![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Stealing in a limit game is an activity with very little future.
I might play A9s from your position but I need a real hand to raise with. So what do you do if one of the solid players reraises you which is exactly what I do to someone thinking they can steal my blinds.
It is my opinion that first in in late position should nearly always enter with a raise. Limping in from here doesnt make sense. If the hand would play better against many players you know you will not have that. Further, it is entirely possibly that the hand is the best now and will stay that way against only a few players.
Can you explain your reasoning for limping from here?
Interesting hand from this evening's $30-$60 game at the Bellagio. I am in Seat #3 as the big blind with the QsQh. #5 and #8 limp. #9 raises to $60. Only the button calls until the action gets to me. Rather than re-raise I decide to just call since I am out of position and my re-raise will not eliminate anyone. The other players call. There is $320 in the pot and five players.
The flop is: 9d7d4h
I am sure the loose, aggressive player in #9 will bet since he raised pre-flop. Rather than leading, I decide to go for a check-raise because I want the two limpers to have to call two bets cold if they are on draws. I check. #5 checks. #8 bets $30. #9, the pre-flop raiser, just calls. The button calls. I now raise to $60. Only #5 folds. There is $560 in the pot and four players.
The turn is: 6d
Obviously I am now worried about a Diamond flush. With three opponents it seems quite likely someone has made a flush. However, I don't want to be in a guessing mode by checking and calling. I bet $60 in case no one has a Diamond flush and I can at least make anyone with a singleton Diamond pay to see the river card. #8 raises to $120. #9 folds. The button calls the $120 cold. I figure between the raiser and the cold-caller someone probably has a flush and I have no outs to beat a flush. If neither player has a flush there are straight, two pair, and set possibilities. I have no outs to beat a straight, I have two outs to beat a set but of them is the Qd which could give someone a Diamond flush. If someone has two pair I could have 4 outs with the Qc and the board pairing. I fold. There is $860 in the pot and two players.
I have the following questions:
1. Should I have 3 bet pre-flop from my big blind?
2. Was I correct in check-raising on the flop rather than just betting out?
3. Was I correct in betting the turn?
4. Was my fold correct?
I will post the results later. Thanks!
1. Yes. How do you know a re-raise won't eliminate #5 and/or #8? I might have just called with A-A or perhaps K-K, for the reasons you mention, but with Q-Q I re-raise.
2) Yes. The most likely bettor is indeed #9 or button and with this flop, and you having Q-Q and thus vulnerable to an overcard on the turn, I would go for the check-raise.
3) Yes. I believe it is correct strategy to tend to bet hand which, if already beaten, have no outs to beat the already made hand and to check those that would have outs. I believe that your raise on the flop makes it more likely that someone would believe you do have a flush, not less likely.
4) Yes. Even if you have the best hand at the moment, there are just too many cards that could come on the river that you're not going to like.
The pot is laying Jim about 11-2 for his two expensive street calls at worst (everyone may check on the river). Without getting into a lot of analysis. If Jim has the best hand going 40% of the time (it's probably better than that) and 50% of the cards will beat him on the river (the chances of a drawout are probably much less than 50%), then 20% of the time Jim will win what's in the pot. This would still give him 4-1 on an 11-2 shot. Looking at it another way if Jim had the best hand going on the turn 30% of the time and 50% of the cards would beat him it's about break even.
The river is: 6s. Both players check. I feel sick. The button wins an $860 pot with the TdTc. #8 had the 9s8s. My pair of Queens would have been good. For what it is worth, I think the majority of the time my hand will be no good on the turn and the fraction of the time it happens to be good it will frequently get sucked out. With the current layout there were 17 outs to beat my hand (A Diamond, a non-Diamond Five, a non-Diamond Ten, a non-Diamond Eight, and any Nine) out of 42 unseen cards. So the fraction of the time my hand is good it will only remain good about 60% of the time. Nevertheless, this was very discouraging. Of course, I said nothing to anyone.
Jim wrote:
"Of course, I said nothing to anyone."
Until now. :-)
I just read the previous post, "should I muck KK" and wondered about my play with them cowboys.
I'm on the button in a weak table. I have an aggressive image to everyone. All fold to me and I see KK. I raise. The guy on my immediate right says, "You raise anything when no one is in. You don't play the cards, you play the man." The SB folds and the BB calls. The BB is a guy who doesn't make fancy plays and isn't that experienced with Hold'em. If he has a hand he bets it, sometimes raises. He could've called with just about anything.
Flop: Q98 rainbow
The BB bets. I figure he's got a Q. I raise. He calls.
Turn: 5
BB checks I bet. He calls. I remember thinking I hope he doesn't have two pair. I don't think he does because he would've raised.
River: T
There's a possible straight but I don't think he has it. I don't think he's the type of person who bets into raisers with straight draws. He's mainly a weak player but doesn't let a hand go if he flops top pair. BB bets. I raise. BB re-raises. Crap. I call. He show's QQ and I muck. What would you have done in this situation? Did I do anything wrong? Or is this moot? Thanks.
Stephen
I think you made two mistakes in this hand. One was by raising his river bet. It is very easy for him to have at least two pair by holding something like Q-10. Many players will call in the big blind with this type of hand. He also only needs one card for a straight so it is very easy for him to have that. He knows that you have a strong hand because you raised before the flop and after his flop bet and you continued to bet the turn so he must be able to beat your big hand when he bets into you on the river. I would have just called.
The other mistake I think you made, which is jsut a minor mistake, was raising BTF. I think if you have an image as an overly aggressive player, you are on the button and everyone has folded to you, I think you should just smooth call BTF. You do not want to simply take the blinds with such a good hand. At least half of the time I would simply call in this situation.
Although as it turns out it would not have made a difference in this hand.
"I think if you have an image as an overly aggressive player, you are on the button and everyone has folded to you, I think you should just smooth call BTF."
This just doesn't make any sense to me. Aren't you pretty likley to get put on a steal and called if you raise? I think it is best to raise with just about any hand you are going to play there ( except for those special cases covered elsewhere in the lit ).
If you are playing aggresively there but limp with the big pairs it is going to look pretty obvious when you do it. I have seen a few players where I can practically put them on AA or KK if they limp first in late.
D.
Buckshot B,
I would not raise on the river. When he bets on the river, he's either busting a move or he has you covered. Your raise has very little to gain.
Against typical mugs, I would just call, knowing that I may be wasting a potential extra bet. You can't call his reraise.
By the way, if the best he can do with top set is to check and call, he obviously thought you were on a bluff, or else your image makes him play weak-tight. You can beat this guy.
Richard Cavell
Buckshot B,
I would not raise on the river. When he bets on the river, he's either busting a move or he has you covered. Your raise has very little to gain.
Against typical mugs, I would just call, knowing that I may be wasting a potential extra bet. You can't call his reraise.
By the way, if the best he can do with top set is to check and call, he obviously thought you were on a bluff, or else your image makes him play weak-tight. You can beat this guy.
Richard Cavell
A friend (Hero from here on in) who is new to mid limit asked me about the following hand. I thought the correct play was crystal clear but we would both be interested in any other opinions.
Hero holds QT suited on the button in a very loose and moderately passive nine handed 20/40 holdem game. All but one limp and the cutoff raises. The cutoff is a tricky, loose and aggressive player who does not have to have much to make this raise or aggressive plays in general. The cutoff also knows that Hero is one of the tighter players at the table. Hero calls.
Question 1: Does anyone disagree with the preflop call and why?
Flop comes a T 8 2 rainbow with no cards of Hero’s suit.
Everyone checks to the pre flop raiser who bets.
Question 2: What should Hero do on the flop and is it a close decision?
If this gets any interest I’ll post some results or another question about the turn and river later in the day.
Regards,
Rick
My Analysis and a Twist,
Question one was added as an afterthought. I thought the pre flop call was sound and I would think so even if cutoff preflop raiser would raise pre flop mostly with overcards and overpairs. Of course this is somewhat silly as there are many sound raises with lesser hands against a large field in the cutoff (e.g. ATs, AJs, KJs, JJ, 99). And this raiser would pump it up with many more (as you will see).
For those who think Hero should have folded, note that a hand like QT suited usually makes most of its money when it flops the flush and or straight draws. In addition, it makes more than its share of long shot flops such as made flushes and straights, and its share of trips and two pair. And with position, it makes most of its money against the field, not the pre flop raiser.
I was surprised that some would throw away this hand preflop (although a couple of posters misunderstood the position). I don’t think it is close. The key is that you must play this hand well when you flop one pair, which is the point of question two.
Question two was the main point on the post. You must raise for all the reasons skp, Jim, and the others mention. This isn’t close, and I would raise even if I thought the cutoff was tighter and had a good chance of an overpair. With all that money in there, you absolutely must narrow the field, even if you somehow knew you were a dog to the raiser and perhaps one of the limpers waiting to pounce.
Epilog: Hero just called the flop along with the entire field. The turn comes an offsuit 3 and all check to the player in the cutoff seat who bets again. Hero just calls again as do all but one of the limpers. On the river a deuce repeats. All check to the player in the cutoff seat who bets again. Hero calls and all others fold. Cutoff shows a T9 offsuit and Hero takes down a big pot despite playing so weakly post flop.
Now a Twist: Let’s say the pre flop action was the same (seven way action for two bets with our Hero calling the cutoff’s raise with QT suited). Post flop the UTG player bets (let’s assume he is one of the saner players at the table.) and all fold to the player in the cutoff seat who just calls.
Question: What should Hero do now?
Regards,
Rick
If UTG is sane and is not seeking a checkraise, it means he wants people out of the hand rather than in for two bets. Therefore I would have to put UTG on AT or JTs and not a set. Cutoff simply calling denies an overpair. 16 small bets, I just call.
raise or muck. It would depend a lot on the early bettor. Most likely I would raise and hope to check it down (assuming I don't improve)
If the UTG player wanted to narrow the field, a checkraise would be much more effective. If he bets out, anyone with a pair or gutshot has odds to call one bet. He can almost be sure that the pre-flop raiser will bet though and then be able to knock out the 4 people between him and the cutoff with a raise. If he bets out he cant be sure that the cutoff will raise.
Except that the people sandwiched between UTG and preflop raiser have a very tough time calling a bet BEFORE a preflop raiser who very well might raise and UTG might reraise. So, the poor people in the squeeze have to contemplate putting in three bets rather than 2 if it doesn't get checked around and 0 if it does.
Folding is unthinkable with 18 small bets in the pot. Even if hero is dead to a Queen that is a big enough pot to play a three outer. A sane player will not bet into a crowd here without at least top pair so the Queen kicker is questionable. The problem with raising is that it could get re-raised and there are only two opponents since most of the field is already eliminated. If you raise you might finagle a free card on the expensive street but I think is being too picayune. I would just call.
That's a closer decision, but if the blinds were gone (i.e. - I closed the action) I would consider taking one off. If the blinds were still around (and reasonably solid), I would probably dump it in this spot. If I had a backdoor draw of some kind, then I would go ahead and take one off, anyway. I think this decision is much closer than the original two questions.
If the UTG player is betting into 7 players, he is unlikely to be semi-bluffing so I would put him on AT, KT, JTs(it is a loose passive game so its fine to play that hand UTG, 88 or 22. The most likely hand is KT or AT though. I would just call on the flop and see if I can suck out. This is a tough call though. If you can put him on top pair with a better kicker than a call here is easy, but you are practically drawing dead against a set(although you can't always be paranoid about being up against a set). I would at least call the flop. However, if the UTG player is the type of player who would only 3 bet you with better than top pair, then I would raise and see where he is at. If he 3 bets then muck(he is unlikely to have 2 pair 10-8 so most likely a set in this scenario). If he just calls then take a free card and call a bet on the river.
Hi Rick,
What's with the Hero thing. I thought Hero was me. Fickleness will not get you anywhere with me.
Jim Brier gave the correct answer so all I can do is add a wittle bit. I see that my good buddy SKP believes that a preflop call is close. I believe Oz has said before that preflop is not where the money is. So what is right? What if the button hand was 7,2o. Would a call be correct? Close? The answer is that as Oz has stated, preflop play is always a close decision. Calling with 7,2o in the sitution you describe may seem ridiculous but the fact of the matter is that calling with the implied odds in your example would not be a mistake.
Vince.
Vince,
You're still my hero (even though I'm pissed you didn't stop by and say hi when in Los Angeles and you were WATCHING me from the f__king rail). Anyway, in these posts "Hero" is the most anonymous and non-gender specific word I can think of to describe any third party I write about. And believe me, in the card room my friends and I like to remain anonymous (more or less).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. If you are in town again email me since I have relocated.
The reason it is close is that the preflop raiser is to your immediate right. If the raise came from somewhere early and 5 players coldcalled or something, you would have an easy call with the same hand in late position.
I generally prefer not to be the first coldcaller of a raise. That said, I would still call here.
skp,
Not to belabor this thread, but you know me, if something can belabored, I'm the one that can do it. The decision to call here or not is not one that lends itself well to EV anlysis. If it did then describing it as a close decision or not would be relatively easy. Believe it or not if the decision is a close one, what makes it close is purely psychological. It has to do with the way the decision maker views the game of poker. Your last sentence, I believe, bears me out. skp wrote: "I generally prefer not to be the first cold caller of a raise. "
There is more to this subtle little statement than meets the eye. In fact it points to the fact that humans view things differently and consequently react differently, albeit in a small manner, to the same situation. These small differences are really the essence of poker "playing". If poker were merely a mathematical exercise, like craps, there would be no "play" to the game.
belaboring.
Vince
x
#1 Definately call on the button. QTs is a good hand to play 8 handed for a raise. If he can reraise without anyone folding then that would be the best play. #2 Definately raise. With top pair, decent kicker hero may or may not have the best hand, but you need to raise to thin the field and prevent someone with middle or botton pair to suck out.
Dear Mr. Malmuth,
Thank you much for taking the time to respond to my post. It is quite an honor to have such a famous poker person help me.
I have, of course, read your books including Hold Em for Advanced Players, Poker Essays I and II, and, also the other 2+2 books--Inside the Poker Mind and The Psychology of Poker. I just did what you suggest and sat down and re-read Hold Em for Advanced Players and Inside the Poker Mind on short handed play. These books are great BTW. I can read them over and over again. I know that people try to beat up on you on the internet, but I don't know how anyone can become a competitive poker player without studying what you have written.
I am pretty clear what to do with hands that are clearly worth checking and calling to the river, as you suggest, without improvement--AK, AQ, AJ, and pocket pairs when there is only one overcard on the board. If the flop is not terrible for my hand, I follow a mixed strategy of checking and calling to the river hoping to improve or win unimproved and bet into the lady or check raise her occasionally for variety. I don't know for sure, but checking and calling 2/3rds of the time and betting out or check raising the other 1/3rd is what I will try.
The hands I am not clear about are the intermediate hands where I have limped, been raised by the Asian lady, we are heads up on the flop, and the flop has not helped me or may reasonably have helped her hand. Hands in this group include two big cards without an ace-- KQ, KJ, KT, and QJ when I have not paired or gotten a draw on the flop and medium pocket pairs, 99, 88, and 77 when there is one AKQJT card on the flop.
With the two big cards, I am afraid that she has Ax and I am beat unless I pair on the turn or river. I will improve my hand only about 20% of the time and there is the possibility that when I do improve by pairing up, I will still be beat. When there are only 5 1/2 bets in the pot, the implied odds are not there for a call. Do I have to give up the pot when I check and she bets or I bet out (semi-bluffing) and she raises?
If I do check and call in this situation, I am also uncertain about the effect on my standard deviation. Since I am betting on a 1 in 5 chance, even if the pot is laying me better than 1 in 5, my standard deviation is going to increase a lot (I think).
With the medium pocket pairs, I am a little foggy. When I have an overpair I bet and raise. When there are two AKQJT cards on the flop and she bets I fold. My uncertainty is when there is only one AKQJT card on the board. I know that the higher the card that flops, the more likely she has a hand. So when a jack is the only high card on the flop, I should be more likely to check and call to the river and when there is an ace on the flop I should be more likely to check and fold. Also, the relation of my pocket pair to the non AKQJT cards on the flop should also enter my thinking--if my pair is between top and second pair, between second and third pair, or below third pair. I guess a mixed strategy is correct here also --sometimes check and call and sometimes check and fold. I am not sure with what frequency I should apply these two strategies. It seems a very complicated question. I will have to think about it.
When I have a medium pocket pair, there are two AKQJT cards on the flop, I check and she bets (which she does almost 100% of the time) is there any alternative to folding? Should I fight back by sometimes betting out or check raising or are my chances so slim that mucking is correct?
The final situation is where I am completely lost. What happens when I get a small piece of the flop, e.g. one AKQJT cards and two small cards flop and I have middle or bottom pair. Your book says to ignore the top card but when I bet out or check raise with middle pair I find that I am getting raised by the lady and many times end up calling raises and bets with a mediocre hand. I have no clue whether I am beat at that point in the hand, she is betting a draw, or she has a hand weaker than mine. Should I just grit my teeth and check and call when I am raised or re-raised and have middle pair or less or should I raise and re-raise as John Feeney describes in his "Out on the Edge" Chapter?
Love and kisses,
hklahehottie
P.S. If I ever see you in Las Vegas I would like to introduce myself. Do you mind fans bothering you when you are playing?
Have you read the section on short handed play in the 21st Century edition of HPFAP. This section is very different from the short section that was in the all book. I think that it will answer your questions.
It seems to me that you are putting yourself in a situation where your opponent could be betting random cards, you are getting over 5-to-1 from the pot, and yet you fold a good percentage of the time. If this is the case, your opponent has a hughly profitable play to just bet everytime regardless of her hand. If it is likely that she is playing hands of some value, you should call a little less.
Addressing your final situation, you will need to make a judgment as to what your chances of you having the best hand (or improving to it if there are more cards to come) and then comparing this probability to the size of the pot. From what you describe you are against someone who is betting and raising with random hands that have no relation to the flop. When this is the case, you have to call a lot, and hands like bottom pair certainly are worth going to the river with and paying off. (Remember, occasionally you will improve and have the best hand even when she is betting something legit.)
MY FIRST SITTING AT A 20-40 I'M IN SMALL BLIND WITH 10-J SUITED. UTG CALLS, MID POSITION CALLS, I CALL, NO RAISE FROM BB. FLOP COMES 8-9-3 RAINBOW. I CHECK, BB CHECKS, "UTG" BETS, MID PLAYER FOLDS, I CALL, BB FOLDS....IT'S HEADS UP ME AND 3RD LEFT OF BLIND. A QUEEN FALLS/NO FLUSH DRAWS....I CHECK, HE BETS (WHICH I EXPECTED), I RAISE, HE CALLS. A JACK FALLS,"CHRIST" I BET, HE RAISES, I CALL AND HE SHOWS ME K-10. I KNOW THE BET ON THE END WAS STUPID, BUT ANY HELP WOULD BE GREAT. J
DANZ,
If you don’t want to use the shift key, go with no capital letters. All capital letter posts give most of us a headache. Plus small caps are cool – just ask ray zee and small caps scott.
There was nothing wrong with your river bet. Most of the time you will still be leading and most of the calls by your opponent will be with lesser hands. There was no way you could read him for KT and if fact, he played badly. He called your check raise on the turn with only six big bets in the pot. A jack was his only out and you probably had one. A king could hardly be considered an out (assume that he doesn’t know you have a straight).
Looking back a bit, I think you should have led at the flop with your four straight and overcards. That was the better play and I believe you overlooked it and wallowed in your “bad beat” on the river instead. It is crucial to separate the true mistakes from the times you were just unlucky. And in this case your mistake was subtle and on an earlier betting round.
Regards,
Rick
Danz,
I also would bet the flop if I were pretty sure I wasn't going to get raised, and especially if the guy to my left is loosish.
Your opponent played like a mongoose. There's nothing at all wrong with your river bet. Just say "Nice hand, Sir," and throw your cards into the muck faster than he can say "See the problem with the way you play is..."
Richard Cavell
Your mistake was not leading at the flop in this unraised pot where no one has shown any strength. You could win pot outright and you have a ton of outs if you are called including your over cards. Who knows but the UTG might have accidently played decent poker and folded. The rest of your play was fine.
I like to apply more heat with a nut straight draw like you had. Bet or Ch raise the flop here and play your made hand like you did. Some times you can do everything right and still lose - you might have lost the KT witha strong play on the flop - maybe not.
I think you blew this one early on...
If you bet the flop you almost always win this pot. Let look at it...
UTG puts in a semi bluff on the flop and you don't make him pay for it.
When no one raises him he continues on the turn and you check raise. Now bettors almost never fold to a checkraise cause they feel like it is admitting they were bluffing and ego just gets in the way of admitting that you got tricked into betting... So he calls with every intention of folding on the river if he does not catch his three outer...
If you bet the flop he has to fold especially with players to act behind him!
Sean
no text ;-)
I know but the raise came one to his right didn't it?? This leaves him open to a re-raise.
Winger,
Pre flop there all but one limped and the cutoff (the seat just before the button) raised. Our hero was on the button. Yes, a early limper could backraise (or limp reraise in Abdul speak) but this is relatively rare in a loose and somewhat passive game.
On the flop the big question was should Hero raise, fold, or call.
Regards,
Rick
In a somewhat tighter than average Los Angeles area 15/30 game I post a late position blind in the cutoff seat as a new player (I already had scouted the game a bit from the rail). I’m dealt a 6s5s. There is one moderately tight early limper, I check my option, and a somewhat loose, moderately aggressive and not too tricky player on the button raises (I’ve played him before and have “held” against him so I think he fears me a bit). The blinds fold and the limper and I call. Now some may not call here but it is at worse a close decision. I’m getting 6.7 to 1 odds and having only two opponents (albeit in a sandwiched position). Anyway, the pre flop call is not the point of the post but comment if you want too.
The flop comes an 8s8c7c. The limper checks and I check. Now some would take a stab with a semi-bluff here but I felt there was very little chance I would lose the button raiser on cheap street. In fact he would probably raise with overcards since he wouldn’t believe I would bet an eight (he hasn’t played me THAT much since I often would!). The button bets and the limper folds leaving my heads up with the button aggressor.
The turn is a 2h which is about as big a blank as one can get. I check again and the button checks behind me with a look of mild trepidation. Now I’m starting to think he has middle size overcards (rather than a pair or an ace high) and was worried about a check raise from me with the pair on board.
The river is the 2d. Now I’m convinced he doesn’t have an overpair (unless it was really big and he was inducing a bluff) so my only worry is that he may call with an ace high. With just under five big bets in the pot I take a stab with a pure bluff on the river. The button doesn’t even think as he folds. [Note: His not thinking tends to confirm that he had middle overcards. He should have at least pretended to think for a second or two so I would not know whether he would call with ace high in this spot].
I’m convinced I increased my chances of bluffing by checking and calling on the flop (and checking the turn with the intention of raising as a semi-bluff). When the blank hit the river my bet make it look like I was paired up. Although I was fairly sure an ace high would call with two pair on board I didn’t think he would call with less.
A few years ago (before reading the forum) I wouldn’t have make this play. But now I’m looking for more chances to steal and in this case playing a little less aggressively in the middle two rounds may have helped with the scary board and scary call.
Any comments will be appreciated.
Regards,
Rick
Pre-flop your call of the button raise after being half-way in is clear. You will occasionally flop a straight or flush draw plus with only two opponents a pair might win. I believe some players might even raise with your hand since you have posted but I would not.
At the river you cannot survive a showdown so betting is your only chance of winning. Based on the pot size if you think betting will work more than about 20% of the time then you should bet. It sounds like you had a good read on your opponent so betting here is probably right.
Calling the raise pre-flop is good. I think some people raise here. I would if I knew my opponents and it sounded like you did. I think that if you knew you weren't going to lose the button on the flop you should have bet out. You're open ended, runner-runner flush and straight flush. The question is do you think he would have raised you? Probably not. A bet would not have been out of the question. Maybe this is a little too aggressive. I know if scott was behind me then he would raise my bet so I would check to him, but I would probably bet into anyone else.
But let's imagine for a second. You probably could have gotten away with the pot on the turn. If you had raised pre-flop the button would not have raised and just called. Would this be a fair assumption? Then you check raise on the flop knowing that the button will bet. Then bet out on the turn. With all your during play assumtions it sounds like it could have panned out this way. I guess this might be hindsight but it sounds good.
Stephen
On the flop, I reckon a checkraise is in order. He will have to respect your raise and start playing his hand for what it's worth.
Checking on the turn is probably not as good as betting, in my opinion. When you check on the turn and he checks behind you, you've given him a free card and failed to show strength. Now if an Ace hits the board, you'll feel like you have to check to him.
The flop is your strength. He's only going to call you down with an 8 or AA-99. And you might jag your straight and get called down, to send him on tilt. I reckon your straight draw is good, by the way.
You say "I'm sure I increased my bluff chances by check-calling the flop". Well, more than if you check-folded. I think you would easily increase your bluff chances more by betting or check-raising.
You simulated the play of a weak-tight player holding winning cards (like JJ or K8). You'd rather simulate the play of God.
Richard Cavell
"The blinds fold and the limper and I call. Now some may not call here"
No, just call. no problem. It's a call, dammit.
"but it is at worse a close decision. I’m getting 6.7 to 1 odds and having only two opponents (albeit in a sandwiched position)."
Stop justifying, I tell you.! It's a call, a definite call. ;^|
"Anyway, the pre flop call is not the point of the post "
Yes, okay, now we're talking.
"The flop comes an 8s8c7c. The limper checks and I check. Now some would take a stab with a semi-bluff here"
I would probably take a stab. Small caps scott would take a stab, but then he's handy with a knife. But wait...
"but I felt there was very little chance I would lose the button raiser on cheap street."
Oh, well, okay, why didn't ya say so? I guess I can see not stabbing then, I think, maybe.
"The turn is a 2h which is about as big a blank as one can get."
Or as small a blank, depending on how you look at it.
"I check again"
A bet might have made some sense here, but oh, okay. What next?
"and the button checks behind me"
Ah, good. Maybe you can steal on the river.
"with a look of mild trepidation."
Maybe more than maybe.
"Now I’m starting to think he has middle size overcards (rather than a pair or an ace high) and was worried about a check raise from me with the pair on board."
But he smartly avoided it! Hmmm, all this hand reading. I think I don't wanna play with you.
"The river is the 2d... With just under five big bets in the pot I take a stab..."
You like that stab metaphor don't you. The butcher of the poker table. Well, good stab. He pretty much can't call without ace-high, as you knew. And he's not going to bluff raise here. Good stab. Sharp knife.
"I’m convinced I increased my chances of bluffing by checking and calling on the flop"
Well, it was one way to bluff at it. Assuming he had overcards like KJ, QJ..., I guess you could have just played aggressively and won it on the turn or river. But there's more than one way to stab...err...skin a cat.
"(and checking the turn with the intention of raising as a semi-bluff)"
Whoa, hold on there! You didn't tell us this before. Okay, cool, you were going to make the big move on the turn. Okay, okay, cool.
"...in this case playing a little less aggressively in the middle two rounds may have helped..."
Uh, but with the thought of playing big time aggressively, but he checked along. No problem, steal it this way, steal it that way. They can't stop you. Nice hand well played sir. ;-) :-)
John,
Uh! I'm afraid that you may be in need of a little therapy. Know any good psycologists?
Vince.
"The turn is a 2h which is about as big a blank as one can get. I check again and the button checks behind me with a look of mild trepidation. Now I’m starting to think he has middle size overcards (rather than a pair or an ace high) and was worried about a check raise from me with the pair on board."
i have some questions about this. if i were the button i would be inclined to check here with A highs and especially pairs to try and induce a bluff and to bet here with KJ etc. (well, actually. i would check the turn and bluff raise the river against some opponents and i would check the turn and fold the river against others but the turn check makes it more likely for me to have a hand that might win a showdown.) why do you read him the way you do?
overall i like your play and it is certainly one of the many viable ways to steal a pot. i suspect this one was yours for the taking at any point.
wouldn't have been so cool if he had JT and called you on the river, winning with a J high? i dont think i have ever won a showdown with a J high. i have won a few with K high though. it always makes me feel so happy.
scott
Rick,
Hope this post is not too late to gain your attention. Your play on the first and last betting rounds seems clearly sound to me, but I'm not so sure about those middle two rounds. Although you hit a good piece of the flop and your opponent probably missed, you did not apply any pressure on him to fold until the river (and you were a bit lucky he did not have an ace or hit one of his overcards). I think a bet on the turn, perhaps preceded by a check-raise on the flop, may have a higher EV against most opponents.
MJS,
I meant to write a follow up but I've been buried and was not sure how to express myself. Besides, J. Feeney did a thorough psychoanalysis of me for free.
Although I was new to the game this player had played me quite a bit recently and had been playing back at me quite often on my flop and turn semi-bluffs. Now this isn’t so bad when my semi-bluff is more in the order of bottom pair overcard kicker since he would often have only a draw of his own or merely overcards and I would be leading more often than not. But against someone who is defending hard against semi-bluffs, you don’t want to semi-bluff with low card draws.
Note that I did intend to check raise the turn had he bet. And when he didn’t bet I thought he was weaker than ace high. In a post above, skp’s point is well taken in that a better player might be more likely to bet the weaker hand on the turn and induce a bluff with the ace high. But this guy just wasn’t that type of player.
Regards,
Rick
Perhaps you chose the best course of action against this opponent. Although you're a small dog to his likely overcards on the flop, you have sufficient odds to check-call the flop and turn hoping to outdraw him. Whether more aggressive action on these rounds would increase your EV depends on the playing tendencies of the opponent.
Regards
I am next to UTG in a full game. UTG folds. I raise with Ac Kh. The 2 players to my immediate left cold call the raise. They are slightly on the loose side when calling raises. Everyone else folds including the blinds.
The flop comes Qs Ts 9c. How do you play the flop?
Puggy
You should bet the flop. With only two opponents you might win the pot outright and you have some outs if you are called. The two flush is not a major concern with only two opponents.
Jim,
Thanks for the response. The problem is that this flop is almost guaranteed to have hit one of the cold callers. In fact, I think your chances of winning it right there are very, very small. Plus, the chances that you'll get raised are extremely high. There's all kinds of draws out there, top pairs, 2 pairs, pairs + draws, etc.
After you call the raise, you can never be sure how many outs you actually have. A Jack will win it for you, but you're not thrilled if it's a spade. You sure can't be happy if a King comes. If an Ace comes, you could easily be up against 2 pair, and again, you're not happy with the Ace of spades.
On average, I'd call it maybe 5-7 outs on the flop, plus a tiny chance of having the best hand. Pretty marginal.
Anyway, I DID bet. The first cold-caller folded and the 2nd raised. I called.
4d on the turn.
I checked, raiser bet. I called again. River comes the 2d. I checked, raiser bet, I folded.
I've been second guessing myself about this hand for 2 days.
Puggy
I don't play 15-30 but I think I would bet it out and fold if raised. You could get an A, K or J, but they could all get you in trouble, except the J. That 2nd guy probably has KJ for the straight on the flop. He could even have J8 and if you showdown he would say something like, "It was s00ted that's why I called your raise." Do you believe it reasonable that he had AQ? If he's the type player you're describing then he's not slow playing his monster. His raise means he's got the nuts and you should bail. I don't know if you want to consider the turn call a mistake but I don't think I would have called.
Stephen
But Puggy you were the pre-flop raiser and they are going to be worried about you. You stated that they were on the loose side when calling raises. There are only two opponents not five or six. Suppose they called your pre-flop raise with middle pairs like 88 or 77? Suppose they called with something A9 suited or AT offsuit with no Spade? Well, they may fold when you bet out of fear that you have a bigger pair (e.g.-AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT, or AQ which gives you top pair). They would be folding better hands! When this happens you gain a lot. Someone with another AK but no Spade may decide to fold! The key here is that you are planning to call anyway if someone else bets so you might as well bet yourself. The chances of getting raised are not very high at all since you were the pre-flop raiser and the only hand you could have that this flopped missed is AK with no Spade or JJ with no Spade. Putting in another way, if you get raised you can probably fold knowing you are playing with very few outs. Your flop call of the raise was marginal.
I think you should have definitely folded on the turn.
But you and I really need to have a dialogue about this because I believe you have the wrong approach. The last thing you want to do in these shorthanded situations is be in a check-call mode. You end up putting yourself on the defensive and going too far with your hand. Mathematically your flop bet only costs you a fraction of a bet those times you get called. But the flop bet is a good money maker in those situations where with only two opponents you can get them both to fold.
Jim,
You were right when you said that the cold callers should be worried about me betting the flop. But these were loose cold callers, and if they called preflop with something like AT or A9 (even suited), they won't be folding it on the flop (especially if they've got a backdoor draw). You're right that if they both have 7s or 8s, they will muck it but how often will this happen?? There's such a high chance that this flop hit either of them. I agree with Rick that if we change the 9 to a 3, it's a definite bet. However, in this case, I think it's marginal. I like your attitude about keeping aggression here though. This is one I have to think about more.
Once I do bet and get raised, there's 10 small bets in the pot. That's almost enough just to call and hit the jack. (Of course, the J of spades might not be good, but) Plus, an Ace may be good. I think the flop call is OK, but I agree that the turn call is pretty bad.
Thanks for the posts, guys. I thought this hand was pretty interesting.
Puggy
(n/t)
Puggy,
Here is a quick comment. I agree with Jim Brier above that you usually want to bet into two opponents. However, in my post below I thought this particular flop required more caution. He might agree upon further examination.
Regarding the outcome, I think once you check and call the turn, you should check and call the river when another blank hits. There are some draws he could have missed that you can beat including AT and the flush draws that missed. Even if it were slightly minus EV, you would have slept better ;-).
Regards,
Rick
AK is the most difficult and misplayed hand around bar none that includes tournaments (IMHO).
With that flop and assuming the players are decent I just check/fold it. Playing them strong is an option IF the flop and players are right but I guess I get away from it 75% of the time and save a lot of BB in the process.
I am just not getting in a drawing match with a no pair hand. I view it like a 3 card flush or straight.
I either check-fold or check-RAISE(call if three-bet; check-fold the turn if a blank comes, bet out if a Jack or Spade comes, check-call if an Ace or King comes).
Incidentally, which did you like more in "The Cell": the "looking in the fridge" scene, or the "horse" scene? I'll go w/ the fridge but the hoss thing WAS something you don't see everyday(two people walked out right afterwards)...OOPS, wrong forum.. :)
I was wondering what the star was doing with a wanker like "Puff Daddy" - movie was entertaining but I liked the "art of war" a lot more. Only movie I have walked out on in recent memory was the super heros movie with Jeanene Goraphilo(sp) - gave bad a whole new meaning.
It depends entirely on my opponents. My two options are check and call one bet or else bet out.
Firstly, it is far too likely that this sort of flop has hit my opponents. I assume I can only win with a jack, or probably an ace.
1) I will check if I there is some chance I can get a free card, and if I am pretty sure that if I bet my opponents know how to raise. Now if my jack hits I checkraise.
2) I will bet if I think there's any chance it will make them weak-tight (ie if they're not going to raise me in spite of having the best hand, and might even fold).
Probably 80% of the time, I'll check and call.
Richard Cavell
Puggy,
I haven’t read the other answers yet. In general, I like betting the flop into two opponents with AK and two parts of Broadway on board (i.e., QJ, QT, JT). But there are several factors in favor of checking here.
1) The third card is a nine so the entire flop is coordinated and they will either bet for you or not thin out when you bet.
2) There is a two flush and you don’t have this suit so you can’t backdoor a strong flush hand. But an opponent could easily have a two flush.
3) You said your opponents are “slightly loose when calling raises”. In Los Angeles, I take this to mean they call raises with middle cards (Wednesday afternoon at the Bellagio, it means they call raises with AQ ;-)). The board is all middle cards. Your bet will often get raised
4) They can be fairly sure that most of the flop didn’t hit you, but you don’t have that luxury. So expect a lot of pressure from draws and pair/draw type hands.
I would check and see what happens. If there is a bet and a raise back to you, get out now while the pot is small. If there is a bet and a fold then call and consider leading the turn. If there is a bet and a call also take one off but now you need to hit something on the turn to continue.
Regards,
Rick
But Rick with a flop of: QsTs9c what early position pre-flop raising hands does this flop miss from the point of view of your opponents? Answer: only AK with no Spade. AA and KK are over pairs, QQ is a set, JJ is an open ended straight draw, TT is a set, AQ is top pair/top kicker. This board can look as scary to your opponents as it does to you. You need to take advantage of this by betting. If you get raised you can consider folding or just calling and then folding the turn when a blank hits. You escape at minimum cost. But if you check, you forsake the opportunity of winning the pot outright with only two opponents and you put yourself in a guessing mode for the rest of the hand.
Jim,
I know I’m in trouble when your post starts off with “But Rick” ;-). Anyway, you have convinced me that betting out is probably better. But my thinking may have gone along the following lines:
Puggy described the cold callers as slightly loose in cold calling early raises. In my experience, they are the types not to give up unless they held underpairs. With this flop, they will tend to be optimistic and think that you have AK, can be blown off it eventually, and if not (i.e., they think you hold the overpair or the top pair with a good kicker), they have three to eight outs. They discount the possibility that you would flop a set and bet it out (even though we usually do and should).
The other problem I had was the presence of the nine. This rarely helps the UTG raiser (unless he holds JJ for the straight draw). Take that card away and I will bet almost every time against most opponents.
Regards,
Rick
To my way of thinking the key is that you are the pre-flop raiser and are the first to act. If you had decided to vary your play and just limp in with big slick, then I would favor checking rather than betting.
If a game consists of 6 loose players who play badly, and 4 players who are somewhat equally matched in skill level, does the edge simply go to the equally skilled player who exemplifies the most patience?
Over the long run, the 4 better players figure to get all of the 6 bad player's money minus the rake. But as most of us know, this can be a long tedious process. The majority of chips put into play will be exchanged by the 6 bad players since collectively their outs will combine to make good hands vulnerable. In addition, the 4 good players are wasting energy if you will, over the long run, those times they find themselves competing against each other.
It seems to me that even most good players are subject to tilt in these type of games when they are not winning. Could it be that this is where one of the 4 equally skilled players can now seize a huge edge? By simply outwaiting his 3 competive collegues and refusing to tilt or otherwise let his play deteriorate, how significant does this become? Or is this not a very imortant subject? This may be overrstating the obvious yet, I see this scenario time and time again in games of all limits.
Dr. Trey
If a game consists of 6 loose players who play badly, and 4 players who are somewhat equally matched in skill level, does the edge simply go to the equally skilled player who exemplifies the most patience?
Over the long run, the 4 better players figure to get all of the 6 bad player's money minus the rake. But as most of us know, this can be a long tedious process. The majority of chips put into play will be exchanged by the 6 bad players since collectively their outs will combine to make good hands vulnerable. In addition, the 4 good players are wasting energy if you will, over the long run, those times they find themselves competing against each other.
It seems to me that even most good players are subject to tilt in these type of games when they are not winning. Could it be that this is where one of the 4 equally skilled players can now seize a huge edge? By simply outwaiting his 3 competive collegues and refusing to tilt or otherwise let his play deteriorate, how significant does this become? Or is this not a very imortant subject? This may be overrstating the obvious yet I see this scenario time and time again in games of all limits, and many otherwise good players seem to be unaware of this judging from their play.
Dr. Trey
.
Yes, the person who does not go on tilt will be the biggest winner. However, do not equate patience with tight/loose. When you are playing against so many bad players I think it is more profitable to play more hands because you will be involved in so many more hands with them and thus allowing them to make more mistakes against you.
This is the most important thing in poker, period, IMHO. I would call it discipline. Once the basic strategies and skills are acquired, discipline is what separates the winners from the losers. In my experience I have encountered many players who are excellent; well versed in odds, bluffing, position et cetera. But, eventually, in the end, the give up their edge. They give up in the blurry fog of battle.
One more thing. If poker becomes tedious, don't play. I can't imagine a bored Tiger Woods or Wayne Gretzky? Can you?
Your post and others through the years that stress the two ideas of patience and discipline are the most worthwhile of all.
I think of patience as only playing good starting hands in proper position while discipline is being able to fold a hand that becomes an underdog as the hand develops (except for good pot odds situations).
These skills are easy to discuss and write about away from the table. Players who truly can stick with them during the game have a huge advantage.
Having patience and not going on tilt is the mark of a good player - if the other "good" players let their games deteriorate they ar bsing over estimated.
I'd be shoping for another game - I find it is almost impossible to beat 6 maniacs at the same table - you are correct about the collective outs and it becomes a crap shoot. I like 2-3 that I can maybe isolate but 6 is way to many.
I wasn't necessarily referring to maniacs per se. If there are 6 bad players in the game who are not overly aggressive or otherwise tricky, do you still not find this game good for you?
Yes - a game I would look for under those circumstances.
I appreciate the thoughts. Again, this is probably nothing more than the obvious, but I've been more attuned to this than in the past. Good players start tilting when they find themselves stuck in a game which is overly easy and they therefore feel they deserve to be ahead.
I was just wondering how much of an effect this may have on one's edge.
I think there are quite a few players who can play patient, disciplined poker when they first sit down. However, once they've been playing for about 5 hours, many of these 'patient' players will start to loosen up and gamble with the weaker players. Shortly after this, they'll find their chips draining away. Even if they were winning to this point, their chips will drain away just as fast as if they has only a few left.
Continued patience will mean the difference between losing 10 BB and losing 25 BB on a bad night. It also means the difference between winning 20 BB and winning 10 BB on a good night. I don't think you can be a winning poker player if you can't be patient for the entirety of all of your poker sessions.
Here's a hand that I played in a slightly wild $30-$60 game at The Bellagio.
I had AhQc under the gun and raised. Four players called behind me and the big blind called.
The flop came Ad Kh 4h. The BB checked, I checked, the player on my immediate left bet, two players behind him called, the BB folded, and I called.
The turn was the 7s. I checked, the player on my immediate left bet, one player called behind him, I raised, the player on my left call, and the player behind him folded.
The river was a 3d. I bet and was called. My opponent held the Ac2c and I won a pretty big pot.
All comments are welcome.
Any reasonable strategy should prevail in a game where players are calling UTG raises with A2 suited. Good game selection.
The crux of this hand is whether to check raise either the flop or the turn; given the position of the flop bettor I think the check raise on the turn is a slightly higher profit expectation, although there is nothing wrong with a flop raise either, IMO.
Questions to consider: are they capable of dropping (incorrectly perhaps) out on the flop with one bet in? Is the A2suited capable of letting his ace go? (not likely for a mug calling with that in the first place). What is to be done if fourth street brings a heart? Would the A2 raise a UTG flop bet? All of these questions and many more effect this situation however this strategy appears to my thinking to be optimum. But what do I know?
Why not ck-raise the flop to get rid of a hand like JT with one a Heart - Your were most certainly in the lead. Just a question - I probably play it like you did most of the time but usually regret not playing stronger earlier when some one sucks out runner runner on me.
Rounder, if you check raise the flop, wouldn't the gutshot have better odds now given the position of the bettor? (Assuming the original bettor does not reraise.)
I'm not gonna let that effect my strategy. The fact that some guy thinks it is "correct" to make a otherwise unwise call with marginal pot odds is OK by me - he is playing a 6 outter to my made hand that could improve. I like this postion every time - besids how many players to you think play 2+2 poker I suggest not as many as they would like you to believe.
What would you have done if your pre-flop raised had been re-raised?
Hi Mason,
I miss talking to you already!
Now:
"I had AhQc under the gun and raised. Four players called behind me and the big blind called."
It doesn't get much better than this, now does it! How many mistakes were made we can only speculate. Caller fou probably could call correctly with any group 4-5. But what kind of hand does each need to call. I don't think that you posted the hand to discuss this but there are a lot of pros out there that believe that getting a lot of 2 bet cold callers is a bad thing. They are wrong, wrong, wrong. There problem is that they don't know how to afdapt, adapt, adapt.
I don't like your check call on the flop. I bet and look to get raised and then I three bet it. If I get four bet I begin to worry that someone smoothed called preflop with A,K.
I also bet out on the turn. If I get raised I'm pretty sure I'm beat but make a crying call anyway. There is a slight chance that someone may raise the turn with that board without a minimum of A,K but I don't think that happens often. The pot is now too big to let go with my hand.
I bet the river also. There we agree.
Now what's wrong with my playing of the hand. Well it seems that we have results of the hand played the way you played it. Those results look good. So whose correct. Check the results for the right answer.
Vince.
Say hello to Charmaine (spelling).
You would have gotten more money check-raising the flop, than the turn.
- Andrew
I've never played $30-$60 at Bellagio, so I can't identify what you did right or wrong. Obviously, you're slowplaying top pair with the intention of disguising your hand and perhaps getting someone to fold a better hand.
The flop's not that good for you. The K will counterfeit your Q in the event of a running pair, and normally the Q gives you a few extra cards to make a hand (ie hit top two pair without trying).
I'd like to bet the flop and watch my opponents' faces as they act. I'm prepared to reraise the flop because of the flush draw (and the fact that running hearts gives you nut flush). Somehow, I'd really like to put them all on a hand before the turn card hits.
"Here's a hand that I played in a slightly wild $30-$60 game at The Bellagio."
You sure it wasn't a $3-$6 game at the Mirage?
"I had AhQc under the gun and raised. Four players called behind me and the big blind called."
So much for narrowing down the field. I guess if you didn't raise it would have been a family pot.
"The flop came Ad Kh 4h. The BB checked, I checked, the player on my immediate left bet, two players behind him called, the BB folded, and I called."
The player that bet probably has a weeker hand than you. So, you don't have to worry about two pair, since two pair will usually go for a check-raise. The other players could be on a draw. If you would raise at this point, you would be taking the player that bet out of the lead. Which you do not want to do in order to drive out the other players on a more expensive round.
"The turn was the 7s. I checked, the player on my immediate left bet, one player called behind him, I raised, the player on my left call, and the player behind him folded."
The same player bet again indicating that his hand did not improve. Correctly, you raised driving out an additional opponent. Now, you know for sure that your opponent had only a pair. If his hand was better he would have re-raised.
"The river was a 3d. I bet and was called. My opponent held the Ac2c and I won a pretty big pot."
You figured you had to bet the river in order to get an extra bet. If you checked, your opponent would have likely checked.
Here's a few comments on my hand:
"I had AhQc under the gun and raised. Four players called behind me and the big blind called."
In games where you expect a lot of callers and they play reasonably well after the flop this raise can be wrong. (See HPFAP-21.) However, if they come with lots of weak hands and also play poorly, you are giving up too much by just calling.
"The flop came Ad Kh 4h. The BB checked, I checked, the player on my immediate left bet, two players behind him called, the BB folded, and I called."
Even though I have hit may hand, given that the pot is pretty big my first priority should be to maximize my chances of winning it. I felt that even if I got a late position bettor and check raised (the flop) I would get other players calling for two bets. Thus the check and call startegy with the hope of check raising on fourth street. Furthermore, it should be fairly obvious that I probably have the best hand since I would have been three bet before the flop by AK, AA, or KK.
"The turn was the 7s. I checked, the player on my immediate left bet, one player called behind him, I raised, the player on my left call, and the player behind him folded."
My main purpose of this raise was to fold my opponents out, especially the caller who could easily have five outs.
"The river was a 3d. I bet and was called. My opponent held the Ac2c and I won a pretty big pot."
As I said above, it appeared that I have the best hand, if a jack or a ten was the river card the chances of my AQ being good go down.
This hand is very interesting. In this spot, I would normally hope to check-raise a late position bettor on the flop to thin the field. You say you planned to check-call because you expected your opponents would cold-call two bets on the flop. However, two of your five opponents failed to call just one small bet. This begs the question: How many expected folds would be necessary to make a check-raise the preferred play on the flop (assuming a late-position bettor)?
The fact that the flop bettor was on your immediate left reduces your chances of thinning the field on the turn as well as on the flop. Despite this unfortunate development, I would probably still proceed to check-raise the flop; my reasoning would now be that if I cannot drive out my opponents, I can at least make them pay the max. (And if I follow-up with a lead-bet on the turn, the strength I have shown may induce folds.) Do you see a serious problem with this reasoning?
You say the main purpose of your check-raise on the turn was to drive out players. However, it is not obvious why check-raising the bettor on your left would be more likely to thin the field than betting into him--especially if the two late callers are loose/wild players; your check-raise provided the remaining late caller with 13:1 pot odds for his possible 5-outer. Although I do concede that typical opponents would be somewhat more likely to fold after you check-raise the turn than after you lead bet (unless the original bettor raises), this may not always compensate for the risk of giving a free turn card.
It seems to me that check-raising the flop and betting out on the turn may achieve close to the same fold rate, while extracting extra money from weak hands on the flop (and not risking a free turn card).
Here's a few comments on your comments:
Your first comment just bears out my point of adapting to the situation. Although, an arguement can be made for raising UTG with A,Qo even if all the callers behind you are experts, the value of A,Q goes down in a situation that you describe.
Even though I have hit may hand, given that the pot is pretty big my first priority should be to maximize my chances of winning it. I felt that even if I got a late position bettor and check raised (the flop) I would get other players calling for two bets. Thus the check and call startegy with the hope of check raising on fourth street. Furthermore, it should be fairly obvious that I probably have the best hand since I would have been three bet before the flop by AK, AA, or KK.
Here is where I have a problem. If it is fairly obvious that you have the best hand then why would you assume that a hand you could beat would bet. If you do assume a weaker Ace will bet isn't it better to try and use that by betting and getting him to assist in thinning the field by raising you. Your position in this hand is poor. By checking you increase the probability that you get beat by taking the chance of giving a free card. And if you do have the best hand and they call well then what is wrong with getting more money in the pot when you have the best hand. You are really hoping that your opponents are counterfitting each others outs or will toss uniqe 3 outers. Many players will be afraid that you have A,K and toss the hand here. Of course you were playing and knew the players. By checking you seem to have accomplished the same thing as if you would have bet. So there.
No problem with the turn, considering the way you played the flop.
"The river was a 3d. I bet and was called. My opponent held the Ac2c and I won a pretty big pot."
As I said above, it appeared that I have the best hand, if a jack or a ten was the river card the chances of my AQ being good go down.
Obviously you are wrong here. You must be just as afraid of small cards against opponents that will call two bets with Axs. Of course, betting is correct unless the opponent is so weak that he will raise this board with two pair like Aces and 3's.
Vince.
"Obviously you are wrong here. You must be just as afraid of small cards against opponents that will call two bets with Axs. Of course, betting is correct unless the opponent is so weak that he will raise this board with two pair like Aces and 3's."
Vince, I hope you are not suggesting that Mason should check the river against a bad player on the off-chance that he made two pairs when the 3 hit and will raise. This is the type of opponent that you must bet the river against because he will miss making two pairs 8 out of 9 times (nearly 14 out of 15 times if he has Ax). Given the size of the pot, he will likely call the 14 times that he misses and only might raise the 1 time he hits. It's a clear value bet against such an opponent. A check may be called for against a good player who may fold a weaker Ace at the end but bet it if Mason checks. Actually scratch that, I would value bet here against anybody.
SKP,
Honesty is the best policy. I would bet the river in the situation as described by Mason. I said that Mason was obviously wrong when he determined that if a J hit the river he was probably beat. My point was that against a weak opponent no river card is a safe bet. I did imply that it may be a mistake to bet agaisnt a weak player that would raise with a small two pair given the board and the play of the hand. I was including in my evaluation the fact that he may have already made two pair on fourth street or infact may have flopped or turned a set. Mason used rational thought and logic to put his opponent on a possible hands, determining that high cards were his most likely cards to fear. Mason was correct in usong logic to put his opponent on a hand but he came to an incorrect conclusion. When you have a bad or weak player as an opponent you must widen the probable hands that he may have. With players that will call 2 bets cold (first to act after raiser) with an A,2 suited hand you can never be sure what is a safe river card because you can never know for sure where you are in the hand unless you have the nuts. So, sure, the betting may be the best bet but it is not a slam dunk. One pair even Aces is a mediocre hand given the scenario that Mason describes. The curious part of the hand is that he got one player to fold with a check raise after that player had called a bet on the turn. He must have had a small pair and put Mason on a high set. If so his first call seems incorrect. So tell me how could you ever feel safe about your logical conclusions in a game like that.
Vince.
"The curious part of the hand is that he got one player to fold with a check raise after that player had called a bet on the turn. He must have had a small pair and put Mason on a high set. If so his first call seems incorrect."
Vince,
I think that was the whole point of Mason's play. by checkraising the turn, he gets the button to fold Kx or some other 5 outer hand because the dude holding the 5 outer now puts on his thinking cap and figures he is drawing dead to Mason's AA, KK or AK. You can't fault the button for calling with his Kx or whatever on the flop and turn because until Mason pulls the checkraise trigger, he has no reason to believe that he doesn't have a 5 outer.
BTW, I made a mistake in my earlier post. I said that the 3 is not going to make Mason's opponent Aces up approximately 14 out of 15 times i.e. whatever his kicker is, he will get there only 3 out of 44 tries. But the fact is that this assumes that he already does not have Aces up. This means that he will get there 3 out of 35 times i.e. I forget what the board was on the turn but if it was AK96, you must take all of the k's,9's, and 6's out of the deck to figure out the odds that the trey gave him aces up. Thus, the 3 will give this fellow Aces up 3 out of 35 times. Still not enough to worry about so I would fire another bet and expect to be called given the size of the pot.
I haven't read the other responses because the damn server is too slow. In any case, here's my take.
I don't get it.
I am assuming that the reasoning behind the check on the flop is similar to the reasoning behind your check with AA in the PD article. You want to try and limit the field with a raise on the flop or turn rather than betting out on the flop and turn. But the big problem you have here is your poor position.
A check from you in this position may well result in no one betting the flop. You then have to hope that a bet on the turn comes from either the BB or the button so you can checkraise and limit the field. Meanwhile, you are just giving up free cards galore and failing to capitalize on a good flop when you are likely ahead.
I think that the best play on the flop is to bet. You did say it was a wild game so who is to say that someone is not going to limit the field by raising your bet with a hand like KJ. Also, when 4 players coldcall your raise preflop, the chances are pretty good that there will be an Ace out there. If that Ace is out to your immediate left (as it was here), he almost surely will raise and help you limit the field.
Obviously, you know the 30-60 Bellagio game better than I do. I have to assume that the players there even in a wild game are going to lay down 5 outers to a bet and raise on the flop given that you could have flopped a set or top two in which case they can't have 5 outers.
BTW, if limiting the field is still a concern, well you can still try for a checkraise on the turn i.e. even if you bet the flop and just called a raise.
There's lots more one can say about your play of this hand. Frankly, I am not sure that I like your play at all here.
I also took issue with Mason's check-call strategy on the flop, but I would favor a check-raise. The texture of the game and of the flop (i.e., with an ace, a king, and a flush draw) makes it very likely IMO that someone will bet. If nobody bet the flop, then Mason probably would not have received any help to thin the field had he bet out. However, he would now have more leverage to thin the field with a bet on the turn: their pot odds would be smaller, and opponents would be concerned that Mason was planning to check-raise the flop. See my post above for more arguments in favor of check-raising; I would welcome your feedback.
I do not like your idea of betting out on the flop and then attempting a check-raise on the turn to thin the field; IMO, this planned 4th street check-raise would be very risky. Loose players in a big pot are likely to call a bet on the flop with very weak hands and then may accept a free card on the expensive street--especially after you've shown strength by raising preflop and betting into a large field on the flop. Even aggressive players will often understand that this pot is protected.
You wrote that had Mason bet the flop, someone on his left with an ace "almost surely will raise." I think that when Mason Malmuth raises UTG and then bets into 5 opponents after a two-suited A-K-x flop, many players would be reluctant to raise with just top pair.
I am not so sure of that. Don't forget that this game was described as a wild game. If guys are calling raises with Ac2c, I would expect that they will raise the flop when an Ace hits.
I have looked at your other posts in this thread and generally agree with the things you have said.
Just a point of clarification: In my earlier post, I was not suggesting that I would invariably bet the flop and then look to get in a field-thinning checkraise on the turn. My point simply was that this is an option which may be open to Mason depending on...well...a whole bunch of things.
IMO, to check the flop, Mason has to be awfully sure that:
(a) If he bets, no one will raise but that he will get several calls i.e. it wouldn't be bad for Mason if no one raises but he gets just 1 or 2 calls
(b) Someone will bet if he checks so that he can checkraise (it being better if that someone was in late position).
While I think that there is a lot of merit to Mason's play of AA as described in the recent PD article, I think that there are lots of problems with his play on this hand.
Not having read any of the other responses, I assume this is an example of mixing up your play. Also, the plays you made are better because it is a wild game, which means there is a better chance that someone will bet behind you.
William
This is not an example of mixing up your play. In fact, mixing up your play in this type of pot can be a very serious mistake. When you say "mix up your play" I am assuming that you are suggesting playing deceptively and thus giving up a little expectation early in the hand so that you can perhaps make it back later in the hand with a little extra.
But in this situation the pot is already quite large. Therefore the main driver of your strategy, given that you have a hand that can be beat in many ways, is to maximize your chances of winning the pot. Mixing up your play (or playing deceptively) will frequently lower your chances of winning the pot in exchange for sometimes winning a bigger one. This is precisely the opposite from the way you should play in this spot.
If your opponent reraises, would you call, fold or reraise?
That's a tough spot. Many players would only reraise with an unbeatable hand. However, the pot is quite large, and if there is some chance that you can improve to the best hand or actually have the best hand you should call. This is mainly a function of your opponent.
One thing that I have noticed over the years is that when you play your hand "funny" as I did in this spot, it will make some of your opponents play their hands strangely as well. If you think that this might be the case, pay off.
When you say "mix up your play" I am assuming that you are suggesting playing deceptively and thus giving up a little expectation early in the hand so that you can perhaps make it back later in the hand with a little extra.
I think your check-call/chech-raise combo falls exactly under the catergory of FPS, or your own definition of "mix up your play".
- Andrew
Mason wrote:
"The flop came Ad Kh 4h. The BB checked, I checked,"
The above is from Mason's Hand to talk about. You will need to review post to answer the following questions that follow. I would have bet the flop.
Whose correct? Is it possible that both plays are correct? How can that be?
Vince.
Hint: Playing winning poker is based on concepts not laws. Kind of like Darwin's theory of evolution.
wrong Vince. Yup. Mason is right. His post was created to sell more copies of his HPFAF21C book. Take a look at the loose games section. I'll give a shot at explaining it.
When you're playing in a game where alot of players are cold calling preflop raises it becomes difficult to knock them out on the flop, but frequently you can knock them out on the turn for a double bet if they're drawing thin.
Mason checked on the flop because he was expecting someone to bet behind him, and of course he was right. Now, since no one raised, his opponent probably thought he had it locked up. Well, his opponent was wrong.
In a loose game he could have been beaten by a lot of hands. This play accomplishes stopping the rat from getting his mircle card on the river. In a loose game someone could have called with QT, QJ, or JT (suited or unsuited).
But, before you badger me Vince, I suggest reading his book.
The loosest games I wrote about so often are a thing of the past for me. The excitement is gone, there is nothing more to learn on scaling the fish, I found some serious (tight) competition elsewhere and am learning new moves, wasted on the idiot players.
We have a weekly $3-6 private game in Ljubljana, you can tell it's a fun game as my friends around the table all park their BMWs, Audis and Mecedeses outside next to my Harley, the stakes are obviously insignificant to them. These guys learned to respect my play and mastered the game quite well alongside with me (we all started from scratch in 1998, ripping off the hold'em rules off the Net and ditching the game of 5card stud in the process).
So they tell me they are beating that Italian game in Park HIT Casino Nova Gorica I graduated at and left, and they are beating it bad. They tell me the fish are fishier than ever before. They tell me there is a lot of rules explaining going on. They tell me about the guy that raises every hand. They tell me about the guy that posts a blind UTG. They tell me about the guy who calls three cold with 96s because there is a big pot in the making.
But they also tell me they don't want to raise with aces anymore, "...'cause they ALWAYS get cracked." (If that's true, dump them preflop then, I say...) They tell me about the bad beats and the frustration of getting sucked out again and again. They tell me about the fuckin' moronic bluffer that pushed them out on the river, but the other fish called and took it down with a pair of deuces. They tell me come and see, Izmet, this is insane...
So I went to take a look again.
It was fun.
Funny, except for one or two guys, all the faces were familiar. It needs to be said these are very friendly people, greeting me with a smile, long time no see, let's play some hold'em, Izmet, welcome back. I was very pleased to see them again, I have lots of respect for these whales outside the cardroom (they pull in some awful lira ammounts away from the poker tables, no comparison of their life achievements to the pitiful smartass USA poker pros living in a van by the river).
But they suck at hold'em big time. So we played $15-30.
The game was not that fishy as I remembered it, they learned to duck the raises while I was away, but they still enjoy seeing the flop for a good price. There was one guy who seemed to enjoy bluffing, another who never raised period (except with the nuts or trips). The fishiness manifests itself in many different ways.
I 3bet once with my KK preflop and to my surprise three early limpers all folded. Another surprise: I got 4bet immediately by the raiser (he had K8o) and this giggling guy check-called me all-the way on a K high board. Now can anybody explain to me how a guy like that can be so stupid preflop and then play close to perfect by rope-a-dopeing postflop? I'm not surprised so many solid players have trouble beating the fishiest of the fish. Anything can happen, the fish can stumble upon a correct move by accident and radical adjustments are in order.
So maybe the following hand can illustrate my approach to beating these guys:
I'm in the big blind, UTG limps and the next guy (a young player who is actually familiar with my Playing Against the Fish website) raises. Cold callers in the cutoff and on the button, small blind calls and I look down to see:
Question no.1: With 95s it's probably a call for most of the 2+2 people here, but what about 94s? Do you call here? Maybe I am underestimating the esteemed forum here, as it is a VERY clear call for me. I hope it is for you too.
We take the flop six handed. It comes:
Us early guys all check, preflop raiser checks too (!), the button bets, sb calls, I call, UTG calls and the raiser now check-raises. Button calls, sb calls and I now reraise my fourflush! UTG calls, raiser caps it and the rest of us call (the cutoff was the only one to drop out on the flop).
Question no.2: Am I better off flat calling?
Turn is:
Raiser bets his KK (I actually figured him for AA), button calls, sb folds, I call and UTG folds.
Question no.3: Could I bet out here?
We see the river three handed:
I bet out, raiser has a heart attack, curses, throws his $30 in with disgust for a call and the button overcalls. I show my flush and start piling the chips.
Question no.4: Was he correct in calling on the river with his KK?
Question no.5: Could and should I go for a check raise on the river?
Question no.6: What is my play if a nine hits on the river?
Question no.7: What is my play if a four hits on the river?
Question no.7: What is my play if a deuce hits on the river?
Question no.8: Do you wish you were here?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Izmet,
First let me congradulate you on your uniquely wonderfully scribed post. Bravo.
Now.
Question no.1:
I call. The suited gives me the excuse I need.
Question no.2: Am I better off flat calling?
You now are in great position to get as much money in the pot as possible. Raise: GooD!
Question no.3: Could I bet out here?
Izmet you are an adult. If you wanna bet. Bet. But you are behind and you need exactly 2.x callers to make your bet correct and if you get raised you need almost .. u get the idea. Check and call unless there is a good chance that both of your opponents will toss better hand to a check raise then check raise.
Question no.4: Was he correct in calling on the river with his KK?
Yes. You too smart. A guy like you might add flush cards to a straigt draw if pot big and think opponents (fish in your words) might fold if you bet.
Question no.5: Could and should I go for a check raise on the river?
No. If you are behind it costs you 3 bets instead of two. If you are ahead others might not bet with a flush on board. If there is a maniac there I still bet and maybe he raises with a lesser hand. Of course if that is the case you still only call his raise.
Question no.6: What is my play if a nine hits on the river?
Betting is prefferable. However a check and call is not incorrect. In some instances it may be better. If you put one opponnet on a T there is a good chance his kicker is a 9 and you are behind. If he is aggressive he may raise with top two costing you a bet.
Question no.7: What is my play if a four hits on the river?
Against a solid player this is an interesting question. A solid player with K,K will like the 4 on the river and normally bet. Unless of course he realizes he is playing against a bunch of loose callers that just might have the 4 of spades in thier hand. (In reality he may not think specifically that the 4 of spades is out. He just might feel that a four is out and decided to check just in case). Even with a big pot getting an extra bet by check raising still has some merit but I still bet out.
Question no.7: What is my play if a deuce hits on the river?
Check and call. You still have a mediocre hand. a hand I have lost with a few times myself.
Question no.8: Do you wish you were here?
Is is sunny and warm? Yes? Then Yes.
Now Izmet I must make a statement. Even though I like your post very much I have to admit that I am against referring to poker opponents as "fish". But calling them fish doesn't make you a bad person just well you know what I mean.
Vince.
A fish by any other name will still call Mason's raise with Ac2c.
Q1: 11-1 odds, nearly any two suited will do
Q2: 4 opponents with a hand that is about a 3-1 dog, raise goot.
Q3: Turn gives you ~9-10 outs, S&M say if it's worth a call it's worth a bet. Probably best to squeeze the middle than risk a raise which'll push out the button. Check call goot (maybe check-raise?).
Q4: River call by KK correct given the size of the pot.
Q5: No check-raise on river if opponents are even mildly sophitocated. KK'd probably put the button on the flush though.
With 18 1/2 BB in the pot what do we do if:
Q6: 9 hits -> Check-call
Q7: 4 hits -> usually check-raise, sometimes Check-call
Q8: 2 hits -> usually check-fold, sometimes check-raise
Q9: I do wish I were there, but online poker goot enough.
- Andrew
Why do you fear "risk(ing) a raise that'll push the button out", a button that could well be holding 10-9?
Because pushing the button out reduces your overlay.
- Andrew
But doesn't it also increase your chances of winning the hand?
There's 16 BBs in the pot after the flop betting round and two "enemy" BBs get put in on the turn. Betting out and having Raiser raise out the button gets the same amount in the pot, and it's well worth the extra $30 to get it headsup. If the button coldcalls $60 you'll probably save $30 by checkcalling if the flush comes on the river.
BTW how could the other two guys have folded the turn, getting 19-1?
1. Automatic call.
2. No, but I'd've bet straight out to begin with, so I'm not sure.
3. Yes, Raiser may raise and knock 10-9 out.
4. Not with the button still to act behind him having taken all that heat and the pot that big; you ain't bluffing.
5. No, only the button holding the nut flush bets.
6. Check-raise.
7. Check-raise.
7. Bet.
8. Depends on how close to the Adriatic coast this place is.
Izmet, as you probably know from my posts, I am not one to talk much about preflop play; I generally reserve my comments for postflop play.
However, I am intrigued by your comment (which others seem to share) that you have a very clear call preflop. I am not so sure about that.
I generally will call one raise with any 2 suited cards from the bb if I think that the pot I win will have about 27 small bets. Now, it sounds to me like that you were in a game where you stood to get paid off handsomely if you went on to make a hand. So, the call is probably correct. But I don't think that it can be said that every HE player in any game should call a raise with 94 suited from the bb just because there are 5 other players in the hand.
Paranthetically, I would note that 94 suited is better than J3 suited here but not as good as K3 suited.
Anyway, as to your questions:
Question no.1 (the preflop call): see above
Question no.2: Am I better off flat calling [the flop]?
I like your raise
Question no.3: Could I bet out here?
Yes. But check-call is a viable alternative.
Question no.4: Was he correct in calling on the river with his KK?
Yes
Question no.5: Could and should I go for a check raise on the river?
Probably not
Question no.6: What is my play if a nine hits on the river?
Checkraise if the preflop raiser bets and button only calls. Fold if button raises. Checkcall if button is the one who is doing the betting.
Question no.7: What is my play if a four hits on the river?
Usually checkraise.
Question no.7: What is my play if a deuce hits on the river?
Checkcall the preflop raiser. Fold if he bets and button calls.
Question no.8: Do you wish you were here?
No, the Vancouver games are better!
I recently played a 15-30 hand on which I would love to hear some critique. I am in middle position and am faced with a raise by a good player UTG. I chose to two bet it with my pocket 10's to try and get heads up and clarify his raise. This didn't work, A wild man(WM) on my left capped it and a VERY loose calling station in the small blind (SB) called as did UTG. The 4 of us saw the flop of A, 7, 6 rainbow with 17 small bets in the pot.
SB checked, UTG bet and I call. 1st mistake? I figured that 18 small bets were enough for what I figured was a two outer. (I put UTG on AK. I think he would have checked AA.) I was then surprised to see WM raise and SB cold call. UTG then capped it. I now have to call 2 bets but there are 25 in the pot. As I figure that 24 is what I needed to justify a call, there would be callers behind me and the fact that WM was almost all in and would not be applying more heat, all contributed to my decision to stay with it.
Still four people in and a pot of 37 small bets are there for a turn of an offsuit 8. I now have 4 more outs and gladly call the UTG bet, as do WM (all in) and SB.
The river was a perfect nine and both SB and UTG called my river bet. This was a huge pot but my play was considered proper by no one at the table. For what it is worth, SB mucked face down when she saw the AK held by UTG and WM mucked a pair of nines. Results don't count, proper play does. How bad was I?
Pre-flop your play is reasonable. Personally I don't think a pair of Tens is a good enough hand to 3 bet a solid UTG raiser but your reasons make sense and it cannot be too far wrong. Of course you take a flop even when it is capped.
On the flop, your initial call is fine. You don't have enough current pot odds to play a two outer which is a 22.5:1 shot but with implied odds I think you can go ahead and try to take a card off cheaply. However, when it is raised and re-raised back to you it is now costing you two bets cold with the possibility of one more raise. Your narrative is a little inaccurate since a cap is one bet and three raises. Only two raises have been made so far. If there are 25 small bets in the pot you are only getting pot odds of 25:2 which is 12.5:1. This is a far cry from the 22.5:1 odds needed. I think you should fold here especially with the possibility of having to call a final raise. But again when implied odds are considered plus remote runner-runner possibilities (as was the actual case) it cannot be a big mistake.
On the turn you have picked up four outs with any Nine but a Ten may no longer be an out since a Nine in someone's hand gives them a straight. Nevertheless, your turn and river play were fine.
You are right about the inaccuracy. I called the two bets and had to call a third after WM capped it. Aprpeciate your comments. There are few that I respect more and, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, you help of all us learning players is appreciated and I would love to see your down to earth analysis in print. Ever think about writing a book?
I think 2+2 has pretty much cornered the market on excellent poker books. About a year ago, as a learning aid for my brother, I developed a hold-em quiz. The quiz consists of 57 problems covering pre-flop play, play on the flop, on the turn, and at the river. There are 100 possible points. Just for fun I gave the quiz to about a dozen friends. The highest score was 78. The lowest score was 41. These are all experienced hold-em players. I also sent the quiz to John Feeney by way of appreciation for him sending me a copy of his excellent book "Inside the Poker Mind". The quiz consists of two word documents. The first document is the quiz itself. The second document is the solutions manual which provides my answers to each of the quiz problems along with the supporting rationale. Now of course these are my answers and not those of an authority so each player can judge for himself. I would be happy to E-Mail it to you if you wish to contact me privately.
what did John Feeney score?
I don't know that he ever actually took the quiz. If he did, he did not tell me what he scored or what he thought of the answers.
Congratulations.
I can't ( or won't ) commit to a critique of your play of this hand until I've had some time to digest all the details, but I do have a few ?'s.
1. How sure were you that UTG ( or even someone else ) didn't have "AA" in a capped pot? If you can say 95% or more, I would find it hard to call your (flop ) play more than marginally incorrect.
2. Did you notice, on the flop, that spiking a set would give "98" a straight? Again, if the 95% [ belief that nobody held this hand ] criteria was met, you can't really be accused of more than a minor error.
3. What hands hands had you seen "UTG" raise with prior to this? Normally, a raise from a "solid player" in this position is going to be a higher pair ( AA - JJ ) than yours - as opp. to overcards - about 1/3 of the time; if you thought your hand was at least a 2-1 favorite to be the best BTF I like your 3-bet alot. If you were less sure than this I think the LAST thing you would want to do is isolate him.
P.S. The congrat's were not winning the pot. They were for an EXCELLENT post - one of the best I've had the pleasure to read. I suspect it will receive many responses.
Looking forward to your hearing about next "close call".
- Chris
1 & 3 He would raise on the hands you suggested plus a few. Down to 10's, AJ and even A10s or KQs. The preflop raise hoped to clarify this as I didn't think he would 3 bet it without a premium pair. I didn't know that he didn't have AA but was sure that the Small Blind did. She would see A Face to the river with nothing but overcards. If UTG also had an A the odds of him having the case ace were reduced and many other hands justified his play. 2. Yes I noticed that but I didn't even think the maniac would have had a hand that was that poor. Thanks for the comments
Your first call on the flop is marginal at best. 18-to-1 plus implied odds is normally enough to call with a pair, but you are likely to be raised by the players behind you and thus your true odds are not as good as they seem.
Once it is raised and reraised, you are now getting 25-to-2 or only 12.5-to-1. This is not enough to try to make a set and you shouold have folded.
Given that you called, the rest of your play is okay.
"Once it is raised and reraised, you are now getting 25-to-2 or only 12.5-to-1. This is not enough to try to make a set and you shouold have folded."
I disagree. He has a back door out and good implied odds. With all those maniacs in there loose play in some instances is correct. Although I don't totally disagree. The fact that the odds do not really justify a call and since there appears to be a lot of bad players that you will chop up with your better hands folding is probably better.
Vince.
although I agree with you that when there are bad players, it calls for looser play, I think in this situation you are incorrect.
I think the key point is this : only one of them needs to have an ace for you to be a 12.5 to 1 - and even with runner runner straight outs, 12.5 to 1 is not enough...cause at least one of those 3 has an ace.
Assuming 2 tens are good (possibly a very wrong assumption), his additional runner-runner draw combined with implied odds isn't all that bad. Because if he hits perfect-perfect (9,8), it is extremely unlikely anyone's on top of him with JT. Would you agree?
AC wrote : "Assuming 2 tens are good (possibly a very wrong assumption)..."
Stop right there. I think that's a horrible assumption, and therefore the hand should be folded. Of course, if you assume your hand is good, then the pot odds are good...if he had KQ (which is no pair), and you assume no one has a pair, you should be raising until the cows come home.
Pardon me if I misunderstood your post, I'm trying to be as cordial as possible, but it doesn't make sense to me to assume that TT is good.
Doc-
I think you and I agree more on this hand than I might have led you to believe in my response to your post. I hate the initial call on the flop.. (see my post below).
I say, "possibly very wrong assumption" you say, "horrible assumption". Same gist. I have no quarrel with negating a Ten as an out. But for whatever reason, the poster assesses a Ten is still good. If this is the case, (I'm not saying it is) then runner-runner potential does add to his hand. How much? I agree 12.5 to 1 does not cover it. But it might be closer than it appears. This was my only point.
Ace
I would also add that since the flop betting is already capped you shouldn't be happy that the WM is almost all in, as this significantly reduces your implied odds.
It seems that I disagree with the call on the flop more so than the other posters. Mainly because out of all the thoughts you had on the flop (pot odds, what UTG had and so on), the one thought which is noticeably missing is the one of it getting raised behind you. Had you at least considered it and felt it unlikely, fine. But failing to even be cognizant of this possibility, let alone surprised that it got raised behind you, shows that you could not have played this hand very well.
AC
20-40
Loose agressive player raises on the button. Of course he would raise with a very wide range of hands.
I call in the SB with J9s
BB calls
Flop is A56 two hearts
I check BB checks in a "I don't like the flop" way.
Button bets I raise.
Would you check fold?bet? (although I would have not gained information about the BB, a bet offers better odds)
Ace-small-small looks like the ideal flop as the button will automatically fold if he misses. Would you extend that kind of play to other textures?
Yes just about any pair on board would entice me to ck raise a player like that also a well coordinated flop like 456s - A good move played on the right guy will pay dividends.
I don't like this play given a) the presence of the big blind behind you; and b) the coordinated nature of the flop, given the 2 hearts and the 5-6. You have very few outs if you are called by either opponent. I would prefer to be heads-up. Also, if BB checks in an "I don't like the flop" way, I would be wary.
Well of course a semi-bluff is better than a pure bluff. Of course A22 is a better flop.
Of course this play is better heads-up
However I still think it was a profitable play.
First it was a read on the BB. Not some acting by him.
Suppose now the BB will fold 90% of the time (it is a low estimation for me due to my read and due to the fact he showed weakness by checking). Then the button will have to fold only 1 time out 4 to show profit. It is easy to see that he will completely miss the flop far more than that.
(Due to my image and because he is an average player he will always fold if he completely misses the flop. Always. He will fold also many more hands.)
This post seems similar to mine above. But there are differences. The presence of a 3rd player makes this play much more dangerous in my opinion. (I'm not even sure it's correct head up. That is, check and fold might be best against many players). Unless your read on the BB is excellent (his not liking the flop), I think you'd be better off picking a different spot for this play. In addition, you can't be sure any of your outs are good. In my example above, I had a reasonable kicker if I paired either card. This is not the case here.
Frenchy - I, also, do not like this play. I am assuming that you don't have hearts. The button can have, as you say, a wide variety of hands but a great majority of them will include an A and it will be almost impossible to catch up, even if he lets you get there free which is doubtful. The BB is a further complication as is the two flush.
I KNOW I played these 2 hands poorly. My question is how much will these kinds of mistakes cost me in most $20-$40 games?
1st Hand:
All folded to the button who raised. I looked down to see Kd Qs and made it $60. (I did this because the game just started and I wanted the button to know he's not going to steal over me all day long). BB folded, button called. This call surprised me. I actually thought that he would cap it with position with his more marginal hands, perhaps to get a free card.
The flop came Ad,7d,3c. I checked, he bet, I raised, (the truth is, I didn't realize I held the Kd. Does this matter? I would've liked to have seen the turn card) he re-raised, I folded giving him credit for an ace.
Hand #2:
Good player UTG raised, all folded, I called in the BB with QJo. (I hated this call, but I thought it'd be easy to fold an unfavorable flop).
The flop came Ac,Kc,Qs. I checked, he bet, I called. The turn was a 3d. I checked, he bet, I folded. Again, I was unsure if I held the Qc.
This was my first foray into a 20-40 game (is that too obvious?) I was very nervous. Misplaying these hands upset me quite a bit. What I want to know is, how dumb was my reasoning and how much will this cost me in these games? Thanks.
I'll only comment on the 1st hand.
Although the diamonds could pose an intermediate problem, with the proper image your play is plausible against some players. He may fold a better hand and if not, your likely to have outs. But be very careful against a player who knows you are capable of this. He may try a re-steal if you will, with a hand like 99. Now if a diamond doesn't turn, you will be hard pressed to win even when hitting an out. Image plays an important part in decision making here. With the right image against the right opponent, a check and call can be every bit as concerning to a good opponent (even more so) than a check and raise. This might achieve the same purpose as a check raise, while costing less money against an aggressive player.
As to not realizing you held the King of diamonds... Yes! Being unaware of what you hold and/or your hand's potential, will absolutely cost you $$$ against tough competition. You are probably better off looking back at your cards and run the risk of giving your hand away, than to continue to play the hand partially blind.
AC
Many of your plays were reasonable. On the first hand, unless you know the button to be a player who never raises without a premium hand, you should re-raise with King-Queen offsuit against a probably steal raise by the button. You probably have the best hand and you must make the thief pay for raising on hands like little or medium suited connectors, etc. When the flop comes you should simply bet representing an Ace and see how he handles it. I don't like your check-raise move here since I think you are costing yourself money. By leading at the flop when he raises you can take off a card if you choose or fold right there depending upon your read of your opponent.
On the second hand, your call of the UTG raise out of your big blind with QJ offsuit is fine. However, once the flop comes I would check and seriously consider folding since a flop of AKQ with a two flush is too dangerous and the pot is too small to be chasing. He could easily have a set or two pair and you don't have enough outs here given the small pot.
But Jim... (sorry I couldn't resist)
What kind of flop can you be looking for with QJ if not a pair with a nut straight draw? Of course top pair/draw or open end draw would be ideal (albeit still dangerous due to the AK overcards and potential flush draw). But if you're going to call a solid UTG raise with a piece of crap like QJ, isn't this (one) of the few flops which could be considered playable?
I'd much prefer this, than to lose a ton by flopping a Q or J and paying off AQ, AJ, AA, KK, QQ, JJ the entire way...
No, Mike not really. Assume that the UTG pre-flop raiser has AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK,AQ,AJ suited, or maybe KQ suited. Assume an x is a total blank. You should be looking for a flop like the following:
1. T9x open ended straight draw. Good suckout hand.
2. KTx open ended straight draw. Good suckout hand.
3. QQx trips. Make money from anything but AQ
4. JJx trips. Make money from anything but AJ suited
5. QJx top two pair. Beat AA,KK,AK,AQ,AJ/KQ suited.
6. Jxx top pair. Beat AK,AQ,TT. 38 hands.
7. Qxx top pair. Beat AK,AJ suited, JJ, or TT.
8. QT9 Top pair open ended straight draw
9. J98 Top pair, gutshot straight draw
10. AKT The nuts. Make big bucks against AA,KK,& AK
I could think of more but I believe you get the idea. But a flop of AKQ will almost always give the pre-flop UTG raiser a big hand unless he has specifically JJ or TT.
Even when you add all these up, I still don't think that calling an utg raise with QJo in the BB is a positive play. Against the hands you list, I would think that QJ has about 30% chance in a cold sim. (I have QJ winning 28% of the time vs. AA-TT/AK-AJ). Add to this the drawbacks of being out of position and dominated on a lot of your hits, I can't see getting 3-1 on the raise justifying the call. It would be different if it weren't head-up or if utg is capable of raising with many more hands.
You may well be correct Chris. Make it suited and it is a better call. I guess my problem is that so many times some of these opponents raise under the gun with medium pocket pairs or hand like Ace-Ten offsuit or King-Ten suited or even worse. But against a decent player you may not be giving up much by just folding.
on hand 1 : I agree with Jim - the preflop raise was very good - but you should not be expecting the button to cap it....I wouldn't. on the flop, I would have bet as well...and then if he calls, just check the turn no matter what comes...after all, the pot is now big enough that he will probably call you down with a middle pair like 88 or 99.
on the 2nd hand : your call on the flop is marginal - probably 0 ev over time, not good or bad. however, once the flop comes AKQ, you should do one of two things :
1. bet with the intention of folding if he raises and with the intention of checking the turn if he calls the flop bet ... or ... check with the intention of folding if he bets.
2. check with the intention of folding
Ok. I'm finding this very interesting.
Hand #1- Bet out on the flop. If he calls, check the turn and if he bets here as he would with say 99, fold? If he raises the flop, I can take one off (loose call), or immediately fold?
Hand #2- It is not worth even a single bet on the flop to spike a Queen, or Ten? This makes sense. With 7 outs (generous since one of the tens may not be an out and possibly due to AQ) and 5 bets in the pot if I check and he bets. But if I bet (hard to believe this can be correct since it's hard to imagine this board missing him) and he raises, there would now be 7 bets in the pot to spike a Q or T. But you are saying that the presense of the flush draw prohibits a call even here?
Thanks for all the responses. What I think I've learned is that I need to put much more emphasis on flop texture before acting. Thanks all!
Mike Wright
in #1, I would call him down on the turn and river, unless two high cards come up...if one high card comes up, its a bit more difficult. this is one of those difficult situations where any strategy is probably marginal...and the best strategy is only known if you know your opponent very well - for example, is the guy capable of making one call on the flop knowing that if you check on the turn that he can safely bet and try to pick up the pot? etc. etc.....knowing your opponent here is 95% of the work.
hand #2 - i think your hand is likely dead...it's ok to be bluffed out once in a while by TT or JJ...but you are in bad position and probably an underdog, those two things combined tell me to dump the hand.
sorry, in hand #1, for some reason I thought you had TT, but after I read your original post, I realized you had KQ...I don't know what I was thinking....anyway, I would bet once, and the check/fold after that.
I played all day Saturday at the Taj. Bought in 10-20 HE at 12pm and stopped at 3am. I tell you this because I was stuck $700 in 12 hours of play. I only brought $800 with me so I was on the ropes. I ended up dead even when I left. How? Well, I have a few hands that I’d like some comments on. I can’t remember most of the earlier hands but I do remember the latter hands. I was berated a few times at the table for either playing these hands at all or playing them poorly. I thought I had played well overall but realized when I left that I had one glaring weakness that I need to work on. Anyway, here are a few hands and what I did. Comments are encouraged and welcome. The table held mostly rocks. A couple of college kids just sat down so I thought I might finally catch some action. The other guys weren’t really giving up much and I was definitely the guy who was having a rough time of it. People try and steal blinds, make moves and there were a few big pots of over $500. But anyway, I digress. I am in seat 10. Blinds are in seats 2 & 3, seat 2 is college guy #1 and seat 3 is a rock. Everyone folds to seat 9 who raises and I look at 5h7h. I think maybe he’s trying to steal the blinds, (which is definitely in his bag of tricks) but is this hand a good hand to call a steal with? I call in the cut off and figure that if the flop doesn’t hit me I’ll release the hand. Everyone else folds so it’s heads up.
Flop: 7c6c7s
So I’m thinking I’m a genius for calling. He bets and I call. I figure I’ll hit him later.
Turn: 6h
He bets and I raise. He re-raises and I call. I’m thinking maybe he has a 6 and he’s in big trouble or he has a 7 and we chop.
River: 5s
He bets I raise, he re-raises, I re-raise, he calls. I show my hand and he just laughs and throws his cards away. He says, “You always play 57 to a late position raises? You don’t know how much of a dog you were in that hand.” I didn’t say anything and he kept laughing. He said that he had pocket Kings and I guess I believed him.
A few hands later I’m UTG with pocket 8’s and I call. There are folds to the button (College guy #2) who raises. The blinds fold and I call.
Flop: Qc2s4h
I check, he bets, I call. I’m sure that this is a weak call on my part but I figure he’s got AK. I tell him too. He says, “If you’ve got a better hand then raise.”
Turn: Jc
I check, he bets, I think about it and look at him. He’s definitely got AK and I have him beat. I call and he says, “Guess you got AK beat.” I replied, “Maybe.”
River: 9d
I say, “I might raise now, but I’ll check.” He bets and I call. He shows AKo and I take it down. The guy on his right says, “If you knew you had him beat why didn’t you raise?” I said, “If I raise then he’s out of the pot and I don’t collect extra bets.” Am I right?
I’m in middle position with AQo and everyone folds to me. I raise. Only the blinds call.
Flop: 6hTdQs
The blinds check so I figure top pair is good and bet. The SB calls and BB folds.
Turn: Ts
The SB checks, I bet, he raises. Whoa. Where did that come from? Now you astute players out there probably already know what he has but I remember thinking he doesn’t have a T. But what else could he have had? I call.
River: Jd
He checks, I bet and he raises. I call. He shows pocket sixes. Boy did I get played here but it never crossed my mind that he had anything. I should never have bet the river but he knew that I would. This was the last hand that I played having gotten back to even by this point. It’s 3am and I made a $700 comeback in 3 hours. I played pretty good, I thought, and lost a lot of hands. I just played terrible towards the end and won a lot of hands. I guess I was on tilt but that's no excuse. There are a few other hands that I’ll post later.
Thanks in advance. Stephen
Hand #1 I don't like calling late position steal raises with 75s. 3-betting? Maybe. Calling? Never!
Hand #2 Played to perfection! Mostly because the imbecile told you what he had! But do consider betting the river next time.
Hand #3 It looks like the sb played 1 bad round/3 good rounds to your 2 good rounds/1 questionable round/1 bad round. Live and learn.
AC
5 players limp (very unusual for this game). I called on the button with Kd 5d. sb folded, BB checked. The flop was Ks,8c,5s. BB bet, 2 fold, middle position player (mp) raises, folded to me, I flat call, BB calls. (3-way).
The turn was Jd. BB checked, mp bets, I raised, BB called, mp re-raised, I folded, BB called. River was a blank. BB checked, mp bet, BB called (did he pick up something with his spade draw?), mp shows a set of 8's, BB mucks.
My thinking was that if someone had a king, my outs were reduced to 3 and even then I'd be vulnerable to the board pairing with an 8 or jack. Of course KJ is now a possibility on the turn, which case my outs to 2. If mp held a set of 8's, my outs were 2. But if mp had 88 and the BB had a king, I am down to 1 out! In light of the fact there were 12.5 BB's in the pot, was this a proper fold? Could a case be made for simply calling the hand down instead of raising the turn? How about never playing K5?
Dr. Trey
Interesting hand. I don't think I would have called with Kd, 5d. Although this is not a terrible call with 5 limpers and the blinds you could have a total of 8 callers so it is a close decision to fold or call.
The flop is obviously very good for you, however, it is dangerous so I think you have to play it very fast because of the possibilities of a flush and a higher K hitting his kicker. Therefore, I would have three bet the flop rather than raise on the turn. This would probably cause anyone with KQ or AK to fold. Flush draws may or may not fold but at least you make them pay. It sounds like the MP is an agressive player and would have capped the betting and then come out betting on the turn. BTW, I think MP played the hand very well.
When you raise MP on the turn and he re-raises you you have to be concerned. Very few players will make it three bets on the turn unless they have a very strong hand. I would put him on a set or at least top two, therefore, I think you were correct in folding. As it turns out, the case K was probably your only out because I would put the BB on KJ or maybe AK, although if he had AK he went way too far with it. With only one out there definately were not sufficient pot odds to call so you were correct in folding.
Hey Clint, I know you play in the Vancouver games although I must confess that I don't exactly know who you are. I do look forward to meeting you sometime soon. It's nice to have a fellow attorney/Forum participant in the same game. In any event, tell me, do you think that anyone in the games that we play will ever lay down AK or KQ on this flop particularly since it was not raised preflop?
While I don't quarrel much with the advice to 3 bet preflop, I do take issue with the reasoning offered to support 3 betting. IMO, KQ/AK are not going anywhere on this flop. Neither are the flush draws. An argument could be made for 3 betting to charge them more to outdraw you but I don't think the argument lies in the "let's thin the field" aspect of play.
I actually like Trey's play to call the flop and raise the turn. This raise will have a much better chance of knocking out unwanted opposition i.e. A Bigger King, a gutshot draw, and perhaps even an openended straight draw or a small flush draw although admittedly not many will fold the latter two types of holdings.
The "slowplay" on the flop also allows Trey to get out cheap if the middle card pairs, a flush card hits and there's all kinds of action etc.
Playing bottom two pair or top and bottom pair is always tricky business. In general, I like to defer putting pressure on the pot with these hands until the turn. By then, I have a better idea if the coast is clear. It also mimics a big hand which could cause my opponents to fold hands with which they would call if they could see my cards.
Coldcalling the flop (rather than reraising) can create some ostensible outs for you. I forget what the flop was. Let's assume it was Ks8c5s and you hold Kd5d. There is a bet and a raise. You coldcall. Original bettor calls and you take the turn 3 handed.
If a spade hits and the others check to you, you must bet. The play looks natural. You called 2 bets on the flop with your flush draw and got there. If the raiser is holding AK, KQ, KJ, he will be hardpressed to call (unless he has the As or possibly the Qs) and given the vulnerability of your hand, you want him to fold. Certainly, if he could see that you are betting with K5, he would call with any better King (as he would have 9 outs) and would definitely call with a King/spade kicker.
Poker is not just about blasting away every time you think you flopped the best hand. You have to anticipate various turn scenarios when making your flop decisions.
Your arguement for just cold-calling on the flop and not 3 betting is interesting. But consider the following:
1. By 3 betting you are putting more in the pot when you have the best hand.
2. By 3 betting you are charging any potential flush draws the maximum possible price to pursue their draw.
3. If a Spade comes on the turn and you are checked to, you can still bet. Your opponents may still be worried that you were 3 betting on a Spade flush draw and got there so they might fold.
4. The turn may not get bet if a non-Spade comes so you may not be able to raise. For example, if the turn pairs the board, then it may get checked to you anyway so you cannot raise. Now you have cost yourself money since you did not re-raise on the flop.
5. Agreed that someone with AK,KQ, or KJ has 9 outs to beat you and you would want him out if you both knew what each other had. But if the case King or a Five shows up (3 outs) you will collect more money if he stays in the hand. On the turn between the board, your hand, and your opponent's hand there are 44 unseen cards. 9 of them are bad for you, 3 of them allow you to collect extra money at the river, and the other 32 allow you to win the pot (ignoring any Spade flush possibilities for now) but perhaps not collect anything at the river. But by re-raising on the flop you will have collected 2 extra small bets in 35 out of the 44 cases.
It is not clear to me how all this nets out but I still think simply betting your hand is best in situations involving more than one opponent.
Jim, all valid points but I wouldn't be me if I did not offer a retort:)
"1. By 3 betting you are putting more in the pot when you have the best hand."
True. But your hand is far from invincible. If you have just one opponent and he has a King, he has 6 outs on the turn and 9 outs (likely) on the river. See comments below under point No. 5.
"2. By 3 betting you are charging any potential flush draws the maximum possible price to pursue their draw."
Not necessarily. If by merely coldcalling the flop, you induce another bet on the turn from your right, you can now raise and charge the flush draws even more. The big "If" here is whether someone will bet the turn. Given that the flop is King high, there is a high probability that the flop aggressor will fire again on the turn i.e. in most cases, only a flush card or perhaps an Ace will inhibit him from betting. And if a flush card inhibits him from betting, you can turn that to your advantage by betting and representing the flush which will increase the chances of a laydown by a King/big kicker which we both agree is good for us.
"3. If a Spade comes on the turn and you are checked to, you can still bet. Your opponents may still be worried that you were 3 betting on a Spade flush draw and got there so they might fold."
True. But 3 betting the flop psychologically ties your opponents to the hand. i.e., they become less likely to fold KQ or whatever on the turn because (a) the pot is now too big for them to fold and (b) rightly so, they tend not to put a good player on a flush given his 3 bet on the flop.
"4. The turn may not get bet if a non-Spade comes so you may not be able to raise. For example, if the turn pairs the board, then it may get checked to you anyway so you cannot raise. Now you have cost yourself money since you did not re-raise on the flop."
Very unlikely on a King high flop. Most players will fire a bet even if the board pairs because they don't expect that you would have coldcalled 2 bets on the flop with middle pair or whatever. They expect that you coldcalled with a flush draw and therefore will bet to avoid giving you a free shot. In the event that the King pairs, he certainly will bet and you can get a more expensive raise in on the turn which he will likely pay off. In this particular hand, had the 5 paired on the turn, I would raise, he would proabbly reraise and I would call. Had the middle card paired, I would simply fold to a bet on the turn.
"5. Agreed that someone with AK,KQ, or KJ has 9 outs to beat you and you would want him out if you both knew what each other had. But if the case King or a Five shows up (3 outs) you will collect more money if he stays in the hand."
If the case King or 5 comes on the turn, you do lose 2 bets on the flop by not 3 betting it on the flop. But you are going to get an opportunity to raise regardless on the turn as most players will bet with a King if a King or a 5 shows on the turn.
"On the turn between the board, your hand, and your opponent's hand there are 44 unseen cards. 9 of them are bad for you, 3 of them allow you to collect extra money at the river, and the other 32 allow you to win the pot (ignoring any Spade flush possibilities for now) but perhaps not collect anything at the river. But by re-raising on the flop you will have collected 2 extra small bets in 35 out of the 44 cases."
But the decision we are talking about is the flop decision. At that point, a lone opponent with a King has 6 outs on the turn and 9 outs on the river. By slowplaying (sort of) the flop, you may get him to lay down a hand on the turn i.e. a flush card comes and you bet or a blank comes, you raise the turn and he puts you on a big hand like a set etc. It is a play designed to improve the chances that you give your opponent only 1 card (the turn) to outdraw you. It is designed to shut your opponent off from seeing the river card. It is also a play designed to enable you to get out cheaper if an ugly card comes on the turn.
Simple example:
Opponent has KQ. He raises. You reraise with K5. He calls and plans to checkcall the turn and call the river. He will outdraw you 31% of the time when the smoke clears.
Same hands. Except now, you coldcall the flop and raise the turn. A certain (nonquantifiable) percentage of the time, your opponent is going to fold as you have mimicked a hand much bigger than K5. On those occasions when he folds, you have essentially cut his chances of drawing out to 13% (i.e. 6 out of 45).
Now, also factor in the very real possibility that the turn raise as opposed to the flop reraise causes the third player in the hand to fold a gutshot, middle pair, small flush draw or whatever. This once gain greatly increases the chances that you will win the pot.
Bottom line as I see it:
Yes, by failing to 3 bet preflop, you give up a couple of small bets when you happen to have the best hand and happen to make it hold up by the time the river card is dealt. But coldcalling the flop and then raising the turn can greatly increase the chance that you will win the pot.
In the post above, I said that a hand like KQ will outdraw K5 approximately 31% of the time if KQ sticks around to see the river card. This assumes that the turn card is not a 2,3,4, or 5. Factoring in the possibility that the turn card is one of these cards, I will guesstimate that the chances of KQ outdrawing K5 is approximately 25%.
In the scenario of KQ versus K5 and a flop of K85, it takes the following turn and river cards for KQ to win assuming x is a non-five:
1. Qx
2. xQ
3. x8
4. 8x
5-10. AA,JJ,TT,99,77,66
When I do the calculation I get almost 30%. I never would have dreamed it would have been this high.
Wow, I've seen your posts many times but had no idea that you were from Vancouver or that you were a lawyer. Do you play at the Holiday Inn? I have met two lawyers at the Holiday Inn, one is Fred but I'm pretty sure that is not you. The other one I met only once and can't remember his name. He practices at Lindsay Kenney, is that you? I'm relatively young (30 y.o.) play mainly on weekends and whenever else my girlfriend will allow me to play. Look forward to meeting you as well.
I definitely think you are correct in that a flush draw will not fold for two more small bets but I am not sure about someone with AKo. If I was in the BB's position I would fold it but you may be right that most of the players at our casino would continue to call, but I said in my post "at least you make them pay".
However, if you 3-bet the flop and the MP caps it and then comes out betting on the turn you know the MP has a strong hand and then you decide to call or fold. If you fold it costs you less than the two big bets to raise on the turn.
Either way, top and bottom pair is like a lot of hands, in that there are different ways to correctly play the hand and different opinions on how to play the hand correctly.
Clint,
Proof that BC lawyers are grossly underpaid lies in the fact that there are so many of us trying to supplement our incomes at the Holiday Inn:)
In addition to the two of us, there's Fred (I definitely do not play like him thank god), Terry (from Lindsay Kenney), and Herb (criminal lawyer from Squamish).
I practice at Borden Ladner Gervais (used to be Ladner Downs). I generally play every 3rd night although I have started to play more on the net these days. This allows me to stay home with my newborn and still get in a few hands. But I will probably continue to play on Friday nights at the Holiday Inn. Hope to see you there sometime soon.
Actually, playing bottom two is very easy:: Just dump tons of money in the pot, then wait for either the running pair or for the top card on the flop to pair. Don't worry, one of the two will happen- if it doesn't happen by the turn, dump another 2 or 3 bb's in the pot and look for it on the river.
Not to quibble GD but with K5 and a flop of K85 our hero has top and bottom pair not the bottom two pair. Nevertheless it is amazing how often a better King will run down this hand.
I digressed a bit in my post, and was making a point re: skp's discussion of top and bottom or bottom two pair. A guy can drag a pot occasionally with top and bottom, but bottom two's the biggest money burner in the game-- second, perhaps, to nut flush draws. Whenever I flop bottom two I just laugh (sometimes out loud, if it's late enough) because I know I'm going to burn off a stack or two before it's all over.
A very marginal call pre-flop. I would fold anything less than King-Nine suited but it is close. On the flop you should re-raise with top and bottom two pair. Make the flush draws pay as well as any King other than King-Eight which is unlikely.
Good fold on the turn.
"My thinking was that if someone has a King my outs are reduced to 3". But you have two pair, Kings over Fives, so someone just having a King is chasing you. What am I missing here?
""My thinking was that if someone has a King my outs are reduced to 3". But you have two pair, Kings over Fives, so someone just having a King is chasing you. What am I missing here?"
You're not missing much Jim (You rarely do). The wires got crossed from my brain to my fingers while typing this part.
The reason I did not re-raise pre-flop is because I felt that raising the turn accomplished much of what you deemed a 3-bet on the flop would do, while insuring losing less $$$ if beat. For instance, if I now 3-bet the flop and get check-raised on the turn it is not so easy a fold. I likely have to call hoping to fill up, and may even have to call the river with such a big pot and tricky opponent.
FWIW, I would have played the hand the exact same way.
That's definitely worth something! Thanks for your above responses skp.
Did you consider just calling your opponent down? You have a good hand, if the BB is on a flush draw you probably won't be able to lose him and a scare card may come on the river causing MP to check it down.
It seems I have received this hand an inordinate number of times lately and I was just wondering how other people play it.
If there has not been a raise BTF I will almost always raise regardless of what position I am in. In early position I want to raise in order to limit the field. In late position I like to raise in order to gain control of the betting on the flop. If there is a lot callers and I am on the button I am may just call. If there is raise before me I will call.
If someone else raised BTF and I just called and the flop contains no overcards I will raise the pre-flop raiser, assuming he bets. If there is an overcard I will call the preflop raiser, again assuming he bets. If there is two overcards I will likely fold, thinking that he hit one of them. If we are heads up I may call.
If there was not a pre-flop raiser and the flop contains one overcard I will bet the flop. If I am raised I probably fold depending if I think the raiser is on a flush or straight draw. In this case I would call the raise, check the turn and then fold if he bets the turn. If there are many people in the hand I would be more likely to fold after the raise because it is more likely that someone hit the overcard. If there are two overcards I will generally check the flop. If I am in late position I probably get a free card, if I am in early position I likely fold if someone bets. Again it may depend on the number of players and the texture of the board.
Any comments on my play pre-flop and on the flop would be greatly appreciated.
I think pre-flop, it sounds okay,. it is tougher to play 10-10 and jj post flop imo.
I would be careful, but if there is one overcard and my 10-10 is the second pair, I will bet out with it against a raiser or non raisers if there is only 2 other players in the pot.(sometimes 3)
If the raiser doesn't raise and I get it heads up I'll continue to bet the turn.
If bet into by a pre flop raiser I will raise(in the same situation board wise), but I would probably fold if a non raiser who called the pre-flop raise bet out.
Then I'm hoping to be called and checked to, on the turn, and I will check behind unless I improve.
Of course I might be more or less aggressive against players I have an accurate read on.
This isn't meant to say that my strategy is better, it's just a touch different.
There is many other situations that can come up, but if the board is scary, and there is more than one other aggressor other than the pre-flop raiser I'm going to be outaa there.
I'm obviously more inclined to give the pre-flop raiser action than the non raiser, since my experience with typical players is that they feel the prssure to follow up with a flop bet after raising , whereas a non raiser betting usually(USUALLY) HAS hit the flop when they bet. seeya
Say a reasonable player raises UTG and you three bet him with 10-10. All others fold and he caps it. You doubt he would cap it with less than QQ but perhaps with AK, especially AKs. If the flop is all rags and he bets, what do you do?
I wouldn't three bet it to begin with in most cases.
but if I did I would call and look at the flop.
I would normally only three bet a late raiser maybe from utg or if I'm on the button etc.
Well, although poker is not to be played using a cookbook, I must say that I like your Ten-Ten recipes.
To add a little spice, I would say that you are better off 3 betting preflop (as opposed to coldcalling) if you think that you can get it headsup. Obviously, the later the original raiser's position, the more appealing the 3 bet idea will be.
Note: Jim Brier and several other excellent players do not recommend 3 betting with TT. I do not claim to be correct but anecdotally, I have found 3 betting to be the better play so long as I stand a reasonable chance of getting it heads up.
skp,
You're UTG and raise with TT. you get 4 callers.
Flop is AJx r. Do you bet or check into a passive field?
Usually check and fold, Sammy. If the flop offers me a gutshot, I may take one stab at it particularly against a passive field who may not raise.
Agreed. You have to muck against an armada of cold callers when two overcards hit. Like you, I virtually always three bet here if the game is rational. Not only do you get a chance at getting the hand heads up or three way, you avoid the dreaded four-handed flop. Further, if a guy caps it you can be fairly sure he's got AA or KK (most players IME won't cap with AK out of position) and can safely muck on the flop when you miss your set-- and you will miss your set.
I would probably check and fold, assuming someone bets. I think the likelihood of someone having an A or J is very high and I am probably beat.
P.S. Thanks to everyone for your responses. It is difficult to answer a question without a specific situation as each situation may call for a different strategy but having this general input has helped.
In deciding whether or not to 3-bet, keep in mind that the probability of the highest card on the flop being an Ace, King, Queen or Jack is 67.6%. (This is actually slightly higher when you have two tens in your hand.) So 2/3 of the time you're going to see a flop with an overcard. To me, this seems to call for, all other things being equal,folding T-T against an early position raiser, especially when there are many players yet to act behind you, and 3-betting against a late position raiser.
True.
But the 67.6% is one reason I like to 3 bet it b/c by 3 betting it, I stand a better chancee of taking the pot down if we both flop unfavourably (as will often be the case). In other words, if the flop comes down Axx, Kxx, Qxx or Jxx, I am playing scared if I just call preflop but my opponent is usually playing scared if I 3 bet preflop. Notice also that most early position raisers either have a big pair or AK (i.e. as opposed to AJs etc) so really Jxx and Qxx flops wouldn't worry me much on the flop.
Further, by 3 betting, I can usually get a better handle of what my opponent holds as most will cap with KK or AA and will just call with AK. Further, they tend to play more straightforwardedly post flop after facing a 3 bet preflop i.e. they are not going to try and steal the pot from me with AK if the flop should come Qxx.
That said, I am well aware of the arguments in favour of just calling. I think it's a close decision in most cases.
Even though much of your reasoning seems sound, I'm not sure I like such a 'canned' approach. For instance, 3-betting an early position raiser with TT may be fine. Then again, it may prove very costly against the wrong raiser in the wrong game from the wrong position. The same goes for betting, calling, or raising with the presense of an overcard which flopped. Hold'em is a very dynamic game and I think you'd be better off assessing each situation separately, based on the individual merits of any pros and cons in the present tense. Employing 'canned' strategies for seemingly similar yet very different situations, can be tough on your bankroll.
AC
I was in a fairly loose 15 - 30 Holdem game, and UTG with Ah Qh and open with a raise. (does anyone prefer to call utg with this hand?) 2 fold, then the next 5 players call as well as the BB. The flop was As 2c 4h. BB checks, I bet and the next to act(NTA) raises. All call except the BB. I raise, NTA caps and all call to me(should I not even invest one more small to see the turn here?) and I call. The turn card is the Kh. I check NTA bets and all call to me, I now call with top pair and the nut flush draw (i have no questions about this play as there is no advice anyone could give me that would make me throw away my hand here.) The river is the 9c. I check NTA bets, and all fold to me. Even though I can't really put him on a straight as he was the first to call my open raise, I'm positive he has at least 2 pair. Should I fold here, or make a crying call with the now huge pot? I did call and he shows 3d 5d for the nut straight. I think I way overplayed my hand on the flop, and because of it was forced to make 2 additional calls on the turn and river.
Well, perhaps one could take issue with your 3 bet on the flop given that there is a raiser and 5 coldcallers. But other than that, you didn't overplay your hand. There may be times when I just call the flop raise and then come out betting on the turn to try and induce a field-thