although this call wasn't super close, I think the fact that you can “realistically” eliminate the queens from an opponent's hand can turn a close fold into a close call.
More Turn Questions: If the pot contained one less big bet, would it be correct to still call since you can eliminate a queen in your opponents hand? Assume you will get at most two big bets out of your opponent on the river and hitting a river ace gives you at best a slightly negative EV call on the river.
I should be able to get online early tomorrow morning for a moment and in the late afternoon (PST) for clarifications. Tomorrow night I will post results and additional comments if this post generates any interest.
Regards,
Rick
Note to Jim Brier. I will be working at HG tomorrow until 3:00 p.m and reachable by my cell phone. I may take a post work nap and head up to HWP around 6:00 p.m. or so to play and hook up. Call me if you have any change in plans, although I could use the "OT" at HWP if I don't see you ;-).
Pre-flop I agree with your raise having Ace-Jack suited. When check-raised on the flop there is about $150 in the pot and you have 6 outs at best plus a backdoor Diamond flush possibility. The problem is that your outs are not all clean since a Jack complements the board plus an Ace could give your opponent two pair. I think I would fold here. On the turn when he bets there is $210 in the pot and it costs you $40. You have 4 outs with your gutshot and perhaps 3 more with an Ace and another 3 outs with a Jack. But an Ace or a Jack may not be an out. Since you only have 4 clean outs I think I would just call here rather than raise on the expensive street. The King might have even helped your opponent.When re-raised on the turn there is now $370 in the pot and it costs you another $40 to call. It is almost certain thay you have only 4 outs. Assuming you can collect another $40 at the river and sometimes another $80 you can probably scramble up a call here. Make the pot any smaller I think folding is right.
a raise on the turn is a terrific play if you do it only once in a while, and against the right opponents. i think it was worth a raise on the turn. if he had JT, QT, AT, T9s, JJ, 99, he may very well folded. Apparently, he either had T8, KT, TT, 88 or the lower set.
Doc,
I agree that you need to limit this sort of play to the right spot. And picking the right spots is something I have not come close to mastering yet.
Regards,
Rick
Jim,
As you can imagine after my long day, I'm starting to run out of steam. But if there is one area we tend to disagree, it is that in this type of short-handed situation I believe you often have to fire the big barrels on reasonable speculation.
Against a single opponent from this line up, your bets should say I often have a made hand, sometimes a draw, and sometimes almost nothing. Your raises should usually indicate strength, but sometimes they need to be based on the hope that your opponent is not strong enough to call. Heads up that will frequently occur.
Anyway, it was good to see you tonight. I've got one last post before I go back to battle at 7:00 a.m. ;-).
Regards,
Rick
When the BB check-raises, I would view his most likely holding to be a pair. With two overcards and two backdoor draws, I would probably try to buy a free turn card by reraising on the flop. If the BB called and bet the turn, I would fold unless I improved. If the BB made it 4 bets on the flop, I would now suspect he had more than top pair. In this case, I would call and fold to a bet on the turn unless I improved (i.e., hit a pair, flush draw, or open-ended straight draw).
Merry X-mas,
Mike
If the BB offered me a free card after my reraise, I would bet the turn if I picked up a pair or a draw.
MJS
Mike,
I think your approach is probably the one I should use most of the time in this spot.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I seldom respond to your posts due to the fact that we swim in different oceans - you with the sharks, me with the minnows. I rarely play above 10-20, and when I do it's because the game is bleeding chips; I don't bother with tough games [especially of the higher limit variety] unless at least two of the players are COMPLETELY clueless, in which case I try to stay out of the way of those who play better than I do. I have no problem with ego; there are plenty of players out there who are too far ahead of me. I'll tangle with them when I've closed the gap a little.
Now, as to your question.
1. I would [probably] have checked the flop when my opponent was kind enough to offer me a free card. IMO there was almost no way for you to win the pot right then and there, ergo there was little if any reason to bet. (If this was a value bet, it was an awfully thin one).
- Checking might have even made it easier for you to win on the turn - I'll get back to this point.
There are alot of cards that improve your hand - an Ace or Jack should put you out in front if you're not already there, any diamond gives you a big draw (as does a "9"), AND -
a King or Queen not only gives you more outs [gutshot draw], either of these would likely serve as the hold'em equivalent of a "scare card" - if you check behind him on the flop and the turn brings a K or Q, a bet from you (or a raise if he bets) is more believable than a "pissing contest" on the flop.
Given all the good things that can occur when the turn lands, why start flinging chips [on the flop] when you are likely behind (or at best marginally ahead).
I too am a little pressed for time; I intend to give some more thought to the rest of the hand, but this is the one action you took with which I most disagree.
The rest seemed at worst acceptable - at best insightful. I will need a little more time with it.
If there was in fact even the smallest [reasonable] chance that your flop bet would cause him to release, disregard all of the above.
If the flop had contained a K or Q (along with a diamond), I believe betting the flop would have been almost mandatory.
The irony in all of this is that it might have been easier for you to move him off a mediocre holding had you NOT raised pre-flop - hey look, my hindsight is 20-20 just like everyone else's.
J-D
J-D,
All the responses above are going to take some time to respond to, but I also prefer to swim with minnows. In the game above I was working as a prop and I have to leave to battle again in ten minutes.
Regards,
Rick
Where is this game taking place (I want to know so that I can avoid it!) Sounds rough...
Rahul,
The game was at Hawaiian Gardens. Normally it is much better. Why so many stayed and played was beyond me except that perhaps because it was played on a holiday.
Regards,
Rick
JD
I'm not sure why you think you have no chance of winning on the flop headsup after you raised preflop. If the flop missed the big blind, you have a good chance of winning. And it's also not that unthinkable that you have the best hand.
Have you been playing with very tight minnows? :)
When a solid player raise pre-flop from a non-steal position, a flop of - T,8,3 (rainbow) - is not likely to have helped him; obviously if he started with a big pair he still has it, but there are many more [legitimate] no-pair raising hands than there are pairs. I won't disect the math (I've followed most of your posts; I am fairly certain you know the #'s), but off the top of my head I'd guess there to be around a 2/3 chance that the raisor is sitting with overcards with ~ a 1/3 chance that he has top pair or an over-pair to the flop.
I am of course looking at it from the perspective of Rick's opponent; we know what he has.
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT and ATs are the only hands that are helped (or left intact) by this flop. (ATs is a borderline raise, and I don't picture Rick raising with KTs, QTs or JTs, although none of these would be outrageous in a game as tight as the one he describes. 88 is also a possibility.)
Added up there are ~ 30 combinations of hands that fit this flop. I come up with ~ 60 that leave him with no pair; if he bets the flop, his opponent is getting 5.5 - 1, AND this is a flop with an above average chance of having helped the B/B - even if the help is only in the form of middle pair or a straight draw - with or without overcards of his own. There seems to be only a small # of hands that a "tight, solid player" could have called with from the B/B that missed this flop completely.
This being the case, a flop bet by Rick seems like a "waste of time", more so when you add in the chance of a check-raise.
It's not hindsight; I had a hard time seeing Rick as having any significant chance of winning this pot with a flop bet.
With the [large] number of turn cards that would help his hand, I thought he would have been better off just checking the flop and taking the free card he'd been offered.
PLEASE respond to any and all aspects of this analysis with which you disagree; by no means did I consider it an automatic play - there are probably good reasons to bet the flop which I missed.
I simply saw checking as the better choice - even if only slightly better.
P.S. I need to go to the archives and re-read some of the posts on the "VLG", although I'm not sure this situation really fits the criteria.
BTW, thanks for the acknowledgement; I would rather have someone think I'm wrong than have them ignore what I had to say.
J-D
J-D,
If you start checking situations like this the tight players will not be as tight. You will get called a lot more and be under the impression that you are looking at a quality hand. Meanwhile the guy has something like J7s and waiting to see what you do on the flop.
I'm not sure I agree as to how much of a problem you will be creating by "admiting you missed the flop" - as long as yo don't do it all the time - but you do have a point.
If my "legitimate" pre-flop raises start getting called by the Jack,Seven(suiteds) of the world, just because I am known to sometimes check a flop that missed me -
is this a bad thing ?
I will (and do) check some flops that hit me; I don't mind having J7s trying to chase me off top pair (or top SET).
I do get what your saying; I just don't like the idea of being obligated to "bet the flop" just because I came in for a raise.
I need to think some about this.
Thanks,
J-D
Dear Rick,
backdoor,
You wrote: “I have noticed the play described in your posts to have the general affliction of raising a little too much on the turn as a semi-bluff. I too have this disease. Through meditation and herbal rememdies I have learned that raising on the turn as a semi bluff does not work very well when the semi-bluff part of the play is just not there.”
What herbal remedies do you suggest? I thought I had about a one third chance of getting him to fold right there. If called I would check down most river cards except for an ace or queen.
…unfortuately I remember most posts too well like I do most hands I am in.).
Your memory is much better than mine ;-).
”Betting the flop is almost automatic. Calling the raise is almost automatic. Raising as Michael suggested above is a decent move, but I would generally elect to check through the turn in the absence of an A or J.”
I like the reraise on the flop the more I think about it. It seems all decisions on this hand were close. Regarding all your other comments, they make a lot of sense. Even if this opponent never plays me again, others are watching and they can't perceive you as a folder in this tough a game.
”Overall I think the hand was played just fine, though, I think you might want to think about returning to old fashion flop battles more often than waiting for the turn.”
Perhaps finding the elusive right mix is what really counts.
Regards,
Rick
For whatever it's worth I think you had a clear fold when bet into on the turn. I'm a little pressed for time but that King could have helped your opponent as well. Hopefully I can elaborate later.
Tom,
Do elaborate if you have time. But I must say that these opponents have a lot of follow through after an opponent merely calls a flop checkraise. Laying down heads up is long term suicide when you have reasonable strength and some strong outs.
Regards,
Rick
PS. Loved your standard deviation table!
We all dig ourselves holes like this, not wanting to seem whimpy, not wanting to fold yet another missed flop. I don't see the long term profit in these plays. My typical cast of characters at the table may be different than yours but so many of them just don't know how to fold. This makes plays similar to yours here just plain expensive. Aggressive non-folders need to be peddled a pair for 7 small bets. Toss away your misses and shove those flops that you hit right down their throat.
-Fred-
Fred wrote "My typical cast of characters at the table may be different than yours but so many of them just don't know how to fold. This makes plays similar to yours here just plain expensive"
Yes, clearly stated in Rick's post, is that these set of characters, and particularly the opponent in question, is different than your typical cast of characters. So that changes everything. It may not change things enough to make a raise worthwhile on the turn, but it does increase its value.
Fred,
Trust me, this was not like most games you get to play in. The players that were there voluntarily had the game selection skills of an ameba.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I like the preflop raise unless there are players acting behind you that can be dragged into a pot by an UTG limper then maybe I limp. But in your situation I like the raise. Your bet on the flop is correct and you I believe calling the check raise is also correct. Of course you may be way behind or dominated horribly. The problem is that since this guy was the BB and just called your bet you cannot be sure what he has. Top pair, over pair, straight draw, etc.. who knows?
Since he is tight aggressive he may have raised with an over pair to tens (eexcept maybe Jacks) before the flop to find out where he was in the hand. Might have reraised with A,K also. There are any number of hands he could just call with that a ten would help including, J,T, or Q,T (maybe only suited in tight game) or K,Ts or A,T. Since there are quite a few hands that he may have that contain a ten plus drawing hands I believe that a call is correct for the check raise.
Now on the turn you have $210 in the pot after the BB bets. Clearly in my opinion this is a raise or fold situation. So what guides your decision. The only factor that can make this fold into a raise IMO is knowledge of the opponent. If you know this player well enough that you know he will bet into a raiser wtih a hand that can't beat Kings then I would raise an hope he would put me on at least Kings and fold. If however he is not that aggressive and will probably not bet in situations like this without being able to berat potential top pair I believe a fold is in order. I also may give a new player the Benefit of the doubt and fold.
Once you raise and get reraised should you call is now a matter of pot odds. When it gets back to you there is 330 in the pot and a call is close given a bet you pick up on the river. But your odds still are not where I like them. This is another reason for not raising on the turn. You are going to war for a small pot. Your risk reward ratio just doesn't seem to be there.
Vince
Dear Vince, V: "Now on the turn you have $210 in the pot after the BB bets. Clearly in my opinion this is a raise or fold situation."
backdoor,
I agree that the flop reraise is a viable alternative. And calling on the turn certainly has merit. It seems on this type of heads-up hands, every decision is close and there are hard to describe intangibles that govern your play.
Regards,
Rick
Well I said clearly a raise or fold. Maybe it isn't so clear since there is a possibility that you have the best hand so I guess I really don't know.
Vince
P.S A reraise on the flop may be o.k. but now you are taking a chance that you will make the pot so big that you have no choice but to call him down. What do you do to a reraise on the flop? Remember you only have A,K and there is a small pot out there. Of course the game is tight and sometimes you just have to play certain hands strongly. Great game, huh.
Vince,
”I like the preflop raise unless there are players acting behind you that can be dragged into a pot by an UTG limper then maybe I limp. But in your situation I like the raise.”
In this game I go to something like an Abdulian tight game preflop strategy. There is so much blind stealing equity that I won't call up front with any hand. And almost all my playable hands will include an ace or a pair.
”Your bet on the flop is correct and you I believe calling the check raise is also correct. Of course you may be way behind or dominated horribly. The problem is that since this guy was the BB and just called your bet you cannot be sure what he has. Top pair, over pair, straight draw, etc.. who knows?”
I agree that there is a wide range of hands he could have, including a draw such as J9. In these games typical players tend to play you for AK when you raise early and they often think that they can knock you off it with a fancy flop play followed by turn aggression. Remember, this is California, not unimaginative Foxwoods or Mohegan ;-).
”Since he is tight aggressive he may have raised with an over pair to tens (eexcept maybe Jacks) before the flop to find out where he was in the hand. Might have reraised with A,K also. There are any number of hands he could just call with that a ten would help including, J,T, or Q,T (maybe only suited in tight game) or K,Ts or A,T. Since there are quite a few hands that he may have that contain a ten plus drawing hands I believe that a call is correct for the check raise.”
I agree with some of the other posters that perhaps a reraise on the flop is a valid alternative. Head up I'm not laying down too easily here.
”Now on the turn you have $210 in the pot after the BB bets. Clearly in my opinion this is a raise or fold situation. So what guides your decision. The only factor that can make this fold into a raise IMO is knowledge of the opponent. If you know this player well enough that you know he will bet into a raiser wtih a hand that can't beat Kings then I would raise an hope he would put me on at least Kings and fold. If however he is not that aggressive and will probably not bet in situations like this without being able to berat potential top pair I believe a fold is in order. I also may give a new player the Benefit of the doubt and fold.”
I saw Jim Brier at Hollywood Park tonight and we got up to go for a drink after picking up our chips. There were four 20/40' and two 15/30 holdem games. I pointed out to Jim that at each table there were only a couple of players I had significant experience with (the player base in Los Angeles is huge). So there are few players that I know that well. But based on watching this player for an hour, I would guess that he would follow though a flop checkraise with a tenuous holding on the turn and would fold a mediocre pair.
”Once you raise and get reraised should you call is now a matter of pot odds. When it gets back to you there is 330 in the pot and a call is close given a bet you pick up on the river.”
I figure to pick up two big bets on the river most of the time because he had to be strong enough to bet the river if a queen came since it should not look that scary to him.
Regards,
Rick
As for your question about the Turn raise, I think that was a great play against a good player who would try to bet a pair of tens but fold if raised on the turn. In fact if I was him and was against a typical player that is exactly what I would do. The problem for the both of you, and he should know this, is that with any of your UTG Raise holdings that are not pairs, any card above a Ten helps your hand by giving you a pair or at least a Gut Shot. Interesting huh.
So if he just had a Ten a better play for him on the turn maybe to check and call since he is a underdog now, and you will most likely bet your Gut Shots as well as your Pairs.
After you got re-raised on the turn I say call and if a Queen hits you can put this guy on tilt! ;^)
CV
Chris,
”As for your question about the Turn raise, I think that was a great play against a good player who would try to bet a pair of tens but fold if raised on the turn. In fact if I was him and was against a typical player that is exactly what I would do. The problem for the both of you, and he should know this, is that with any of your UTG Raise holdings that are not pairs, any card above a Ten helps your hand by giving you a pair or at least a Gut Shot. Interesting huh.”
I did think he was the type who would fold a pair on the turn, especially since my play makes me look a lot stronger than I was and the turn king could put him in a spot where hitting his kicker on the river (if he had QT or AT for example) may make him expensive second best from his point of view (since I could easily have KQ or AK).
” After you got re-raised on the turn I say call and if a Queen hits you can put this guy on tilt! ;^)
In about an hour I should be able to post the results.
Regards,
Rick
Rick: Just a couple of points for consideration:
1) In a tough line-up, against an "aggressive, tenacious and tricky" big blind, isn't AJs a hand you should fold, rather than raise with?
2) At the point where you left off, you have put $200 into a pot head up with an aggressive, tenacious and tricky player who has called your UTG raise pre-flop, check-raised you on the flop, bet into you and then re-raised you on the turn. You have in inside straight draw which you are pretty sure you need to hit to win. Isn't this a situation you would like to avoid getting into?
Andy,
”1) In a tough line-up, against an "aggressive, tenacious and tricky" big blind, isn't AJs a hand you should fold, rather than raise with?”
Remember this is an eight-handed game so this hand goes up in value a bit as compared to a full Las Vegas game. My average raising hand in this position will have a little more high card strength (if unpaired) but I will mix in raises with suited hands in this spot down to about A9 if my image is right (e.g., I haven't been in the pot for a while yet have been winning). I think if you play any tighter you are giving up too much as in this game you steal about a third of the time, get head up about a third of the time, and are three bet about 25% of the time. The rest of the time you might get a few cold callers.
”2) At the point where you left off, you have put $200 into a pot head up with an aggressive, tenacious and tricky player who has called your UTG raise pre-flop, check-raised you on the flop, bet into you and then re-raised you on the turn. You have in inside straight draw which you are pretty sure you need to hit to win. Isn't this a situation you would like to avoid getting into?”
If I knew I would be up a creak without a paddle I wouldn't have ever taken the trip but sometimes in poker sh_t happens. Anyway, even though my overall game is relatively conservative, I at times feel I must push small edges or take some chances in order to keep myself from being too predictable. This was one that put me in a corner.
Regards,
Rick
Results and Epilog
Thanks for all the responses. Not that results matter but I spiked the queen on the river and collected two bets from my opponent (who did go on tilt and leave shortly after). My play raised plenty of eyebrows, although I thought every decision was at least close based on the information I had at the time. Of course, heads up play involves many factors that do not easily tranlate to print. This hand was no exception.
After this play, I hunkered down for a while. I expected that my very observant opponents would be much less likely to fold to my raises so I played accordingly, rarely semi-bluffing and taking more free cards when given the opportunity. I was happy to escape that game with a small win.
Regards,
Rick
Rick:
Could not go to bed in a great expectation to see the final results.
Good (and luky!?!) win for you. Did you get to see your opponnet's hand on the river?
When you re-raised him on the turn, attempting to represent K's, I presume his ego got locked into the heads up duel wit you that he just would not let go. Perhaps, player's brewing emotions, which obscure decision making rationale, rarely go into hands analysis when trying to read one's hand.
Trying to catch me bluffing eh? I said (n/t)!
Ivan,
I didn't see my opponent's hand but from his demeanor I think he lost with a set of some sort.
On the turn I was representing AK more than anything else but I'm sure he could not discount trip kings. With kings in my hand I would easily bet the flop and just call a checkraise with the intention of popping him on the turn unless a ten or an ace comes. And I would often raise on the turn with trip kings given the possible draws and the fact he might expect the raise anyway.
Regards,
Rick
Rats! Got to the Results post before I got a chance to put in my 2c worth.
One thing I will say, you certainly have a knack for getting long threads going. Interesting hand and thought processes that go on virtually instantly at the table. Certainly a different crowd than my usual mix, that's for sure.
In my LL games, I would have probably just called the flop check-raise, and folded when bet into on the turn. But that's just me. I'm not looking out so much, or need to for that matter, for small edge psycho-battles with tough, experienced, tricky BB's. Maybe once in a while I get pushed off a small pot I shouldn't, but my opposition makes so many other errors it's not worth it for me to push these kinds of hands. Shows I would have a lot of work to do to play consistently in the middle limit games in SoCal, that's for sure.
I know if I was the BB with something like K-T on this hand, I would have been deep in the land of Tilt after this one. This wasn't "E", was it? LOL.
What's Brier doing slumming in SoCal? I would think that the holiday season in LV would be very sweet with all the tourists.
CV
Playing 10-20, I limped in UTG with 77, and a tight player(TP) after me raised. Button called, both blinds folded, and I called. Flop KJ7 rainbow. I checked, TP bets, the button raises, I called 20, and the tight player called. Turn comes a blank, I checked, TP checked, button bets, I make it forty, then TP makes it sixty, which forces the button to fold. At this point, I showed him my hand and mucked. He later told me that I had the winning hand...he had AA. Was I outplayed?
TP played his hand strong as he should have! What happened to you? You should have at least called him down.
The reason I didn't call him down was because I put him on a hand, which was a big pocket pair namely KK or JJ. In which case I had only one out.
You gave up. If he had KK or JJ all you had to do to find out is re-raise him. If he caps THEN I might slow down.
You played like you only had top pair, he played like he could beat top pair.
You should be playing like you have a set and you don't wan't him drawing for a bigger set or a boat(if he has made 2 pair.)
To make it expensive for him to draw AND to get information you have to re-raise him.
I would have played AKs and AA just as he played it! Also KK and JJ. You were thinking of the worst possibilities and mucked.
Yes. With a set you should have payed off all but the most predictable rocks. I'm surprised he made this move after you check raised a raiser. He must have known you had him beat, but figured he could get you to lay it down. Don't ever show a lay down like this, even to a friend. You're asking to be run over.
there was $255 in the pot...it would have cost $40 to see the turn and river (asssuming he bet)...there would then be at least $235, or 5-1 odds...pretty good for a set.
we all make mistakes...in pot limit this laydown is acceptable, however in limit poker you must pay off.
gt
You only out played yourself. I think if you never layed down a set in limit you wouldn't be making that much of mistake.
The tight player over played his hand, and this should have only cost him money. Maybe he has KK or JJ but those are the breaks, it is quite uncommon to see set over set. (He could have AA AK KQ KJ KK JJ, there are only 6 combintions of (6+ 12 +12 + 9 + 6) out of 45 have you beat. Even if you figure it this way you must call.)
Don't fear the nuts and don't show your laydowns. One other note: the TP may be raising to exclude the other player not neccesarily bc he thinks he has you beat. (Although it seems to me the TP just wasn't thinking...)
Yes.
Sometimes I can't believe what I'm reading. Your first mistake was calling with this hand under the gun, but having done so, what did you expect to make? A 5-high flop where 77 dominated the board?
Obviously, you wanted to make a set. Then you made it, and didn't like it. Why did you play this hand in the first place? If a set wasn't good enough, you should have folded before the flop.
You weren't outplayed. You layed down and rolled over. At the very least, it would have cost you $40 to see the river and showdown. But you should have reraised. YOU MADE YOUR HAND!!!
Monsters under the bed.
77 is playable utg or early if the game is seeing a lot of multiway pots(me+5) other wise bail.but since you played ,& flopped your best hand possible play it strongly. you played ok up to the point you mucked iwould have called the 60 & checkraised otr for 40 more.set over set is rare enough that in my play i almost totally discount it. the only cards that would worry me would have been a 9 or an ace comming on the later streets.
If your going to play the 77 btf anyway, is it out of the question to check raise on the flop or even to bet out and play the set fast instead of just calling the two bets on the flop? Or should you be afraid of a cap by the TP on the left so you should just call? I've only been playing a few months so any advice is appreciated.
Kevin,
I think depends on the board and the players. Certainly checkraising the flop and betting out on the turn is one option. But as already noted you should not be overly afraid of the over set. It happens every now and then but probably less than 1/50 times you flop a set.
There were 11 BB in the pot when you laid down. For at MOST two more big bets, you can call him down to win a pot with 14 big bets in it. Your laydown was awful.
However, the biggest mistake you made was showing your set. That was a terrible play.
natedogg
I'm in the BB with {8c,8d}
All fold to the SB who is a decent player. He raises, I reraise and he calls.
Flop: {Ac,7d,3h}
SB bets. Pot odds are 7 to 1.
CV
raise his bet on the flop. high variance though.
Effective odds are 11-5 if you call him down all the way to the river.
I don't know how I would play this, or how you should -
I just thought you could use a reminder.
P.S. Whatever you chose to do, you were seen doing it.
Make that two reminders.
- Is this one of those rare instances where being first to act gives him the edge...
IMHO: Raise; fold if he re-raises. If he bets the turn, fold; if he checks the turn, bet. On the river, check behind his check.
Andy,
Don't be humble. I vote for your battle plan.
Rick
I call this one down to the end. Let anyone call me a calling station if they like but if you raise you have to be prepared to fold to a re-raise. Why not just call it down. He probably won't even bet the river. He also is seeing that he can't just steal your blinds. If he does win, just muck and don't let him know what you defended with.
this is a hand you want to show down but with little action as possible. i would raise otf hoping sb w/ call& check to me on the turn giving me a free one also realizing that you having shown weakness on the turn will likely have to call a bet otr
Just curious here to think about what to do if the situation is reversed.
If you were the SB what would people do with an A in thier hand and what would people do without the A in their hand.
Without an A I would probably bet since the BB showed agressiveness by three betting, my leading into him screams "I have an Ace!" and puts a lot of pressure on him to fold hands like 88.
With an A I probably bet as well, but if called I might think about check-raising on the turn against some opponents.
The more I think about what I would do were I the small blind the more I think that it is very hard for the BB to read the SB here and is probably better off calling to the river.
Paul Talbot
I have to go with "sdf" and Andy here. My thoughts at the time were, "I re-raised pre-flop and that should keep him from trying to bluff me". After I folded I thought about it again and figured he could have been pulling a desperation bluff because he knew I could have many hands that didn't include an Ace. So he may have been thinking at a higher level than I thought.
So now that we all agree that it is bad to fold I think we should all agree that it is best to Raise. Since my pair of 8's isn't really that strong I would like to make him fold before it becomes a showdown. If he truely doesn't have a Pair of Aces he may just give it up on the Flop for a raise, and that's great if he holds something like JQ, JT, KT..... What I really don't want is for him to see the River for cheep. If I had KK or QQ it may be a different story since I wouldn't have to worry about so many overcards falling.
CV
Chris,
I would give it one shot and raise here, as long as I didn't have the image projected in my thread below ;-).
Regards,
Rick
If he will bet a hand that you can beat more than one time in eight, and many players will, then you are suppose to at least call. Notice that since you made it three bets before the flop your opponent should know that you will bet automatically. Thus if he floped an ace, why doesn't he check raise? I will frequently raise here, and if called bet on fourth street. If called again, I will check it down on the river.
First hand
10-20 casino hold'em game.
The game is aggressively-loose with a couple of bigtime fish who are back-raising with any two suited cards they have.
Anyways, I'm in the cutoff seat with JsQc and there are 3 limpers to me (UTG, Player 1, and Player 2). I limp as well. Button folds. SB and BB call and check. For some strange reason, there was no raise preflop. The first in 3 rounds!
Flop comes 8 - 9 - 10 rainbow. My dream flop! Anyways, SB bets out. Everyone calls to me and I raise. Everyone else calls. (I'm screaming for 7 to come down on the turn so I get great action!) Turn comes an 8. SB bets out again and again everyone calls to me again. Now what do I do? Folding is definitely out of the question. It's more of should I raise or just call??? Results later...
Here's the second hand
20-40 club hold'em game.
I just sat down for 5 minutes and am in my first BB. I don't have a good read on the players yet, but they appear solid. Anyways, everyone folds to the button who raises. I look down and see Kd10d. SB folds and I call. Flop comes J-9-2 rainbow. I check, Button bets and I call. Turn comes a Qh with 2 hearts on the board. I check, button bets, I check-raise, button re-raises. Now I know I have the nuts, but what should I do? I don't know the button player well enough, but at this point I put him on K10 as well since he re-raised me given I check-raised him first. But what I really fear is he holding Kh10h, which if a heart falls on the river, I've been sucked out big time. What should I do when you re-raises me on the turn? Just call or re-raise? Results to be posted.
Thanks all..
The Fish
In the second hand, it is the easiest reraise in the world. First of all, I would reraise this hand in omaha. The chances that this guy has k-10 are really low, and even lower for k-10h.
Seems like you are a little too timid in both these instances. In the first hand, I think you have to raise. If someone comes back at you I think you perhaps you slow down a bit but I don't think anyone but the SB has a prayer of a boat based on play to this point. Also, I think the SB put you on an open ended draw (trying to buy a free card with the flop raise) and is trying to punish you when the second 8 falls. So I'd go ahead and raise.
In the second hand, there is no question that you are supposed to go back at him. If another heart falls perhaps you are beat but I think that if you have the nuts with one card to come you are supposed to put in as many bets as you can
First hand I just call the turn bet. When sb bets out after you have raised him there is a good chance he hit a fullhouse. Obviously cannot fold but I would not raise. As an aside I doubt that I would have raised the flop. With a dream flop like that and a bunch of other players in the pot probably would have waited for the expensive street to raise but either way it's not a big deal.
On the second hand I would raise once more. BB may have Kh, 10h but he very easily could have something less such as two pair or something. It would depend somewhat on what you thought of the player but I would probably re-raise. If he re-raised again then I would probably back off and simply call. If a heart did not fall on the river bet out.
case 1 - it's been 3 rounds of raises BTF. And no one raises BTF this hand. Of course you have to be concerned SB filled up to 8's full on the turn, but you can't fold. I would call it down to the river - the pot is big enough so anyone with a decent draw isn't going to fold to your turn raise (it's only one more bet to them).
case 2 - call. If no heart and no pair on the river, hope for a raising war to ensue. Otherwise call it down.
In the first hand I raise into the possible boat as there are many loose players in the hand and the SB could easily have just trips or T9, etc. and the other loose players drawing slim to gutshots etc. However if raised I back off and check-call the showdown.
In the second hand I definately re-raise, you are headsup with a possible blind steal to begin with.The odds he has KhTh is 1,326-1! If he has a hand at all here it's more likely AQ or QQ, maybe AhJh, whatever he has make him pay to beat you.
In the lower limits and especially loose ones I play all my sets and st8ts fast, and let the chips settle where they may.
Fish,
The second hand is trivial. You have the nuts! You should put in every raise possible on the turn. If a scare card comes on the river then you can back off and call the button down; otherwise you should get all of the money that you can into this pot.
Your course of action on the first hand is more subtle. It all depends on your read of the SB. If he is one of the loose-aggressive fish that you state are in the game then you should re-raise the turn. If the SB is a solid player than you probably should just call him down. If the SB falls somewhere in-between then I would re-raise and only back off if the SB makes it 3-bets to go.
Why do I keep hearing that 72 is the worst starting hand in holdem? I believe 32 is the worst hand. Please comment.
Q-3 is my scourge hand. Of the 169 possible hands (suited, unsuited, and paired), it is the median hand.
Incidently, I lost the biggest pot I've ever been in to 7-2s. No way should the woman have been in the hand. I had K-K and the asinine player that kept reraising had K-K as well. Both of us were drawing dead. The flop came 5-2-2. The turn was 7. I forgot what the river card was. She gathered up the chips and racked them and left. I'm sure she has donated the $1600 all back by now.
If she paid her bet, why shouldn't she be in? Maybe she was the big blind, and one of you slow played your KK. Would you have felt less bitter if you held 66? Or would you have felt worse if you held AA? In either case you still have a losing hand to a 72!!! Would you have criticized her hand if you had 55 or 77? I think not. I understand the pain, but I don't think you should criticize her bad play or else she may go away. How are you going to win if players like her disappear from the game?
Well, let's say I'm not necessarily criticizing the play of her hand -- it's her money. And for the other facts, she was UTG, I was the small blind, and the jerk was the big blind. Therefor, she called the blind and then called two bets cold twice in the senior power position with one other participant who was on a flush draw. As I said, I'm sure she's donated it all back. Even if it had been 55 or 77 she would need 7:1 odds which the pot was not offering to her. She needed about the same for her flush draw. Again, she had the wrong pot odds to make the call. Yeah, she won but she's still money in my bank.
It is probably due to Hot/Cold computer simulation. You see 32o has more straight potential and that’s why 72o is worse.
CV
This is the exact argument I had with a fellow competitor. I understand that 32 can make a straight using both cards, but the probability of making a straight is far less than not making it. By that statement, 72 is beating 32 unless the 32 makes a straight.
72o is the worst hand when all players stay to the river, as in many early simulations. 32o is worst head's up.
-Fred- ...won with 73o this week!
If all 10 players see the river, I don't think 72 or 32 has much of a chance to win. All I'm saying is that whether it is 10 players or heads up, 72o will win more often than 32o. By this logic, I think 32o has to be the worst hand. Am I missing something...please help.
Fred...
Are you actually proud of the 7-3 offsuit win?
You can make a straight with 32.
SPM,...Tight & Aggressive for 2001...
Against 1 random hand played to the river, 32o will win the pot 31.2% of the time. 72o will win it 34.6% of the time. Against 9 random hands 32o will win 5.6% of the time, 72o will win 4.8% of the time. 32o becomes a better hand (against ramdom hands) when you have 4 or more opponents. Keep in mind that this is all based on computer sims.
So It looks like they are about equal. However, you will probably win more money with 32o then you will with 72o. Clearly you'll stay if you flop trips or a full house with either hand. But you can't flop a straight with 72o and you will win a lot of money in multi way pots when this happens with 32o. So, while 72o may have more raw strength in shorter handed pots, 32o will win you more money when it does win, and that's our goal in poker, to win lots of money.
I'm not sure if my reasoning is correct, just some thoughts.
Rob
I pick up Ac2c on the button (Planet Poker 20-40) and am the second limper (note: I did not raise for various reasons including the fact that A2 is way worse than say A7 but the preflop play is not the point of the post). Sb calls and bb checks. 4 Way action.
Flop: Ad2h7s
Sb bets. BB folds. Limper (who was left of UTG) calls. I raise.
Surprisingly, sb folds (?).
Even more surprisingly, the limper makes it 3 bets.
I call.
Turn: 8s
He bets and I call again.
River: 3s (making a flush).
He bets. I raise. He calls and shows AQ.
All comments appreciated.
Now, for the image question:
The player with AQ started crying about how he got beat by a 3 outer. One of the other players then says "well, if you had raised, skp would have folded". A third player pipes in with "Yeah right...he was suited with his A2...he wasn't going anywhere".
The truth is that I would have folded my hand had Mr. AQ raised.
Now, is it better for me that people think that I would call a raise with Ac2c? Or, is it better that they think that I would never call a raise with that type of hand? Or, does it matter at all?
You want them guessing wrong. Therefore if they think you would cold call a raise with A2s then that might help sometime in the future.
Ken
I think its good for you if your opponents think you are loose in late position. You may get more free plays in the blind.
CV
I don't think it matters much - I assume the player who said you would have called anyway is either
1. not a very good player, as he would have called with it himself 2. pretending not to be a very good player, and just saying it to make others believe it is a correct call.
the players listening will :
1. know that you will not have called if there was a raise, and thus the comment would have been meaningless 2. already have thought you would have called anyways, so the comment doesn't change anything anyway.
image is almost never important in the long run, as the good players will know approximately how you play and see through the image and advertising, and the bad players have no clue.
This is a pretty good post. Remember, most of the money you win will come from the bad players and many of them are totally unaware of what your image is.
aside, I'm curious why you raised on the river when a possible flush was out against you and not on the turn when you more than likely have the best ( but vulnerable) hand. Did you think your opponent had a set and you thought you had to bluff a flush to win the hand?
I question the raise as well. When typical players play a hand as you described, they usually have much better than top pair good kicker. Thus it seems to me that you only have a crying call.
How close is it between folding, calling and raising preflop here?
The reason I'm asking is I think I'm loosing money with this hand playing on Paradise but not in a casino. I have been folding this hand quite regularly on the internet. Any thoughts on this?
His flop play told me that he has either a set of 7's, A7 or a hand like AT/AJ/AQ. There was also a slight chance that he was on some kinda wild bluff. Of all these possibilities, a set seemed to make the most sense but with this particular player, AQ/AJ/AT could not be ruled out.
I chose not to raise on the turn for several reasons:
a. He might have a set or A7 given his play on the flop and I don't want to get three bet here if I only have 2 outs {barring some fluky event like running Queens which would see us split the pot if he had A7]. On the other hand, I can't be very sure that he has me beat. So, while I don't really want to raise here, I am not about to fold two pairs either. A raise might make sense if he is capable of folding a hand like AJ or AQ. But he would not do that here [nor should he].
b. As set out above, I felt that there was no chance that he would fold a hand like AQ or AJ. Further, I felt that he would bet no matter what card came on the end if he had a hand like AQ or AJ so I would have the option of raising the river anyway if I wanted to.
c. If the river card counterfeited my 2 pairs, I would save money by not having raised the turn. I would likely have folded to a river bet.
d. On the river, I felt that there was no chance that he would fold any made hand. So, my raise was only for value. I felt that there was a fair chance that I had the best hand and I felt that there was no way he would raise me back even if I was wrong. My raise is in a sense protected because it is highly unlikely that he has made a flush. While it is also highly unlikely that I have a flush, it is still not unlikely enough from his perspective to make it *three* bets. If the river card was an offsuit card, I would not have raised as then I am apt to be reraised by a set.
As for the image question, I think Doc is probably right although I think it is beter to have them think that you can call raises with A2s. This is because if the flop comes Axx, You want the preflop raiser to be afraid that you always have a chance of having an Ace on those occasions when he has raised with JJ or something. Some players I know can almost never make a pair of Aces on the flop if they call my preflop raise because I know that they will always either reraise or fold a hand with an Ace preflop.
I think it is telling that the comments where about pre-flop calling and not your turn call or river bets. there will always be many interpretations of a single call or bet - with different players reaching conflicting opinions about how you play. it would be some trick to be able to program your opponants to respond as you wished. perhaps it is the best we can do to know which players think you're too loose pre-flop, and which think you're too tight, and use that mis-conception against them. spitball
It's probably better if they think that you would call the raise since it shows that they don't understand how to play this game. Furthermore, if their understanding of hold 'em is that poor, it shouldn't matter very much what your image is. Just play solid poker and you will slowly get the money.
My feeling here is to reinforce their belief that you would call the raise, thus encouraging the other players to call raises with small kicker aces. Then they might not believe that you have a kicker when you DO call a raise and an ace flops. But most important I think is to reinforce the poor play of your opponents, secretly knowing that you would have folded Axs for a raise.
dave in cali
Consider the situation Chris described, but change it so that you are holding KK instead of 88. In other words, the SB open raises, you reraise (with KK), SB calls. Flop comes Axx, SB bets.
What is your battle plan?
I put my two cents worth on this exact topic in my reply to the "88 in BB" post below. Basicly a call is now better in this situation.
CV
with 4 limpers to the cut-off, his raise must be respected for a real hand IMO, thus I would have not re-raised but just called out of the BB, as you are out of position the rest of the hand. However, that being said I would re-raise occasionally with 99 especially if I was playing the same opponents all the time to vary my play a little (but not at all if the people I'm playing with wouldn't notice anyways)
I like your bet on the flop and can't believe everyone stays for his raise.
The action on the turn is confusing but it would not lead me to bet the river with all those players still live and a flush hitting on the river. Just check and see who leads at the pot. If one or more limpers come alive and the cutoff raises then your muck is probably in order, but in your situation you could have just checked and called the cutoff for the same money but get to see his hand and know for sure what he played
I have been struggling lately in my local 10-20 and 20-40 Hold'em game. I a trying to re-evaluate my play, and listed some of my questionable pre-flop decisions. Below, are 8 examples in which I would appreciate any comments and analysis.
Thanks in advance.
Jason.
1. I am the button with Kh,9h. Three limpers, and I raise.
2. I am in the cut-off seat with Ah,Qs. Two limpers, then 1 raise. I call. Button re-raises, 1 of the limpers call, and the original raiser caps it. I fold.
3. I am two off of the BB with Ad,10d. UTG folds, I call. Middle position raises. Cut-off calls. Dealer re-raises. BB Calls, I call.
4. I am two off of the button with Qh,Jh. 1 middle position limper, I raise. All others fold.
5. I am in the cut-off seat with Jc,10d. 2 early position callers, and one middle position caller. I call
6. I am in middle position with Pocket 8's. UTG calls, next player raises. One fold, and I fold.
7. I am in the Small Blind with Kd,3c. fold to me, and the Big Blind doesn't chop. I raise. He re-raises, I call.
8. I am 2 off of the button with As,9c. Guy before me calls, I call.
On hand #1, you should just limp in with King-Nine suited behind others instead of raising. You have a speculative drawing hand and want to see a flop as cheaply as possible. Your raise will also drive out the blinds which is not necessarily a good idea when you have a drawing hand like this plus it invites a re-raise which is the last thing you want.
On hand #2, your narrative is confusing since you were the original raiser than it must have been you that capped the betting. Regardless, your initial raise is fine and you can call when it is 3 bet behind you. However, if it 3 bet and then capped back to you then you should probably fold since you are most likely badly dominated.
On hand #3, your play is fine because you are suited.
On hand #4, you should not raise with Queen-Jack suited when someone limps in ahead of you. You should limp. Same rationale as hand #1.
On hand #5, your limp is fine from the cutoff with Jack-Ten offsuit.
On hand #6, your fold is fine when it is raised from early position after the UTG limps. You would need pocket Tens or better to call here.
On hand #7, your play is fine. If the flop misses you plan on checking and folding if he bets.
On hand #8, I don't view Ace-Nine offsuit as a playable hand normally and would fold but whether you choose to fold or limp is not a major poker decision.
Jim,
#2 You were confused by the number 1. It appeared to you as an I. There was a raise to me, and I called then it was capped by the time it got to me again.
#1 I realize the mistake. I think this is the clearest example of my bad pre-flop play. I know better.
#4 "4. I am two off of the button with Qh,Jh. 1 middle position limper, I raise. All others fold. "
How valuable is getting the button by this raise. Is Qh,Jh that bad of a hand with position against one limper. Is this play correct if the blinds are tight?
Thanks again for the valuable feedback.
Robert
With hand #1 I feel an important consideration is that you already have the button therefore a call is probably better.
I think the raise is o.k. with hand #4 when you have a good shot at isolating the limper and allow yourself to win with a bet on the flop when both of you miss. It depends on who you are trying to isolate.
On hand #4, it is not clear why you want isolate someone with a speculative hand like Queen-Jack suited. Again you want to limp in, take a flop cheaply, and hope to make a big hand with a lot of players tied in.If you raise, it could get re-raised and now you end up paying 3 bets to take a flop instead of one. This is not a short handed game but a full tabled game.
Jim,
You wrote: “On hand #3, your play is fine because you are suited.”
With Ad Td he is already in for one bet but is facing four opponents and two more bets with the likelihood (at least in Los Angeles with a three raise limit) of the action getting capped at four bets. I don't think being suited makes up for the inadequate high card strength, lack of position and problems of being dominated. Add a couple more opponents then Jason can play mostly for the flush.
”On hand #6, your fold is fine when it is raised from early position after the UTG limps. You would need pocket Tens or better to call here.”
I believe calling here is fine and expect my call to drag in at least one more caller, a blind and the original limper. That amounts to four opponents for two bets. If you play mostly for the set, I don't see that much difference between TT and 88 here. If there was no limper, then my call would be less likely to bring others in and the difference between TT and 88 would be magnified.
” On hand #7, your play is fine. If the flop misses you plan on checking and folding if he bets.”
If this is true then an astute opponent should always call you and always bet when you miss. Since the typical big blind will and should call you with most hands getting 3 to 1 with position this is a recipe for disaster.
Regards,
Rick
On hand #7 if your opponent is astute enough to know exactly how you will play in these situations and you therefore feel compelled to continue playing King-Trey offsuit even when the flop misses you then I recommend you simply fold this piece of cheese pre-flop and not even bother. If you are up against a player who is much better than you are, you should avoid getting into heads-up confrontations with him out of position without some semblance of a hand to fall back on.
Pre-flop play is probably the least important aspect of your game to concentrate on, given the examples you have listed. It's post-flop that generally separates the winners from the losers, but, for what it's worth, here's my reaction to your 8 examples:
1) Limp or fold would be better than a raise.
2) I agree with your initial raise and your fold to the two subsequent raises.
3) I would either fold (most of the time) with A-Ts or raise; once I limped and there were 2 raises behind me, I would fold.
4) Limp may be better, but raise is OK.
5) OK to limp with J-T behind 3 limpers. Most other posters will probably disagree, advising fold.
6) A clear fold following an UTG limp and a raise in front of you.
7) I would have just called, fearing a re-raise if I raised; I don't want to put 3 bets in out of position with K-3. Once your raised, however, go ahead and call the re-raise and hope to hit the flop.
8) Fold with A-9.
I note Jim Brier has responded before me; I haven't looked at his responses as yet (as a kind of self-test on my own choices), but whatever they are, you should respect his suggestions as a superior analyst. But I'd be more curious, and I think the other posters could help your game, if you let us know what happened in some of the situations on the flop and beyond. Again, this is where the money is.
Andy,
Thank you for your response. I agree with your comments about pre-flop vs. post-flop play. I am just trying to get back to basics. The first part of this re-evaluation project is Pre-Flop.
The more I look at #1, the more I see how boneheaded of a play it is, because I gain nothing with the raise.
I think that I will post another post about #3, because of the disagreement between you and Jim. I would like a little more clarification on this one.
Thanks again,
Jason
Jason:
Those things are what I exactly had on my mind when I suggested Sklansky and Mason's book HPFAP - the best book on the subject that will help you get firmly in grips with basics pre-folp and post-flop strategies.
For sure, I did not mean to hurt your feelings, or to sound condensending. Since you play medium limits poker, 10-20 and 20-40 Hold'em, you might as well plug the leaking holes in your game and start playing it with the winning strategies.
Good luck!
See Rick Nebiolo and Dunc Mills below for good analyses on #3.
Here are my suggestions for your scenarios:
1. just call don't raise, you have a marginal hand; 2. good fold; 3. i would probably fold but close between call or fold. If you call you need two pair or a flush; 4. just call don't raise; 5. fold; 6. good fold; 7. fold - fold before raising, don't try to steal with this garbage; 8. marginal call, would depend on the players to your left. Never a bad play to fold this hand.
Jason:
The best advice I can offer is that you re-visit Sklansky and Mason's book, Holde'em Poker for Advanced Players from 2+2 Publishing Co. Study and re-study the book until you gain solid knowledge of the game. Once you reach this point, discipline yourself to play tight aggressive style. Gradually, learn to adopt your playing style according to you table opponents.
There is no two ways about it. The best way to safeguard your money at the poker table is to attain advanced game skills so as to enable you to make sound decisions during the play.
Good luck!
Ivan,
I am also re-reading/studying S & M's starting requirements in conjunction with these questions. Sometimes the format of HFAP makes this sort of line of questioning useful to me.
I will also attempt to add some player details, but I am interested in some general questions in the begining.
I don't think that you were trying to belittle me. I understand what you were saying, and I have been doing what you suggested already. I have been a lurker for a while, and I know that you guys get the same questions over and over. Also, most of those questions could be answered,"look at page blah, blah, in The Theory of Poker/HFAP". But, as stated above, a different, more conversational Q and A format for specifics is good for me.
Thanks
just one comment on #7,
if the small blind is a decent/solid player and he limps you should be very suspicious of a big hand.
Boris,
I was in the small blind, and I raised with K,3 Offsuit in order to steal. My intention was to hit the flop or get out.
Jason
If he doesn't want to chop I probably would have folded. There are a few reasons. If I hit a 3 I can't be too happy with it, the guy might have peeked at his cards and had a good hand, and it's almost certain that my opponent will put a lot of pressure on me while I have a crummy hand (even heads up).
my bad. next time I'll try and read the post before responding.
All,
There seems to be some discrepency between what to do on Pre-flop play #3
3. I am two off of the BB with Ad,10d. UTG folds, I call. Middle position raises. Cut-off calls. Dealer re-raises. BB Calls, I call.
My first call is with the intention of getting in cheaply in a multi-way pot. However, when it comes back to me three-bet, I have a very tough decision, because of the number of callers.
The pot is giving me 11.5 to 2 on the call that will likely grow to 13.5 to 2. However, the pot could get capped(which is less likely because I have 1 Ace and there are so many callers) and reduce my price a tad.
Assume the most likely scenario of 13.5 to 2 odds, with heavy implied odds for a Flush or unlikely other winning hands like trip tens and the miracle straight, and isn't this call correct?
I think that a raise this early with this hand might only be good in an attempt to advertise. This seems like dangerous business to me.
I thint that the first choice is a clear fold or call depending on the game, and then the second decision is the one that I need clarification on.
Thanks,
Jason
You are out of position to both of the pre flop raisers. It is a multiway pot, but you can count on action post flop, making your drawing hand possibly very expensive.
I believe that this hand may be worth a call, but expect high variance.
Jason,
I won't look at the other answers before posting my thoughts. I definitely would be interested in what others think. Anyway, here goes.
”1. I am the button with Kh,9h. Three limpers, and I raise.”
This is a speculative hand that wants to see the flop cheaply. It isn't even that good a call against opponent's who tend to limp with better kings. Note that a raise will attract at least one blind most of the time and you will end up with four opponents without much high card strength. I do think it is usually worth a call pre flop though but you usually must not call early position bets post flop with just top pair here.
”2. I am in the cut-off seat with Ah,Qs. Two limpers, then 1 raise. I call. Button re-raises, 1 of the limpers call, and the original raiser caps it. I fold.”
This is close and completely depends on your opponents. You are already in for half of the total bets and f they are loose or maniacs you will usually be in decent shape. Against tough players a fold is probably right.
”3. I am two off of the BB with Ad,10d. UTG folds, I call. Middle position raises. Cut-off calls. Dealer re-raises. BB Calls, I call.”
Here you fold. If the game was usually this aggressive you should not have limped in the first place. If it was passive now you are up against hand(s) that usually dominate you and you are paying too high a price to call. Also note it could easily be three more bets.
”4. I am two off of the button with Qh,Jh. 1 middle position limper, I raise. All others fold.”
Once again you can expect to be up against two or three opponents since you will often get one behind you to call as well as one blind. Sometimes you will face a reraise. You have a speculative hand that does not quite have enough high card strength to go to the river it doesn't hit. If you only occasionally raised with this hand then it would be OK but since you seem to have a pattern of over-aggression and opponents will usually check you out. One of then is almost sure to have more high card strength or a pair which will give you problems.
”5. I am in the cut-off seat with Jc,10d. 2 early position callers, and one middle position caller. I call”
This is a marginal call at best. I would not call with any worse unsuited garbage here. With the button and one or two more limpers I would call with slightly worse offsuit hands but I could easily be talked out of it.
”6. I am in middle position with Pocket 8's. UTG calls, next player raises. One fold, and I fold.”
Surprise! I call here. You should end up with about four or five opponents for two bets most of the time and this makes money merely going for the set (even three opponents are enougt). There was a thread started by MJS last August that did not get enough attention since it was posted just before the forum was split and new threads were scrolling down out of sight within a day or so. We should revisit this one soon as I think some play too tight in this spot.
”7. I am in the Small Blind with Kd,3c. fold to me, and the Big Blind doesn't chop. I raise. He re-raises, I call.”
Even for a call this is playable (in a 20/40 structure) only against a weak opponent who will not pressure you without a real hand. Note that a smart opponent will at least call most of the time. And he should call since there are few hands you could hold that are greater than a three to one favorite over most of his hands and he has position.
”8. I am 2 off of the button with As,9c. Guy before me calls, I call.”
Terrible call. A9 offsuit either wins a little or loses a lot here. Play this hand for blind steals and against weak opponents on the button and even then it is not much of a hand if others have already limped.
I hope I haven't been too harsh but these were good questions and I tried my best on them.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I have a few small disagreements or comments about your preflop advice:
”2. I am in the cut-off seat with Ah,Qs. Two limpers, then 1 raise. I call. Button re-raises, 1 of the limpers call, and the original raiser caps it. I fold.”
I don't care for the initial call here. The raiser will usually have a superior hand, and multiway action is very likely (big offsuit cards generally prefer fewer opponents). Against reasonable players, I would fold.
”4. I am two off of the button with Qh,Jh. 1 middle position limper, I raise. All others fold.”
I agree with what you wrote. However, I think a raise would often be profitable from the button or cut-off positions, especially with weak-tight or loose-bad players in the blinds. I might also raise several limpers from late position in a passive game.
”6. I am in middle position with Pocket 8's. UTG calls, next player raises. One fold, and I fold.”
Well, I'm still not positive that 3 opponents would be profitable "merely going for the set", but 88 also has a bit of overpair potential. I would call here as well, unless the raiser was solid AND the game was very tight-aggressive. [Thanks for the citation BTW.]
”8. I am 2 off of the button with As,9c. Guy before me calls, I call.”
I agree that this call is usually a mistake, but not usually a "terrible" one. The magnitude of the error depends on the position of the limper (which I interpreted to be 3 off the button), as well as the playing characteristics of the limper and the remaining opponents. I think one can often profitably call or raise with A9o from the cut-off or button against an LLL (lone loose limper :-).
Regards,
The Poster Formerly Known as MJS
Mike,
I have some comments on your “disagreements or comments” on my comments regarding the initial post (say that fast) : -).
From the initial post ”2. I am in the cut-off seat with Ah,Qs. Two limpers, then 1 raise. I call. Button re-raises, 1 of the limpers call, and the original raiser caps it. I fold.”
Your comment: I don't care for the initial call here. The raiser will usually have a superior hand, and multiway action is very likely (big offsuit cards generally prefer fewer opponents). Against reasonable players, I would fold.
My re-comment: I think the ability to fold AQ (i.e., the “AQ test” a la John Feeney) against a raise refers primarily to an early raise by a very solid player combined with many cold callers. A raise from middle to late position usually means a wider variety of hands, many of which do not dominate AQ. But a fold would be prudent against a very tight raiser.
Initial post: ”4. I am two off of the button with Qh,Jh. 1 middle position limper, I raise. All others fold.”
You: I agree with what you wrote. However, I think a raise would often be profitable from the button or cut-off positions, especially with weak-tight or loose-bad players in the blinds. I might also raise several limpers from late position in a passive game.
Me: I agree with all the above except I'm a little more likely to raise from the cutoff rather than the button.
Initial Post: ”6. I am in middle position with Pocket 8's. UTG calls, next player raises. One fold, and I fold.”
You: Well, I'm still not positive that 3 opponents would be profitable "merely going for the set", but 88 also has a bit of overpair potential. I would call here as well, unless the raiser was solid AND the game was very tight-aggressive. [Thanks for the citation BTW.]
Me: I also want to work the math and analysis when time permits (and sometimes I think it never will) and I am not sure three opponents are enough. I agree that eight has straight and overpair potential. In addition, I am pretty sure if Jason calls he will drag in additional opponents and get at four or five opponents more often than not.
Initial Post: ”8. I am 2 off of the button with As,9c. Guy before me calls, I call.”
You: ”I agree that this call is usually a mistake, but not usually a "terrible" one. The magnitude of the error depends on the position of the limper (which I interpreted to be 3 off the button), as well as the playing characteristics of the limper and the remaining opponents. I think one can often profitably call or raise with A9o from the cut-off or button against an LLL (lone loose limper :-).”
Me: Your position and the type of opponent make a big difference here. If two players are yet to act behind you then a raise will not clear them out often enough to isolate the limper. Against a weak limper in an un-raked game (a dead button drop would be effectively un-raked from a strategic standpoint) I like the raise with A9 or even A8 offsuit as long as the limper is loose and the blind(s) tight.
Regards,
Rick
Where I seem to have been furthest from the norm is on #8. I agree with you that calling is poor; I guess I have to rethink whether I want to get involved at all with this hand. You're right; it's either win a little or lose a lot, so why get in at all? If I do raise, anybody that calls has me beat for sure.
I think raising in #4 can't be all bad all the time, though. I can see the merits of limping, too.
I'm going to print this off and give it to my student this afternoon to see how he would respond.The hands he's laid down lately, it's probably Fold, Fold, Fold ,Fold, Fold, Fold, Fold, and Fold.
Dunc,
In a raked game I think #8 is probably a fold. You will have only one or two opponents and the potential overlay may be eaten up by the drop from the pot. In a time charge or "dead drop" game (as we have in Los Angeles county), it probably a call, since the rake does not affect the size of the pot.
Note that the rake becomes a significant factor on close decisions when you have one or few opponents and less so in a mult-way pot.
Regards,
Rick
Cool. A post-Christmas Jim Brier type mini-quiz. I will be interested in seeing how my responses, based on my background primarily in 3-6 to 6-12, compares with mid-limit players like Jim and Rick.
1. Call. Decent hand to get in for 1 bet in late position. Raise is high variance.
2. Fold. Raiser is marked with a good hand having popped two early position callers. Classic A-Q trap hand situation.
3. Fold. Calling from early position with A-Ts is probably OK in a passive game, but dangerous in a rammin'-jammin'style that this sounds like. You are badly dominated here, and likely facing another 2 or 3 bets to see the flop. And you're going to be trapped in the middle post-flop getting whipsawed. Bail out NOW.
4. OK with this call. The middle position limper is first in and didn't show any great strength, so trying to put pressure on the player to your left, and the blinds, is OK with this holding. I would prefer to play it multi-way for 1 bet, but in this scenario, I think the hand has enough high card strength to warrant a raise.
5. OK. Pretty standard, I think.
6. OK. You have two early position players who have shown some strength, and several players left to act behind you. You limp in, it gets re-raised, or limp-reraised by UTG, and then where are you? Yuck. Bail now.
7. Unless you read the BB as a weak player who will not defend his blinds to a raise, I would question the wisdom of getting involved here. Assuming this is 10-20 with a 5-10 blind, you're in for $5. Big deal. Give the guy your nickel, and save the high variance money for the upcoming hands when you are in late position and can attack with a better hand in better position.
8. I agreed with your raise in #4 with QJs. In this case, I would raise before I would call, or I might even dump it if I got a tell from my left that somebody was getting ready to come in, but calling is out of the question, IMO. I would vote Raise #1, Fold a distant 2nd, and calling waaaay back in 3rd.
Now I'll take a look to see how my opinions stack up with the field.
I haven't read any of the other responses, but here goes.
1. I am the button with Kh,9h. Three limpers, and I raise.
Bad raise. Just call. You like seeing the flop with multiple players and position. This hand needs pot odds to do anything, so see the flop cheap if you can.
2. I am in the cut-off seat with Ah,Qs. Two limpers, then 1 raise. I call. Button re-raises, 1 of the limpers call, and the original raiser caps it. I fold.
Good fold. Somebody had AA,KK, QQ or at least AK.
3. I am two off of the BB with Ad,10d. UTG folds, I call. Middle position raises. Cut-off calls. Dealer re-raises. BB Calls, I call. The call is marginal but a 5 handed pot with 13 bets in it already is worth calling. As long as you are good enough to get away from an A high flop if you need to.
4. I am two off of the button with Qh,Jh. 1 middle position limper, I raise. All others fold. Limp with this hand. don't raise. This is another hand that needs pot odds and likes to have a lot of players in the pot.
5. I am in the cut-off seat with Jc,10d. 2 early position callers, and one middle position caller. I call
Routine. You have great position and can see the flop cheap with a hand that can make a monster.
6. I am in middle position with Pocket 8's. UTG calls, next player raises. One fold, and I fold.
There is much debate about what to do in this situation. Let's just say you could call, reraise, or fold depending on the situation.
7. I am in the Small Blind with Kd,3c. fold to me, and the Big Blind doesn't chop. I raise. He re-raises, I call. Routine. It all depends on the player. I wouldn't have raised. If you catch the K you might get action from middle pair if he thinks you would have raised with a king. I would have seen the flop for cheap. You have position so you're not giving up much since he didn't raise.
8. I am 2 off of the button with As,9c. Guy before me calls, I call.
A9o is a trap hand. There are 5 people to act behind you. Fold or raise. If you get cold-called or reraised, you know what to do. By calling, you might get trapped if you flop an A.
natedogg
Sounds like he raised for value & a free card on the flop. My instinct when an unknown player raises on the flop, there are 3 or more players, and there is a flush draw out there that there is a pretty good chance he is on a draw. Many players will wait until the turn to raise a strong hand, but will fire away with flush draws on the cheap street, especially in looser games where they get many callers who unwittingly build a pot (with 2 or more callers, these bets are essentially free), especially if they think they can get a free card.
I assume that you would have called a bet on the turn. Therefore, why not bet out on the turn assuming a blank hits? If the player is on a flush draw, you make him pay. If he has an overpair to yours, he will likely raise -- you can probably fold to the raise unless your hand improves.
I wouldn't 3-bet the flop w/o a very strong hand; it is possible that you are behind, and you may as well take one off as cheaply as possible to see if your hand can be improved.
If there is no raise on the turn, and the flush hits on the river, check and call most of the time but sometimes check and fold (you don't want to pay off every obvious flush, but you also can't become a target for the more observant players).
-NW Card Hack
Thanks. I can see my river bet was not very good. I put him on everything but a flush draw. Hindsight being 20/20 I was domed, a river c/c would have brought the SB as well. I don't think she lied.
I been trying to use overaggression in larger games where I'm unknown because I tend to respect that type play from non-pro's. Going to have to slow this way down with mid overpairs..thanks again !
I would absolutley have called. I don't know if I ould have actually bet out but seeing that you did I would have called the raise with an overpair. I don't know if the cutoff had KK, he played it very strange if he did. I would put him on a flush but make the crying call to keep him honest.
Blinds are $20 and $30, I'm on the button with KQo. Suits are unimportant to the play of the hand.
EP (early position) player limps, terrible player, and was run over the night before... YP (young player) to his immediate left raises. YP has been raising and reraising many marginal hands, has shown erratic play, is stuck. I call on the button with KQo. I know this is marginal. We take the flop 3 handed, $230 in the pot.
Flop comes Q95 rainbow. All checked to me, I bet. EP calls, YP raises. I 3 bet it trying to isolate. EP calls 2, and YP 4 bets. I call, as does EP. $590 in the pot. Turn brings and off suit 6. EP checks, YP bets, I call, EP raises to $120. YP now calls. There is now $890 in the pot. What is your play here and why?
SLW
I think this is crazy play! EP sucks! EP either has a straight (78) or two pair (Q6) on the turn - that's the only way I can rationalize him playing so weak and calling multiple raises on the flop. YP could have a lot of holdings (especially if he was simply trying to isolate EP) - probably has AQ. You're getting better than 13-1 to call. But you have no clean outs - a K might put you on top but might make someone else a straight - a Q might put you on top but not if YP has AQ - I would fold. Of course EP could just be tilting and have nothing but a draw on the end.
Fold.
You are most likely drawing dead as EP has cold called 2 bets before the flop and called the cap before the flop. His check and check-raise on the turn signals a very strong hand. He either has the set or got really lucky and turned the straight.
It is not likely he is putting on a semi-bluff since you said the suited cards of of unimportance in this particular hand. Plus YP has shown so much strength that a check-raise bluff is useless here.
The Fish
I'll venture an opinion. You're against to hard to read players that play badly. You've put a lot of money in this pot and have a decent shot at winning it. There is a decent chance that they are both overplaying their hands and I think you are pot stuck here so I would call the turn bet and call any river bet.
Your call pre flop was marginal and you realized this. Given your description of the raiser I probably call here too.
On the flop you were check raised by the pre-flop raiser. This is a big red flag but you drove right thru it. He then 4 bets. You must realize that your at least 2nd best now. You call his re-raise hoping to spike a K (which may complete a str8 draw), a Q, J or 10.
Why do you call the bet on the turn? There are many ways you're drawing dead or near dead. Muck it here. Calling the raise by the early player is throwing away another$120.
When playing a marginal hand it's important to play well post flop. You lost way too much here.
"EP (early position) player limps, terrible player, and was run over the night before... YP (young player) to his immediate left raises. YP has been raising and reraising many marginal hands, has shown erratic play, is stuck. I call on the button with KQo. I know this is marginal. We take the flop 3 handed, $230 in the pot."
I think that this call is very marginal. It can only be correct if the raiser is a very loose raiser. Remember, even though he is losing, he is still in an early position and should be aware that there are many players to act behind him.
"Flop comes Q95 rainbow. All checked to me, I bet. EP calls, YP raises. I 3 bet it trying to isolate."
Why do you want to isolate? Given the way this hand has been played, there is a good chance you do not have the best hand, so why not let the live one in.
"EP calls 2, and YP 4 bets. I call, as does EP. $590 in the pot. Turn brings and off suit 6. EP checks, YP bets, I call, EP raises to $120. YP now calls. There is now $890 in the pot. What is your play"
I think you should fold. There is a good chance you are drawing dead.
YP was a very loose raiser, 3 betting hands like A10s, small pocket pairs, and playing very weak post flop. Anyhow, I thought I could out play him on the flop, and thats what warranted my call.
When EP check-raised the turn, I thought I could be drawing dead, as he could have made his straight on the turn, plus I wasn't sure either a K or Q was a clean out, and so I folded. River brought another Q, and they both checked it down. EP showed 96s, for 2 pair, but was counterfeited on the river. YP showed AA and took the pot.
I strongly believe folding was the right play. If I knew YP had AA to begin with, I would have never made the call pre-flop. Oh well... that's poker!
Thanks all for your insight.
I agree with MM that the call pre-flop was very marginal. Against the hands that you mention that the YP was raising with, you are still an underdog. You do have position, and you do think you can outplay him after the flop, but I think that the presence of the other player and the possibility that the big blind will call reduces the value of being able to "outplay" anyone. Also, if you really felt this way, why did'nt you reraise pre-flop to try to isolate him?
As it happened, you ended up in one of the few situations where you actually had adequate outs to continue past the turn. I agree with the fold though, because there are so many situations where you could be drawing dead or to two outs.
What this hand shows is that when you start with marginal hands you tend to get in to very difficult situations post-flop, which is why I try to avoid getting involved in this sort of situation in the first place.
Possibility #1. You are playing against certified imbeciles and you have the best hand; even if this is so (and it is almost impossible for me to see how it could be), there is not a card in the deck that will allow you to do anything other than call. In other words, THEY have complete control of the hand; your effective odds are at best 8-1 since it is a virtual certainty that it will cost you at least one more bet to see this hand through.
Possibility #2. You are currently behind, and have either five, three, or two outs - five if you are up against AA and a draw, three if you are up against AQ and a draw (or AQ and Q9), or two if you are up against AA and KK (or KK and a draw). It's impossible to imagine a scenario in which you are behind but have more five outs, unless you start fantasizing about being up against a draw (JT or T8 - both of which are now open-ended straight draws), and a counterfeitable two pair - if this were so (and if it is, don't leave this game until you fall off your chair from exhaustion), you could have as many as nine outs if you are facing a tilt-induced Q5.
Possibility #3. You are drawing dead to either a set or a turned gutshot.
The obvious paradox - which I'm sure you noticed - is that there is almost enough in the pot to chase a two-outer, there is enough to chase a three outer, but the fact that you could be (and IMO probably are) drawing dead makes it impossible for you to justify a call.
If I guaranteed you that you had exactly three outs you would have a reasonable (if unspectacular) call. If I told you there was an equal (1/3) chance of your having 5, 3, or zero outs, you couldn't call because there is still another round of betting to come - a round that will "cost" you money regardless of the outcome since you won't be able to get any value out of your hand even when you hit it.
I don't usually offer advice to 30-60 players - not because they are necessarily more skilled than me, but because the game bears almost no resemblance to the games in which I can be found (3-6 to 10-20 with an occasional session of 15-30. I look for the best game in the room; I have never found the 30-60 to be it).
Here I feel qualified to speak;
FOLD...
and think about whether KQ/off is a hand you want to be calling raises with. "Hot and cold" it is probably a profitable call (against the players you described); the problem is the three rounds of betting that follow the call.
I hope it worked out; now I'm going to read the other responses.
P.S. I don't know how you did for the sesson, but it certainly sounds as if you picked the right game.
J-D
- I just read the results -
1. I never gave any serious consideration to the possbility of you having this many [five] outs; I've heard of people playing 96 in early position at these stakes, I've just never actually seen it.
2. This was almost the best scenario you could have hoped for and still your fold was only a small-medium mathmatical error. (In round numbers, you turned down ~ a 15-1 payoff on ~ a 7.5-1 shot, and the size of the error was only this large if you had absolutely no intention of paying off on the river if you had failed to improve. If you were planning to call had you failed to improve, you gave up nothing by folding.)
3. I did manage to get at least one thing right - this must have been a great game.
I hope you still know you did the right thing; given the betting sequence I would have given you a 1 in 4 chance of having ANY outs, a 1 in 100 chance of having this many.
Reading hands is tough; predicting the future is pretty much impossible.
I'll bet "9,6" is still whining about his bad-beat; if you had called he could have taken two of them in the same hand.
J-D
I think I would have discarded after YP made it 4-bets on the flop, pretty clear that he thinks he´s got you. You can also call with the intention of folding if YP bets and you don´t improve on turn, if he checks then you should too.
Given the relative weakness of your hand I would've check raised on the flop if everyone checked to the cut-off. The betting action from the cutoff is consistent with him holding big suited connectors. with the pot this big I would make a crying call on the river.
from the cut-off's point of view you played this hand perfectly, FOR HIM. you helped him build a large pot on the flop when he has great odds, and you let him have a free card on the turn. if the cut-off had a big, unsuited ace his play, IMHO, was not very good.
I raised in late position w/55 and was called by a loose/aggressive BB. We saw a flop of 833r.
He bet, I raised, he re-raised, I called. The turn was an 8.
He checked, I bet, he raised, I re-raised, he called. The river was a 9. He checked, I checked to beat AQ.
Did I miss a bet on the river?
I think you maximized your profit on the hand. I don't think I would have bet the river either. Obviously you had a good read on your opponent, because with a more rational opponent I think you are history.
Bruce
I'm in a 10-20 hold em game, full table. I open for a raise UTG with JcJs. The player to my immediate left calls and everyone else folds including the BB(yes the game has gotten tight). This player plays fairly solid, he would probably call my raise with any pair above 5's and any high suited cards such as kq at ect.
The flop is Ts Qh 4d. I bet and he calls. I've played with this player on several occasions and had the flop missed him he would have dumped. So he either has a Q, T, or reasonable draw ie KJ, AK is also a possibility.
The turn is a 9h. If I check he will bet his draws as well as his made hands. What is my play?
The math suggests to check and call. There is 75 dollars in the pot before the turn action. If you check and he bets you are getting almost 5-1 for your call to the open ender.
I can't see what hands a solid player would have here except for TT or QQ and he is slowplaying you on the flop. I think he would have raised a flop bet with AQ and I don't see him calling a UTG raise in early position with KQ, KJ, AT, and such.
I vote to check and call and see what the river brings.
you should check. you are probably behind and you might get a free card.
Depending on how he plays, a check raise may be better. I will let others elaborate.
I considered the check-raise semi-bluff but I don't think it would work in this situation. you would be able to push someone off of top pair, if they bet. I don't think a solid player would bet top pair. they are either on a draw or have a set. If they have a draw they will not fold to the check-raise and if they have a set they just might raise you right back and not many players will take a set to the river and then fold. I agree that K-J is unlikely here. If Doug is a loose goose and will raise UTG with with hands like K-J suited then he just might be able to make the check-raise work. just my 2 sense
I imagine the checkraise would be good if you put your opponent on AA or KK?
Doug,
Of course I haven’t looked at the other answers yet. If you are right about your opponent’s playing habits I think you should check. Since he bets his made hands AND his draws you must call with second pair and a draw of your own. You will call the river almost no matter what and bet out if you make your straight. This saves money when you are beat (you avoid a turn raise which you must call) and has little downside since he will charge himself for his draws by betting anyway. If he has little your turn check may get him to pay off a river bet with a hand like ace high or a pair of tens.
Regards,
Rick
I'd like feedback on two hands I just took part in during a loose 20-40 game.
Hand #1
7 handed game, 2 folds, a call, I raise with AJs, button folds, sb folds, bb calls, limper calls..$130 in pot. Flop is Jc 8h 6s. Check, check, I bet, call, call. $190 in pot. Turn comes Ad. Check, bet, I raise, BB folds. Limper thinks a while and makes it 3 bets. I consider a reraise but just call fearing a set. $430 in the pot. River is a 4. Limper bets out. Comments?
Hand #2 Same 7 handed game. I raise UTG with KdKh, loose player 2 seats downstream calls, SB folds, BB calls. Flop is 3 8 K. BB bets out. I decide to slowplay as the guy is so loose/aggressive Im pretty sure he will juice it up for me. So I smooth call and sure enough the loose player bumps it. BB ditches and I make it 3 bets. Loose guy calls. Pot is $270. Turn comes a Ac making 2 clubs on board. I bet out and am raised as the guy says he is sorry but he "got there". I put the guy on ace-rags up and bump it again. He calls. Pot is now $510 and I am licking my chops. River comes 4x. I bet and get raised again. Commets? Results in a bit.
on the first one, i think youre better off putting your three better on a A-rag two pair. however i dont see what good a reraise will do you on the turn, as if he does have a set youre screwed of course. might as well just call the river as well. a raise will just get you reraised if he's on a set.. not worth the risk in this particular case.
as for the second hand i think the best policy is to just keep raising as much as he'll let you. your read of him having two pair is smart and the only hand he can have that beats you is AA. we know he doesnt have that. (apologies if by some fluke he did).
im guessing you made a lot of money at this table.
LOOSE 20-40 GAME: .
Hand One...I would of just have just called before the flop, but raising is ok. The flop bet was fine. When the Ace came on the turn you have to believe you have the best hand. Most loose players would have raised pre flop with AA JJ 88. You might run into 66, but those are the breaks. I think you should raise, because you are playing with loose players. If the board pairs you can always check the river...
Hand Two: A loose players said he just got there he could have anything. It's a Sin not to raise again on the turn with your set. All loose players would have reraised pre flop with AA....
Hand one. You have to pay off the set (if he does have one.) On the river, I would just call and not raise.
Hand two. RAISE and RAISE till the cows come home. On the turn, if he says he got there..he proably has Aces up. Any loose or tight player would 3 bet pre-flop with AA.
The Fish
In the first hand, I kind of had a bad feeling as this player and I know each other fairly well and he tends to slow down a bit on the later streets, but I never saw the set of aces coming. He could not build a hand better for getting paid.
Hand #2 left me flabbergasted. I dont think Ive ever seen a hand like that before. I am at least happy to report that the player who cracked me on this hand would up dropping about $2000 in a bit over 90 minutes. I walked away after 2 hours up exactly $10. However, I could buy a new car with the expected value I gained in the session!
hand 1 - I lose to set of aces hand 2 - 25s makes the wheel!
Hand #1....I lose to a set of aces...ouch!
Hand #2....Brace yourself...the guy turns over 25s
Now what do you think?
Steve,
I think I'd play it the same way as I described in my post, keep plenty of chips in front of me, and plan on playing a little overtime as long as these two were in the game.
Regards,
Rick
.
First hand: It’s hard to say what a loose limper “thinking a while” on the turn means but my guess is that the ace made him aces up or he already had two pair. I would reraise on the turn. Of course, two pair will normally just call and call your river bet. But even a set would tend to be about 50/50 to call versus reraise so three betting is not as dangerous as you might think.
Having called the turn I would raise the river when the blank comes. If reraised I make a crying call (you did say your opponents were loose). In general I think you need to milk top two pair when there is no draw out and avoid irrational fear of a set against loose opponents.
Second Hand: On the second hand your opponent could gave been cute with two aces but he is a big favorite to have a smaller set or two pair. I would reraise on the river and just call one more raise.
Regards,
Rick
Rick..thanks for your feedback...This game got pretty irrational at times but that is how we make money in the long run (that is what I tell myself at tleast). I was ok getting beaten by the aces (it is not fun to have top 2 and be drawing completely dead, but it happens). Im still reeling from the 25s straight on the river.
I haven't read the results yet, but I'd say both times you were against Aces up and should have reraised as much as possible. I think that you seriously misplayed Hand #1 on the turn and should have popped it again.
natedogg
My best friend, my hyper-aggressive student and I have all taken the quiz and this is one post flop question where we all disagreed with Jim. I searched some of the archives and I don't think this one has been covered yet. If it has, well, we have a lot of new posters who might get something out of this post.
The following is from Jim's second document that repeats the question and explains his rational. Note that you are in seat three and it is a “typical” ten-handed 10/20 game.
>> 56. The big blind is in Seat #8. Only Seat #9 and #10 call to you. You call with the Queen of Hearts and the Ten of Hearts. Seat #4 calls. Seat #5 raises to $20. Everyone folds to Seat #9 who calls. Everyone else calls including yourself. There is $115 in the pot and five players.
The flop is: Nine of Hearts, Seven of Diamonds, Three of Clubs
Everyone checks.
The turn is: Two of Spades
Everyone checks.
The river is: Ten of Spades
Seat #9 and Seat #10 both check. Do you bet or check?
Answer: (Check=2, Bet=0) This situation comes up often and it is highly instructive. This is a classic case of a worse hand not calling but a better hand always calling. After the turn, nobody had anything not even top or medium pair. But you do have four opponents taking the flop and getting free board cards. If a Ten helped anyone, it probably helped them more If than you. It could easily give someone a straight, two pair, or even a pair with a better kicker than yours. If it didn't help anyone, no one will call if you bet. Adding to your woes is the possibility of getting raised by one of the two opponents yet to act. A check is your only play. <<
We all said bet and my friend (a long time 15/30 to 20/40 Los Angeles holdem player) circled bet three times, which means he felt it was a strong bet. Here are my thoughts:
Jim wrote above: ”After the turn, nobody had anything not even top or medium pair.”
Not necessarily. Although a mediocre top pair would usually bet the turn when a blank comes, middle pair or worse may not into four opponents. With a board of 9h 7d 3c 2s the only semi-bluffing hands without a pair are 86, 54 and T8. Whether they would bet or not is questionable.
”If a Ten helped anyone, it probably helped them more If than you. It could easily give someone a straight…”
The only straight a ten would make is if someone held a J8 or an 86. Both hands are rarely played at this limit against four opponents and the second may have semi-bluffed the turn. I think the fear of a straight is unreasonable.
”…two pair…”
Not likely. A playable two pair that would not have bet the flop would have at least bet the turn. The only two pair that would concern me is T7 and that is rarely played.
”…or even a pair with a better kicker than yours.”
This may be true but they certainly won't raise your bet (except perhaps AT) and you will have to call anyway unless there is a call or raise in between the bettor and you.
”If it didn't help anyone, no one will call if you bet.”
All kinds of hands will call that would or may not have bet yet. Ace high, one of the bottom three pairs (usually with an ace), a smallish pair afraid to bet against two overcards, and worse tens such as JT and T8.
” Adding to your woes is the possibility of getting raised by one of the two opponents yet to act.”
Anything is possible but the only raising hands to fear are AT, J8, and 86. I don't think a KT raises and not all AT's will.
”A check is your only play.”
Now that I've worked this out I also feel it is a strong bet. Jim's quiz is instructive and I agree with most of his analysis. However, this one all three of us disagreed, although it should be noted we play in Los Angeles, which has a style all its own.
What does everyone else think?
Regards,
Rick
I didn't read all of your post, but I think the answer has to do with the tendency of your opponents. Some players in this spot will call with an ace. Other players in this spot just can't resist not trying to steal it. (Note: Normally, in a multiway pot when someone bets on the end they are not stealing. But this case is different since there has been no bet for two rounds indicating that no one has anything.)
So my decision would be based on how close to the two previous extremes my opponents are. Also note that if only one of my opponents is close to one of these extremes that might be enough to sway my thinking.
Well, I got that one right so I agree with Jim. Essentially, my thinking for circling "check" was the same as his.
That said, I too have some other ones I would like to discuss and was planning on posting a couple tonight. Hopefully, all of these threads will start some interesting discussion.
If "typical" 10-20 players are assumed to be somewhat tight/reasonable, then I agree with checking. The chance of being called (or raised) by a superior hand exceeds the chance of being called by an inferior hand IMO. If you are called by another player with a ten, you are likely to be outkicked since a T8 or JT would often bet the flop and/or turn (making it more likely that the caller has KT or AT). Regarding calls from smaller pairs, a decent (or aggressive) player would be more likely to bet their underpair on the turn than to call a river bet after checking all the way.
I went to bed after posting this and woke up in the middle of a series of nightmares, which is untypical for me (the nightmares, not the waking up). I realize that my nightmares were caused by the fact that I forgot to include the prelude to Jim's quiz, which defines the "typical" game. The typical game Jim speaks of may not be typical of what I usually play in Los Angeles. Anyway, the following is the prelude to Jim's quiz:
The purpose of the quiz is to test the soundness of your playing technique when playing in a ten-handed, limit hold-em game. The quiz consists of 58 problems ranging from pre-flop play, to play on the flop, on the turn, and at the river. For each problem, your choice is to check, fold, call, or raise. Circle your choice as appropriate. Assume a typical $10-$20 game with a $5 small blind and a $10 big blind. There is a limit of three raises per round unless only two players remain in which case the raises are unlimited until one player has to go all in. The seats are numbered with the #1 seat to the dealer's immediate left and the #10 seat to his immediate right. You are always in Seat #3.
Assume that the game is typical, not extremely aggressive or overly passive. Player tells, mannerisms, and psychology are not taken into consideration in this quiz.
The quiz is not designed to be tricky or especially difficult but rather it presents some very common situations you are likely to run into over an 8-10 hour playing session. You should try to answer each question in the same amount of time you would use if you were at the table.”
I haven't read the responses yet. I need to get back to sleep and looking at them might keep me up till dawn PST.
Regards,
Rick
Value betting is tricky enough as it is without adding marginal, at best, situations. What is the EV of betting? If it's positive I bet it isn't very positive and it could ruin your psychological frame of mind if you get raised or even if you lose to a better Ten. So why bet? I know why. Because I'm tired of Brier being right all the time. So I say bet and the hell with all that Karma gunk.
vince
Vince,
I agree that this isn't a huge value bet. My guess is that you would have a better hand when called about 60% to 65% of the time, however you would be raised by AT, J8, and 86 along with anyone capable of a river bluff raise.
Who mentioned "Karma Junk", or should I ask what is it? I'm just trying to improve my score so I don't feel like such a nitwit compared to all the others on the forum. After all, on Jim's quiz you get points taken away for wrong answers. Which is sort of like poker, except money is taken away.
Regards,
Rick
"feel like such a nitwit "
Rick,
Since you feel that way about yourself let me be the first to tell you that I believe that you are one of top posters on this forum with regards to people whose poker opinion I respect but obviously not thier ability to self assess. That said, "Karma gunk" was a silly refernce to, to, to nothing really. Just pooped into my head at the time.. And I didn't take Jim's quiz anyway. Besides if I did, I would automatically get 100%. You see if I say an answer is correct it is correct and if Jim disagrees then it is obvious that he is wrong. At least obvious to me.
Vince
I check it for the reasons Jim gives in his answer. I don't believe it's likely that a worse hand will pay you off. Then there's also the problem of getting raised on the river. How would you handle that?
Rick, I don't have my copy of the quiz here at the office, but as I recall, I answered Check. There are two players behind you, including the pre-flop raiser. What's he doing checking twice into the rag board in last position?
A check might just induce him, or Seat #4, to try a river steal, although you would think if he was going to bluff at this board, he would have done so by now. I just can't see getting called in MY typical games with a worse hand. Very thin +EV, IMO, to bet out here.
Dunc,
If the opponents behind are a little aggressive then checking and calling might be better. But I still think there are more hands that call you that you beat then those that will bet that you beat. But it is close and I suppose dependent on your opponents.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with Rick on this one. california players will call with all sorts of hands that you can beat. also, when you bet your monster hands you will often times get raised or check raised if the players notice you betting some garbage hands like top pair.
Mason implied that the hand may be more profitable in picking off a bluff. Jim didn't mention this, but it should be a consideration. I think the 60-65% value betting range Rick is using would be way too high for the $10-$20 games I've played. In most $10 games the probable actions of the two players seated to my left, still in the hand, would determine my action as Mason said. The value would probably come from an earlier position player calling.
The problem I have with this one is that if everyone checked the flop, I would have already bet out on the turn. Then when I actually make something on the river, I'm going to bet again. I would especially make this play against the 10-20 players at the Mirage, which is probably what Jim thinks is typical. Those guys actually make creaking noises when they put their chips out.
But if I stick to the question, that is everyone checks, I probably check the river too. It's too late to represent anything now.
If you do it my way, the AT and KT are long gone before the river.
You bring up some interesting points but I still feel betting the river is wrong here. You need to consider the fact that you have four opponents not one or two. I think it could be argued that the pot is somewhat protected. The likelihood of you getting calls from worse hands drops as the number of opponents increases. You mention that you might get calls from worse hands like Ace-high. But suppose the next player has Ace-high after you bet. He has to worry about the 3 remaining players behind him yet to act. It is unlikely that either player behind you will call with Ace-high given the presence of two or three other players still in the hand. The other thing is that the Ace-high hand cannot be AK,AQ,or AJ suited since there was no pre-flop raise. The only Ace-high hands you beat are Ace-Eight, Ace-Six, Ace-Five, or Ace-Four. It seems very unlikely that one of the players came in with one of these hands AND will be in a position to call your river bet. While straights, two pair, and even a Ten with a bigger kicker are individually unlikely the combined probability of someone who calls your bet having one of these is extremely high and you will frequently get raised when they do have a better hand.
The reason the hand is so instructive is because many players routinely bet the river when they think they may have the best hand. But as Sklansky tells us in the "Theory of Poker", the real issue is whether or not a worse hand will call or a better hand will fold.
P.S: Not that it matters but in the actual hand the guy bet, got raised, made a crying call, and lost to a straight.
Well, I took the Brier quiz and scored 82. The quiz is excellent as is Jim's analysis as you would expect. If you have not taken the quiz, I suggest that you do so. It is instructive and fun to boot.
Note to Jim: Given that you have so readily shared the quiz with everyone, would you consider including it in the "guest essays' section of this forum?
In any event, I am hoping to convince Jim to give me a higher mark than 82 by dissecting some of his excellent analysis and having him agree with my selections:)
For the record, I got these questions wrong:
3, 10, 12, 14, 19, 20, 24, 25, 31, 37, 39, 55, and 58.
I think Jim is definitely wrong on question No. 19 (to be described below).
I also think that he is probably wrong on questions 3, 12, 14, 20, 25, 31, 37 and 55.
Upon reflection, I now agree with his analysis on questions 10, 24, and 58.
I remain unsure about Question 39.
I hope to get everyone's input on the questions where I think Jim may be in error starting with Question No. 19.
In this question, Jim suggests that 44 should be folded when 3 players have already limped and you are 2 off the button. He says that baby pairs can be undersetted and can also never be an overpair to the board which limits their profitability. He suggests playing baby pockets out of the blinds only.
IMO, this is a clear call. You will have 3 opponents for sure and likely 5 or 6 with relatively little chance of a raise behind you. The odds are there for you to try and snag a set.
What does everyone else think?
This is a clear call against "typical" opponents IMO. Good implied odds, and the hand will usually be easy to play after the flop. Even if someone raises, you are likely to have enough opponents to profitably play for a set.
skp,
I got #19 wrong also and strongly disagreed with Jim. However, in a response to "no caps" scott, Jim retracted answers on a few of the pre flop questions and added some thoughts. On #19 he now agrees it is an easy call. Here is a link to that post which was written on December 19 (if the link gets broken after a re-archive or something).
Link To Jim's Post On Pre Flop Quiz Questions
If I have time when I get up I would love to contribute to the analysis on the other questions.
Regards,
Rick
.
Thanks Rick. I somehow missed that earlier thread. Sorry Jim for bringing up Question 19 again.
Sure after I tell him it's wrong he admits it's wrong...wait I just told him it was wrong so how did he know it was wrong before I told him it was wrong. It is so perplexing.
vince
No
I agree that it is a clear call. Furthermore, I never worry about being on the wrong end of a set over set. It does happen but in my experience it is too rare to be concerned with.
Clear call! and hope everyone else follows suit.
vince
I think there were a number of mistakes made in this hand, but lets just focus on the river for now.
With something like 18 or more big bets in the pot, the only way to win on the river is to have the best hand. You are not going to get any player to lay down a hand that can beat two nines for a single bet. Although you may have the best hand and would likely get paid off if you bet, you are up against 6 opponents with a coordinated board, a very dicey situation for a medium pair, even when it is an overpair to the board. Given this, I just don't see much "value" to bet.
With this kind of board (two different threee straights and a three flush), I would just check and see what happens. If there is a bet and a raise, I would fold, but I would have to pay off a single bet, even if it meant overcalling, because I am getting such a big price on the hand.
BTW, if the SB actually had KK, she played the hand as poorly as she possibly could. Why no three bet on the flop?
Jim just emailed me the new quiz...
It's horrible! There are 3 times as many questionable answers as the original.
We are going to have SOO much to debate here on the forum.
Like numbers 87, 122, and especially 163!
Jim must've been reading too much McEvoy.
BlackSunshine,
You wrote: "Jim must've been reading too much McEvoy."
Now that was a vicious low blow. Mason, delete this post!
Regards,
Rick
I knew that comparison would draw some heat ;)
Is this test ready for final release or are you beta testing it? - - Rick
Actually, my thinking was if I posted this, then Jim would have 1000 emails in his box asking for his new quiz.
Then maybe he would get on the ball and get it done! ;)
But I can't put one over on you Rick!
You caught me trying to angle Jim B. (prolly the only chance I'll get)
Hurry up Jim!
The situation is this:
You limp with 88 UTG in Seat no. 3. Seat 6 calls. Seat 9 raises. Big blind calls. You call and Seat 6 calls.
4 way action and $85 pot.
Flop: 663 rainbow.
Big Blind bets.
What do you do?
Jim's answer is to raise here. He correctly points out that the players behind him may just have overcards and you want them out (I agree with that. Obviously, merely calling with 88 here is nuts).
However, he also says that a raise by 88 could get someone behind to fold hands like 99 or TT fearing that either the bettor or the raiser has a 6. IMO, that is very unlikely. Guys with 99 or TT here are not likely to fold their overpair in the face of bets and raises on the "phony" betting round.
I like the fold option here because it is unlikely that the big blind is betting a draw (there aren't any except 54 - an unlikely holding given the preflop raise). While he may be betting a hand like A3 or 55 or something, it is likely that he would either checkfold those hands or checkraise the preflop raiser who would be to his immediate right. An outright bet here by BB usually signifies a big hand and one that likely beats 88. Even if he happens to be betting a hand that Jim can beat, Jim still has the preflop raiser to deal with.
I prefer folding here. I hate facing bets from my right when I have a threat (preflop raiser) behind me. this is the classic "stuck between a rock and a hard place" scenario.
What do you guys say?
BTW, this scenario is in some ways similar to question 39 which I also answered incorrectly. I'll start another thread on that one later on.
I like to raise here. There are many hands the BB could have (as you pointed out) and would bet. Out of the BB I would bet 4-5s (which I would definitely call the raise with), 4-4, 5-5,7-7 and quite possibly A-Ks. If you get 3 bet by the pre-flop raiser or the BB then you know you're beat. Giving up on the hand here seems a little weak.
I would even prefer just calling to folding. If it then comes back to you at 20 to call it's a clear fold. If it's just one raise the implied odds give you enough to take one off. If it's just called around, I raise the BB if a blank falls on the turn.
It is obvious that this flop did not help a pre-flop raiser. The big blind could have a wide range of hands for calling a raise pre-flop being half-way in so his bet does not signify a Six necessarily. On the other hand it is hard to see how this flop helped an UTG limper unless he limped in on something like Ace-Six suited or an over pair. However, between the bettor and the raiser a guy with pocket Nines or Tens could easily reason that he is playing two outs and might well fold rather than call two bets cold with the possibility of further raising. The point is that by raising you give him the chance to make a mistake. With 9.5 bets in the pot it is worth investing another 2 bets when you consider the double possibility of 1) having the best hand, and 2) driving out the remaining players and getting it heads-up with you having the better position.
Can i get this test somehow?
Thanks
Remco
Simply email me at jbrier1@msn.com and I will send it to you.
"The point is that by raising you give him the chance to make a mistake."
Opportunity knocking. I like this point.
vince
Omigod skp, you can't go around folding probable best hands like that. I would start contemplating a laydown facing a turn (re-)raise and not an eyeblink sooner (and even then you'd often have to pry that 88 out of my clenched fist). See, players who flop trips don't bet them out and preflop raisers don't neccessarily have pocket pairs.
Anyway, Jim should consider opening 88 with a raise, postflop play is much easier that way.
---
"opening 88 with a raise, "
I don't like this option at all.
Vince
Well, as you know from my posting history, I am not one to fold hands very easily. All of you (Jim, yourself, Winger, Vince) make good points for raising. I will defer to your collective expertise and raise the hell out of them in this situation from hereon.
Nevertheless, I think this flop is not nearly as good a flop to raise on as, say, 633 or 766 with 2 spades or something. In either of those flops, one can imagine the big blind betting a whole bunch of hands worse than 88. I have a tougher time thinking of inferior bb hands on the 663 rainbow flop.
BTW, I also think that the scoring on this question ought to be altered. "Folding" is scored as -1 while "calling" is scored as a zero. IMO, calling is by far the worst option of the 3 here.
I like the raise option. Of course there may be a lunatic in my head. In fact since you are bet into it almost makes a raise mandatory. I would fear a check then a call much more than a bet here. If the BB will play a hand containing a 6 he will play hands like A,3, A,J -Q- or K or 4,5 suited and a few others that warrant a bet.
Vince
skp-
I think this is an excellent subject/question! I also would defer to the expertise of the other posters, but I don't see how raising is automatic even though I DO see how it's the most obvious and common play.
Like yourself, I'd be concerned about the lack of draws (save one) on this flop, with the prospect of being sandwiched between re-raises.
I also kind of/sort of disagree that calling is unthinkable... I realize that you don't want an overcard to fall and beat you, but you might already be beat (in two places at that!). However, if your post-flop play is respected, calling might be a reasonable option. It's the most economical way to see how your opponents react. It may also create a few opportunities for you on the turn, which in today's games is usually a more respectable street. In the meantime, if it were to get raised and re-raised back to you on the flop, you can escape with minimal damage.
I know many would argue (and might be correct) that you are too vulnerable to being outplayed as UTG, because it's so unlikely that you can have a six or 33. But maybe this is why S/M suggest that it's sometimes important to play hands like 76s etc., every once in a while, to prevent opponents from getting too tricky with you in just this type of situation... I might be very wrong on all of this.
Kevin
I also kind of/sort of disagree that calling is unthinkable... I realize that you don't want an overcard to fall and beat you, but you might already be beat (in two places at that!). However, if your post-flop play is respected, calling might be a reasonable option. It's the most economical way to see how your opponents react. It may also create a few opportunities for you on the turn, which in today's games is usually a more respectable street. In the meantime, if it were to get raised and re-raised back to you on the flop, you can escape with minimal damage.
In addition, if the blind has a 6, you don't want the other players out since you need a full house to win anyway, and you need them in for implied odds. If this is a game where the other players are unlikely to fold, then calling makes even more sense.
Oops, that's a 2-outer. Forget the implied odds comment, that's a small effect.
Where can i get a copy of Jim Brier's famous quiz?
Just e-mail me at jbrier1@msn.com and I will send it to you.
EP limp, MP limp, and I limp on the button with KcJc. SB calls and BB checks. 5 players, $50.
Flop is AJ8, rainbow, 1 club.
Checked to me. Given the way the game has been going, I think I would have heard from an ace, so I think I have the best hand. I bet, and BB and UTG call. 3 players, $80.
The turn is a 6, completing the rainbow.
Checked to me. I check. Still 3 players, $80.
River is 10. BB checks, UTG bets. $100 in the pot. I make a crying call.
Results will be posted later.
I think you should have bet the turn. It looks like your hand is still good and no one has shown any strength. The rest of your play is fine.
I don't know whether all those calls made you worry that you were against a weak ace, but in any event I think you should have bet the turn. There is at least a reasonable chance that you have the best pair, and each of your opponents may be drawing pretty thin so that it would be incorrect for any of them to call. However, collectively, they may have a lot of outs. Any card over a 4 except for a J or an A could endager your hand (assuming it is the best hand at the moment). Why give the field a free shot when maybe neither of them could call?
As for crying call on the river, I think its pretty much mandatory given the weakness you showed on the turn, unless the UTG player is a very predictable player who never bluffs.
You should've done the opposite.
Bet the turn,
and check the river if no one bet, if someone bets - then make the cry call.
The Fish
I agree with all the posts that say I should have bet the turn. That's why I posted the hand, just to make sure that my self-criticism was correct and not just results biased.
The result was that BB folded and UTG turned over KQo for Broadway.
.
Lunatic is idiot (to use words you used in your post). He's an idiot for showing his cards if he's going to make a lay-down like that. I think I would have called just to make the point even though I suspect I've lost. That point being that I won't be forced off my hand - even in the face of death - not for one big bet. I'm sure Mason gave himself no better than a 50-50 of showing the best hand - so he bet hoping luney would muck. Either fold the turn or call the river and make him show a better hand.
cv
True, having the image of being a rock does allow Mason to steal more. Yet there's another image that comes to mind when people think of him. And that is of a pure number cruncher. I think he proved, in this hand at least, that he's quite observant and sensitive to human nature too.
I am in middle position and open raise with pocket Queens. All fold behind me except the cutoff (CO) and button (B) and they just call.
Quick impressions of the players. I think CO is fairly good and I don't know much about B because he just got into the game.
Flop: 4s Ts 5d
I bet it out. CO raises and B re-raises. What is my play? Do I cap it or just call believing that it will be capped by CO? I think that he's the type of player to cap so I just call. CO calls.
Turn: Th
What's the best play and why? I bet it out. CO raises and B re-raises. Now what is my play?
I will post the results later.
Thanks, Stephen
So far I like your plays. On the turn when the top card pairs and you get raised and re-raised you must now fold since the odds are not there to play a two outer.
I always respect your decisions, even if you don't send me your quiz (j/k)!
Yes, I folded my hand. I figured someone had the house or at least a Ten and I was drawing pretty thin.
River: Jh
They both check.
CO: 6d6s B: As2s
sigh. but i think i would play it the same way again. does this make me too tight? too cautious?
~stephen
I would be happy to send you my quiz. Right now I am in Los Angeles visting my sister and her family. I will be back in Vegas on Tuesday, January 2 and I can then answer all my E-Mails and send you my quiz. I assume that you have e-mailed me at jbrier1@msn.com.
With regard to this particular hand, all you can do is make a mental note about how these two guys play and use it in the future.
The button's fold was wrong having a big over pair but understandable. With a four flush on the table plus an open pair plus three cards in a straight zone, it is tough to find a call here.
I've noticed, I think, that when an aggressive player does not raise when there's 3 of a suit on board on the turn, and then a 4th of a suit comes on the river, you can sometimes get away with betting the river without a flush, either as a bluff or for value reasoning that the aggressive player would have raised on the turn if he had a four-flush. Any body else find this an effective play?
("If you play well, it's not that hard to take advantage of scare cards. The reason for this is that you will be playing in a tight but aggressive style, which means that your weaker-playing opponents will expect you to have a better hand than you often have. In addition, they will be scared if they think it is even remotely possible that you have a cinch hand. The best players I know win a great deal of money by stealing more than their fair share of pots. They do this by getting the weaker players to release hands that they would never fold if they knew what the good players really had." Poker Essays, "Throwing Money")
By the way, Vince, how do you know what Mason had?
"By the way, Vince, how do you know what Mason had? "
Both Mason and David allow this poor soul to occaisionally sweat a hand with them. This happened to be one of those occaisions. BTW - I'm not the only twoplustwo'er that they're gracious enough to spend time with. My advice is that if you are a regular poster look them up when you get to Vegas and say hello.
Vince
I'm in a very loose 8 handed 30-60 game. UTG (UTG is one of the solid players in the game) limps, folded to the cutoff(very aggressive player is raising 1 out of 3 hands) who raises. I'm on the button with 8c8s and I call. Would anyone reraise here? BB (BB is obviously new to poker), UTG calls as well and we take a flop of 6h, 7c, 8h.
Its checked to the cutoff who bets, I raise to 60, BB calls and UTG folds. Would anyone wait till the turn to raise here? The turn is a 10s, BB bets out and CU calls. Whats my play?
If BB is new he just might have only a Ten, hence the bet out with top pair. Or he could have the straight. I think CU in on the flush draw and I would probably make the crying call to see the river.
~stephen
Pre-flop, I would not 3 bet with pocket Eights although it might not be a bad play if you can isolate the loose, goose by driving out the blinds and the UTG. If the UTG is a solid player he should normally fold here since his hand was not good enough to raise with initially it is illogical for him to call a double raise back to him. But who knows? If his assessment of the raiser is similar to yours he might call anyway.I like your flop raise with top set because the board is highly coordinated and you will probably get played with. The problem with waiting until the turn to pull the trigger is that a scare card might come off that would logically inhibit you from raising like the Five of Hearts or the Nine of Hearts. On the turn you must call since you have 10 outs to beat a straight and your hand might be good anyway.
The river blanks off, a 4d I think. SB bets again and the Cuttoff calls. I called as well and the SB had 92 for the straight. CU mucked so not sure what he had. Should I have called the river?
You must call the river because you can beat two pair type hands plus a host of others if the bettor does not have a straight. The small blind called a raise pre-flop with Nine-Deuce? Make a mental note to invite this guy back and try to get involved in hands with him.
Same table as my previous post. UTG (the aggressive player that is raising alot from my previous post) raises. I'm next to act with AdKd, and raise to 90. The whole table calls, no muck. Yes I didn't make a typo there is no muck.
The flop is 4h, 9c, 2s. Its checked to me, do I bet into a large field with nothing? I check and it gets checked around. The turn is a 4d. The SB leads out, BB folds, UTG calls, I muck. Can anyone make a case for calling?
Absolutely not! The only way you win this pot if out of 9 other players no one else has paired the board. Folding is the best play.
~stephen
At this point there is $1020 in the pot and it costs you $60 to see the river having at best 6 outs. You are getting pot odds of 17:1 and the odds against making Aces up or Kings up with the top kicker is 38:8 or less than 5:1. I believe there is enough of an overlay here to merit taking off a card although you can hit one of your six outs and still lose.
This isn't relevant to the decision, but isn't it 40:6 against (6.7:1), not 38:8 against?
(n/t)
I think that, too many players are left to act after you. They called two bets before the flop with something. They didn't bet the flop. They probably have your outs. Someone maybe slow-playing a set of nines. The SB may have a 4. Even if your outs are good, there is still a good chance someone could raise the turn after you. If you were last or next to last, I think a call (to spike an A or K) would be OK, but its close.
River is a 5, and the SB takes down the pot with 4c5c for a fullhouse.
I call. There is $840 in the pot giving you 14-1 on your call. Now there's a very real chance that you're drawing dead, slim or to half the pot, but that's a big enough overlay to make the call.
Next time bet the flop when it comes junky and uncoordinated (even into 7 players) and you have a pot that size.
There has to be more than $840 in the pot. In a 10-handed game with everyone calling $90 plus two $60 bets on the turn there would be $1020 in the pot. In a 9-handed game, as in California, there would be $930 in the pot.
A poker player's image has its value. Even though Mason played his hand well in this instance, his table image may have helped him more to win that the hand then, perhaps, the way he played it.
Yogi Bera once said: "You can observe a lot by watching."
I heard Mason give a talk last year at the Casino San Pablo during a series of tournaments. The one hand he mentioned that stuck with me involved 35 suited in the small blind (he played and won of course). Seems the message here is, "tight-aggressive behaviour plus a rock-like image plus a dash of non-rock-like behaviour works best."
Test
I check. The only hands I beat now are A-K and AA. It's tempting to bet here when he checks but it's thin value.
I'm interested why you say it's pump or dump with 9-9 pre-flop. This is a hand I'll mormally just call with, not wanting to invest the extra bets pre-flop. I realize heads-up you're a favourite over no pair.
I'm interested why you say it's pump or dump with 9-9 pre-flop.
I don't want to play 3 or 4 way against the blinds and the early raiser. That is the worst spot for 99.
The more I think about it the more I believe this hand should be mucked
-Fred-
7.5 to 1 on the flop is a pretty good payoff wouldn't you agree. I would bet on the flop. "If the pot is big, try to win it right away." This hand calls for straightforward play.
99 is not a hand you want to pump with in this spot pre-flop considering the raiser was from early position. I put him on 10-10.
On the flop he was betting in order to get a freecard on the turn...but didn't get it once you raised on the flop and bet the turn. If on the turn, he called automatically (almost without thinking), I would be certain that he's on a straight draw. But you did not provide this info.
Check along on the river. He was getting good odds on his straight draw all the way and got there.
My preference is to bet the flop in these situations because I don't believe your hand is strong enough to slow play plus this was a raised pot with you as the pre-flop raiser. Since I would bet having raised pre-flop without an Ace, I must also bet in these situations where I have an Ace. However, I must say that I am seeing this type of play more often among good players here in Vegas. But the problem with slow playing here is that you are giving someone a free card who could easily pick up some kind of draw on the turn making it correct for them to see the river card and suck out on you.
I think the idea is to get your opponents to make mistakes. QJ made a 1 BB mistake on the turn, but not 2 BB's as far as your concerned, since his 2nd mistake helped T8s more than it did you. T8s never made a mistake (save for maybe pre-flop).
I would've bet the flop but I don't think your play was all that terrible.
btw- I'm curious what you would do if T8s had raised QJ's turn bet, which I might very well have done holding T8s in that spot?
Kevin
I would bet the river here since I think he is far more likely to have AA or AK than he is to have KK or TT given the betting action so far. There are 18 ways for AA or AK and only 9 ways for KK or TT. I believe he would hang around with AK since a Ten is an out and he might figure an Ace or a King are outs as well. From his standpoint holding AK he could have as many as 10 outs. But the most decisive factor in betting is that he has checked to you. With a Ten, I think he would have bet since he cannot be sure you will bet. His check makes a holding of TT less likely than otherwise and I don't believe a decent player would raise in early position with just one Ten in his hand.
Calvin,
A couple of thoughts. Generally, you want to bet this flop. Giving a free card provides a free shot of two pairing, three of a kind and at a draw which they may not pay for if the flop is bet.
Betting the flop and through also enhances your image as "always having a hand" which should allow you to steal more often.
Yet, it is a play which can add variance and keep the others off guard.
You need a flop which is rainbow and non coordinated. No two sequential cards or an ace with a ten or higher.
The idea that "the pot is big enough" is a fallacious one. The bet is made based on expected value and has nothing to do with how big the pot happens to be. Besides, the pots I win are never big enough.
I am of the opinon that a win can never be wrong. With that said, I would bet the flop. Giving a free card can open pandora's box, and then the $55 would have looked huge.
If the flop had come with two aces, I would check to see if I could get callers on a later street. Your raise on the turn was a demand raise, but success is it's own reward. Nice win!
SPM,...able to leap tall odds with a single card...
Check, he only calls if your beat.
SPM,...now I'll look for the correct answer from the pro's who posted a response...
Give me those queens and put me heads up with a ledgend like Mason and I'll muck them as soon as he calls my raise.
SPM,...a man must know his limitations...
"SPM,...a man must know his limitations... "
It's good to see you're still in the learning mode.
vince
.
It's better to win a small pot than to lose a big pot , that is what I think , don't give them the chance to make a small set on the turn .
I haven't met too many rocks who play 56 headsup from the blind and who fire on the end with nothing.
Bruce
Pre-flop your initial raise with slick is fine but when you get 3 bet you need to realize that you are frequently up against a big pair or another AK. On the actual hand his 3 bet with TT was a little weaker than expected but since you opened from middle position he may have reasoned that you could be raising light and decided to re-raise in order to isolate you. Of course you call and take a flop. Your check-raise on the flop was not a good idea. He knows that an Eight high flop did not help your hand. If he has a big over pair which is quite likely you will get re-raised, otherwise you are simply out of position with no hand. You are playing 6 outs at best which is a 7:1 shot. Furthermore, you will not win 100% of the time even if you hit one of your outs. You should either fold or call for one small bet and then fold if a blank comes on the turn. I think you overplayed your hand and got lucky.
Ok, what is your game plan in this situation then?
I am guessing your Club flush was good. I think you played fine since his flop raise could easily be based on having the Ac or the Jc.
Looking over the responses it seem like this river bet falls into the "Doesn't matter" area, not much EV to be gained one way or the other. That's assuming four on one side balance out Jim Brier on the other, often the case.
I posted this hand because I checked the river and beat AA. Later, I really thought I'd missed a bet but I'm less sure of that now. AA has a difficult river call, not for certain. What can AA beat given my play of the hand and the ugly board? He beats AQ and KK and ..? Thanks to all. Happy New Year
-Fred- ..started the new year yesterday 'cause I ran bad in 2000.
The only thing I don't like about your play is that I don't do it often enough. I'm too stubborn and it costs me money.
-Fred- ...all ready a winner in 2001!
Glen,
My guess is that most of the posters here score well on all counts above. Anyway, this is a great list and I can say it is about the only New Year's resolution I am sure I can keep! Let's hope everybody who we play with does.
Regards,
Rick
anon,
I think you played this one OK. You were probably trailing after the raise on the flop. However, the ten of clubs is just good enough of a flush draw to take one off as long as you are heads up against a raiser. Had one more player called post flop then the chances you are drawing dead or will get squeezed for multiple bets on later rounds would indicate a fold.
When you made your third nut flush on the turn a check and call is your best play (unless you are against a rock who wouldn't bet without a better flush – then a check and fold should be considered). Also note that most hands that would raise your bet on the flop after limping pre flop probably do not contain an ace so you main concern is the jack of clubs, which will not fold in Los Angeles head up.
Had your opponent bet the river I would make a crying call (minus the actual crying). It can be embarrassing to lose to a jack or ace high flush but where I play you just can't lay down hands that easily.
Since Jim Brier just finished playing a few sessions in Los Angeles, my guess is this time he may agree with me, more or less ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 9:38 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (Russ@Fox.Net)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 10:19 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:05 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (Russ@Fox.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Fmonti (fmontisant@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: dfsfdsafd (adsdsa@dsafkh.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Fmonti (fmontisant@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Fmonti (fmontisant@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: dknkf (sada@dsafa.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 9:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jones (kajohnson@angelfire.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:31 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Fmonti (fmontisant@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 7:08 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:09 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: scalf (ae11@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: John M (oonwayvos@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:39 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:50 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 5:51 a.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:14 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Learner
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 10:36 p.m.
Posted by: sucker
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:08 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:11 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Lurker from Turning Stone
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: Lurker from TS
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: ThePrince (nicfradet@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: hosh (hosh115@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Team 3Yr.
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 9:35 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:24 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: stickler (as@sljd.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: Team 3Yr.
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:00 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:47 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:53 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:45 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 10:24 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:40 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 8:47 a.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:49 a.m.
Posted by: TJ
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:05 a.m.
Posted by: dfjnk (dsadsa@sdljf.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:33 a.m.
Posted by: Jake
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:56 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: TJ
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:09 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:33 a.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:05 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:37 a.m.
Posted by: repete (pete.williams@amd.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 4:36 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:50 a.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 1:38 a.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 1:49 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: sucker
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:37 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:26 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:38 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: Derek G. (dkgip@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:52 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:22 a.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 8:50 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: sky
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:46 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:43 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:29 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:45 a.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: Lurker from TS
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:28 a.m.
Posted by: Dave
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Nigel
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:34 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Vike (jschoen@rsasecurity.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: KJG (kengoldste@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:07 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: dfjk (fg@dij.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: eee (etenor@sirius.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:09 a.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: Frustrated (michael_l_67@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: Hercules
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Bullet (chingon36@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jake
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:42 a.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: jw
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:58 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:06 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 6:34 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: Rahul (rvaidyanath@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 7:42 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:14 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 11:00 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:25 a.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:43 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:28 p.m.
Posted by: nightstick
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 9:57 p.m.
Posted by: Learner
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:23 a.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:25 a.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:43 a.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:52 a.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:37 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:44 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:48 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 7:10 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:07 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:59 a.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:46 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:05 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:10 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: dfjnk (t@jd.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:39 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:40 a.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:53 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:09 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:13 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:21 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:56 a.m.
1)Improve on the turn.
2)Change the location of the fundamental theorem battle to the expensive street with one card to come and with position.
3)Confound their perconveived notions.
4)Improve his chances of winning. Huh? Yep.
"The other con is that by checking it is unclear where he is at on the hand."
Finding out "where you at" is not important to fundamental poker, IMHO.
Two points. When a good player two bets from middle position and then checks this type of flop a trap is quite often being laid. The other is if you are planning to lay down to this type of action then checking is probably the better play, assuming the "good" player is actually good and not weak tight.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:50 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:00 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:07 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 6:04 a.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 6:11 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: dfjk (ad@dlf.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 6:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 9:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:20 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 7:08 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
You will be getting approximately 9-to-1 assuming the (first) check raiser just calls and you could easily have have five outs on the next card.
Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 1:30 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 3:32 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 10:32 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:07 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: Cub (bcubb@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 9:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: Norm K (norgail@cs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:48 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: scalf (ae11@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:36 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: Guy
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:48 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dave L
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Abe (abespringfield@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 9:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:34 a.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 2:14 a.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Wiliam Jockusch
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Wiliam Jockusch
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:25 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 4:27 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 5:50 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 5:34 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:58 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 1:13 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (Russ@Fox.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 3:04 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt (travlinmatt6@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:06 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:01 a.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 7:51 a.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Blackhat (Blackhat@voyager.net)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: Blackhat (Blackhat@voyager.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: Blackhat (Blackhat@voyager.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: captain marlow (captmarlow@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 3:53 a.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: carlos
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 10:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:05 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:46 a.m.
Posted by: kx
Posted on: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 11:31 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 3:34 a.m.
Posted by: dsfljk (sda@fdsljh.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: daf (df@dsds.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: asdf
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: asdf
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: asdf
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Student (runnrax@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:05 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 1:41 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 7:43 a.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (Russ@Fox.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: Dreamer
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 11:59 p.m.Pot is protected!!!
On the flop how could you know that the small blind beats you? I would have raised on the flop. I like you bet on the turn. I don't put the cut off with a set. It's inconsistence with there play on the flop. Solid Players would have raised on the flop with a set Build the Pot. The pot is huge at the turn. You have to call... ALL Bets!!!!
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:13 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Watson (mrwatson23@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:12 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:12 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:14 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:31 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: Jones (kajohnson@angelfire.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:45 a.m.
Posted by: Jones (kajohnson@angelfire.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 6:52 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 7:33 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 7:36 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 1:16 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 8:45 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 1:49 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:36 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:46 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 5:52 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 4:10 a.m.
Posted by: docriver
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:54 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: docriver
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: docriver
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:13 a.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 9:04 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Hunter (Bosso3@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 8:42 p.m.
Posted by: student2001 (buffet79@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 1:18 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 5:46 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 8:44 a.m.
Posted by: WeakTightGuy (weaktight@weak.tight.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 8:46 a.m.
Posted by: SteveC
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 9:17 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: SteveC
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 10:57 a.m.
Posted by: TT (timtress53@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: SteveC
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: docriver
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 4:08 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 1:32 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:40 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:50 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 5:09 a.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 5:16 a.m.
Posted by: Calvin (Calvin1947@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Calvin (Calvin1947@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 4:04 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Knisch! (eslmn1@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Knisch! (eslmn1@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: Knisch! (eslmn1@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: dfs (sad@css.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Adam
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 7:34 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: Iowa Matt (Regents7@interl.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 12:26 a.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 5:22 a.m.
Posted by: Iowa Matt (Regents7@interl.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: Iowa Matt (Regents7@interl.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 9:02 a.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: MichaelD (MichaelD8@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: MichaelD (MichaelD8@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 6:06 a.m.
Posted by: Adam
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:17 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: student 2001 (buffet79@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: Pooper scooper
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Derek Opitz
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: TT (timtress53@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Adam
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:41 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 10:59 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 7:50 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 7:37 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 5:14 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: Remco (remcoxyii@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 6:13 p.m.
Posted by: Remco (remcoxyii@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 7:34 p.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Adam
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 8:25 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: eafd (dsa@sdjk.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 1:18 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: Riptide
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:23 a.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Riptide
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: daf (dsa@sdkj.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:17 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 7:39 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:27 p.m.
Posted by: desire (mmmmia@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 10:02 p.m.
Posted by: Riptide
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:20 a.m.
-keep in mind the "best hand" part only comes into play if you get to the river. In other words don't factor this into your equation, i.e. (I got X% chance of best hand plus Y% of hitting and then add).
Instead of answering the question, I'll ask some.
What does your opponent expect you to do?
How often do flop games work nowadays?
How many outs does the opponent have if beaten now?
How many outs does opponent have if he holds a dominated ace?
Doc, you like to ask questions that you already know the answer.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: Adam
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: TT (timtress53@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 7:25 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:11 a.m.
Posted by: TT (timtress53@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 9:01 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 9:36 a.m.
Posted by: TT (timtress53@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: TT (timtress53@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: dannyflack (dannyflack@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Eeyor
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Eeyor
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Bullet (chingon36@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:37 p.m.
If you factor longevity into the equation it probably adds to it.
R:"Anyway, I've been in the game for about an hour and have been aggressive and tight, showing top hands the three times I went to the river. I have the button and raise with QJ offsuit after all fold to me. The small blind folds and a player who appears to be solid (first time I've played with him) three bets me out of the big blind. I call."
Often when they smell a steal a three bet means little. I wouldn't be too worried yet.
R: " The flop comes a J 5 2 rainbow. The big blind bets and I decide just to call since in California 20/40, flop raises are generally not believed and they could three bet your raise with all sorts of things. Comments on my call as opposed to raising on the flop would be appreciated. "
He won't lay anything down to a raise. When three bet preflop heads up, I prefer playing straight up and forget fancy plays. He's telling you he has a hand, but since you can't fold, I generally prefer taking command here and not on the turn. The flop raise is expected, and he may well reraise again on the flop, with a real hand or not. This is just fine.
Rick Nebiolo, who is a regular poster here, once posted a response to one of my hands where he mentioned a quick call indicates a draw. In this case it could mean even ace high.
R:" The river comes a nine. My opponent checks. Do I have a value bet here or should I check? Results will be posted later in the day. I'll also be around for a change for further comment if warranted."
I like the value bet more if the hand was raised on the flop instead. However, given my view of typical opponents, the river bet is a clear value bet here. I estimate you have a 60% chance of winning when called or better. With a pot this size, most opponents will (and should) call with most pairs and even ace high. Keep in mind you are in a possible steal mode on the button.
Naturally, on the scene knowledge supersedes anything that could be done from remote. Overall, the hand was well played, with or without river bet. Much of my profit is made from people acting emotionally to raises and just refusing to believe you have something.
Get more sleep, lol.:)
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 11:57 p.m.
True about those studies, and probably studies in general. If you have a study that seems to show people wearing car seatbelts suffer less severe injuries in car accidents does that mean that that is true or that people that wear car seatbelts are more cautious in general therefore have less serious accidents? Or whatever, the reverse could be argued. So it comes down to me, personally, I find it difficult to play hours with smoke around than not. This is also true of irrating people and loud noise nearby too. Besides, studies aside, smoke makes me feel ill, so I'll believe what my body tells me.
Regarding three bet: "Well, it generally means a pair or a decent ace."
Generally it does, but just hours before I was three bet from the big blind with 22, J7suited and T8suited, all in a eight hour day. (This was online, they are nuts). In only one case was I in a steal position. So a draw is pretty much always possible, and this of course includes the AK, AQ.
I don't think we are an inch apart on this hand BTW, just different takes on what the bet means. I am convinced that an experienced on site read is worth a hundred off site second guesses. No, I can't prove that with a study.
Thankyou for putting an enormous amount of work into this thread. R
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Steven (borgwal@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Keith (skclmc@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 10:15 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 2:05 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 6:52 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: Besto'Seven
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: Fistdantilus
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:54 a.m.
Posted by: Brian Flanagan
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 2:11 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: repete (pete.williams@amd.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:09 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: dsf (fdg@djfk.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 12:41 a.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:36 a.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:30 a.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Prime-Time
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Eeyor
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 8:05 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 8:07 a.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 9:12 a.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: docriver
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:12 a.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:27 p.m.
Posted by: dsa (sda@sadk.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:40 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 12:50 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: holybull2 (holybull2@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:44 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 4:46 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 1:52 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:12 a.m.
I know exactly what you are talking about with these semibluff/checkraise/insanebluff-on-the-turn-yahoos. But much of the time they have nothing, so why not let 'em bet you. I find that a softer more calculated aproach works wonders against these types and leaves them flustered. They dump bet after bet after bet at me, convinced I'm going to a lay my hand down (and they never seem to learn). This happens huge time online more than live action.
Nonetheless, I still like your idea as it is a fundamental theory error inducer. But it works only against opponents who will lay down hands that don't have a call (like ace high, underpair, or gut shot). Players that call with only with 2, 3, 4 outers are making FE anyway so just bet.
There is also a certain devious pleasure in checking such and hand getting ace high to bluff the river and turning over the KK. They will probably say you are a fool or something. Then answer "you mean KK is a good hand?".
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 10:33 a.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt (travlinmatt6@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:17 p.m.
Posted by: TripKings (berkpack@willmar.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 9:02 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 8:59 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 1:30 a.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 9:15 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 3:30 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 4:39 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 4:42 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:12 a.m.
Regarding river bet, do you think he will fold ace high? If so the bet's ok.
Posted by: Steve Keith (skclmc@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
So to translate your post and mine, I would suggest checking 90% of the time on the river, based on your assumptions. I think against many opponents this percentage is lower.
I could be wrong here, I'm not certain.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 7:23 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 9:36 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 4:08 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 6:18 a.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: jamie collins (jamiecollins99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 7:00 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: manzanita (koleary@vegasnet.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 9:16 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:46 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 7:00 a.m.
Posted by: gLEN (LIVE4HOLDM@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:53 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:27 a.m.
Posted by: jamiefux (jamie@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 12:02 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 12:53 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:10 a.m.
Post one of the questions you missed here and I'm sure you will receive abundant help.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:47 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankensteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:45 p.m.
i was hoping for a cocktail waitress/furcoat/blue update.
sigh. 2000, December.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 4:27 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: John M (oonwayvos@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: scalf (ae11@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 10:26 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Ward
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Lurker from TS
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: Joker
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: docriver
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:29 a.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 7:12 a.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 11:10 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 7:28 a.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Cookie Monster
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 11:36 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Joker
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Fmonti (fmontisant@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 3:40 a.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 4:31 a.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:15 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Ward
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Ward
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: Lurker from TS
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:35 a.m.
Posted by: dsaf (dsaf@jkfds.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: dsaf (fdsg@dfkj.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:59 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: Lurker from TS
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: Lurker from TS
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: dsf (ads@fdsjk.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 8:52 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:23 a.m.
Posted by: dsf (asd@ds.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:37 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Steve B. (steve@math.pdx.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:11 a.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 1:43 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:37 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:09 a.m.
Posted by: udontknowme
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:11 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: udontknowme
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:05 a.m.
Posted by: udontknowme
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 7:10 a.m.
Posted by: udontknowme
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: udontknowme
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: udontknowme
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: hosh (hosh115@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 9:22 p.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: udontknowme
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Michael D (MichaelD8@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 6:50 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 5:01 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 6:51 a.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 7:54 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: John Gaspar (jpg032@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 12:14 a.m.
Posted by: John Gaspar (jpg032@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: South Central
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Joker
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: Anthony
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 6:33 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 8:09 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: Anthony
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Armchair
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: steve c (stecrowd@swbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Ken Goldstein (kengoldstein@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: steve c (stecrowd@swbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Ken Goldstein (kengoldstein@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: JPP (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 December 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Calvin (Calvin1947@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Calvin (Calvin1947@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Calvin (Calvin1947@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 3:37 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 8:56 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:21 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 2:11 a.m.
Posted by: Renaud Desferet (r.desferet@reuters.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:16 a.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 9:04 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 10:13 p.m.
Posted by: Heat
Posted on: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: Bob J. (bobj50@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:28 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: Heat
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 3:30 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:21 a.m.
Posted by: dannyflack (dannyflack@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Lurker from TS
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 11:18 a.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 5:56 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 11:28 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 2:41 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 3:30 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:12 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:49 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:31 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:32 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 9:23 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 2:59 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 9:32 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:14 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:04 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 11:18 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 2:19 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 10:25 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: Guy
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Guy
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Guy
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Guy
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Guy
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Guy
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: sonofjoe (sonofjoe11@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:01 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: Guy
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 10:03 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 12:41 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:53 a.m.
Posted by: ACBob (cm5lewis@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 6:19 a.m.
Posted by: ACBob (cm5lewis@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 9:44 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: Frank Donnelly (sjicha@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Frank Donnelly (sjicha@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:50 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:28 a.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:56 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 5:22 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 3:04 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 3:08 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:23 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:17 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:12 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:31 a.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Wenmax (wenmax@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:40 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:15 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: gilmore (gil@girlmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: gilmore (sda@fdsjk.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 8:24 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:54 a.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt (travlinmatt6@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Charlie
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt (travlinmatt6@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt (travlinmatt6@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Prime-Time
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt (travlinmatt6@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: Mike
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dave L
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt (travlinmatt6@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: scalf (ae11@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 8:56 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 1:50 a.m.
Posted by: Mike
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 8:40 a.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:34 a.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:44 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: manzanita (koleary@vegasnet.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 1:38 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: PokerPL
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 4:19 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 10:10 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:08 a.m.
Posted by: Steve B. (steve@math.pdx.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:40 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 9:41 a.m.
Posted by: Just another egg
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 12:23 a.m.
Posted by: THE DICK MASTER (tricky_dick_465@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 3:19 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: THE CLITORUS CAPTAIN
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 6:51 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:56 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: Prime-Time
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: SJT (sohjt@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: Prime-Time
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Bullet (chingon36@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Bullet (chingon36@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Steve B. (steve@math.pdx.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:38 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: hosh (hosh115@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 12:21 a.m.
Posted by: mk (mk2097@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: CaptainQ (quyle@excite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: mk (mk2097@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: svdhj (ew@jk.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: Steve B. (steve@math.pdx.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 22 December 2000, at 9:52 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: Ray R. (Fireman92@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Prime-Time
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: ANHTONY (GF1GF2GF@HOTMAIL.COM)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 5:18 a.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (RFloyd29@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 1:37 a.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 12:11 a.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 5:00 a.m.
Posted by: hosh (hosh115@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: travlinmatt (travlinmatt6@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: Joker
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 2:51 a.m.
Posted by: PokerPL
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: South Central
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 5:16 a.m.
Posted by: Joker
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 9:36 a.m.
Posted by: dfsa (dsf@d.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 3:31 a.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 7:42 p.m.
It depends though right?
Seriously, it is true that much of the material is just repeated over and over again and gets boring. But Jim Brier can also be commended for constantly repeating what to him is very simple, for the benefit of others. Many posters ask questions because they are fairly new the game or have read bad books by Ken Warren or some other Joe. There are also probably a high volume of lurkers who we don't even know about. Overall, I think it is good for the game to have a constant ambassador like Jim Brier.
Posted by: Rahul (rvaidyanath@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 10:15 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: Fmonti (fmontisant@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 10:13 p.m.
Posted by: Lurker from TS
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 7:53 p.m.
I would rethink the KQsuited and AJsuited. Especially the KQ. I think that hand really is overrated against an early raiser. I don't see how you could think about folding AQ but not KQ, unless you are anticipating lots of callers and relying on the suitedness, which I think is dangerous.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 12:53 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 5:03 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 11:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 December 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (RFloyd29@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 3:50 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Minetti (mjminetti@excite.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 4:00 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 5:54 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 9:35 a.m.
Posted by: chipshot
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:06 a.m.
Posted by: john
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 9:23 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: South Central
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 December 2000, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:30 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:40 a.m.
Posted by: Lars Eidissen
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 10:11 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Unknown
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 1:17 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:37 a.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:51 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:00 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 4:46 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 4:51 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:46 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 4:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: Rahul (rvaidyanath@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 10:36 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:41 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 6:26 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 7:03 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 10:46 a.m.
I have noticed the play described in your posts to have the general affliction of raising a little too much on the turn as a semi-bluff. I too have this disease. Through meditation and herbal rememdies I have learned that raising on the turn as a semi bluff does not work very well when the semi-bluff part of the play is just not there. Once an opponent pulls out his sword, often it is better to avoid the blade, rather than to pull out a smaller sword.
I think battle is best conducted on the flop, which reminds me of the post where you attacked the blinds with QJ, and ran into aces (unfortuately I remember most posts too well like I do most hands I am in.).
Betting the flop is almost automatic. Calling the raise is almost automatic. Raising as Michael suggested above is a decent move, but I would generally elect to check through the turn in the absence of an A or J. Folding to the raise on the flop as Jim Brier suggested invites trouble down the road, but this might be ok if you are prepared to punish checkraisers hard when you do have something. I think his comment that the T on the flop might eliminate your jack out is possible, along with the ever present aces up threat.
The important thing here is to remember that your actions are not in isolation. Getting pushed off an early position raise has ramifications if you stay on the table for long. Remember that the blind is on your immediate right. This means that your actions must be considered not just in isolation, but with the future implications of what this batte will do later. Your profit comes from your right. This may seem foolish to consider but I think making a play in the here and now that might influence a later isolation raise, or a heads up blind battle, or whatever the case may be is relevant.
Overall I think the hand was played just fine, though, I think you might want to think about returning to old fashion flop battles more often than waiting for the turn.
Just my thoughts. Even though this game was tough, I doubt very much you can't beat it.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:39 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:15 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
I find this viewpoint interesting, as I do not see it this way. You are getting five to one, and you have 4 huge outs on anything, and possibly 6 outs against a pair. There is some possibility your ace high is winning against a semibluff draw, but this matters little unless you think he may check the river. I think there is sufficient odds to call most of the time. But this is why I favor a flop reraise most of the time, as it makes the remainder of the hand easier to play.
Your point about the small pot is well taken, as often we forget that getting into wars with nothing at stake is a waste of gunfire.
You think calling the turn is out of the question? Regards, R
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:12 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:05 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:32 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:10 a.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:49 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Cheezr (cheezerules@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 4:28 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dave B (bailwulf@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Prime-Time
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: Dave B
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: Prime-Time
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 11:05 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: gt
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: jerry (papi2x@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 9:12 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin C
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 6:18 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: sdf (dsf@df.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:16 a.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: jerry (papi2x@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:39 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:13 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 4:29 a.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 4:58 a.m.
Posted by: SteveC
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly (cmgihillbilly@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: manzanita (koleary@vegasnet.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:48 p.m.
Posted by: Dan S
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: Phil Hoss (phoss@attglobal.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: Dan S
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Phil Hoss (phoss@attglobal.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dan S
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Dan S
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: David M. (dmandell@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 8:55 a.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 9:39 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly (cmgihillbilly@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly (cmgihillbilly@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jason
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Jason
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jason
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 12:25 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jason
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Jason
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 10:39 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jason
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Emmett (emmetti@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 4:07 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 11:36 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (MJS_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 7:31 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Unknown
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 10:51 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 11:46 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 2:40 a.m.
Posted by: SLW
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 5:41 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Halford (shalford@infoarc.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 5:43 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 6:39 a.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 7:45 p.m.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 8:12 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: SteveC (scozine@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: dsaf (sdf@kd.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 8:52 p.m.
Posted by: South Central
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 9:22 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: SteveC (scozine@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: SteveC (scozine@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 10:31 p.m.
Posted by: SteveC (scozine@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 December 2000, at 10:31 p.m.
Posted by: SteveC (scozine@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 6:10 a.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 2:46 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 3:12 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (MJS_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 5:36 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 8:17 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 9:30 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 5:24 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Sykes (MJS_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 5:44 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 8:28 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Halford (shalford@infoarc.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: BlackSunshine (Zombie@Hellbilly.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: BlackSunshine (Zombie@Hellbilly.com)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: BlackSunshine (Zombie@Hellbilly.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 3:04 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: Remco (remcoxyii@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 8:15 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 9:08 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jim's Student
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 9:45 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Halford (shalford@infoarc.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: The Fish (larryownsyou@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 7:23 a.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 30 December 2000, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:53 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 3:21 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:03 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:43 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: NW Card Hack (nwcardhack@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: Gabe (veltri@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: Doug Dunn
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticIvan@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 3:07 a.m.
Posted by: quintana
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J (kljcorp@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: ACBob (cm5lewis@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (coneil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Suburban Poker Man (conedil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: bruce
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 31 December 2000, at 11:51 p.m.
Medium Stakes Hold'em
December 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo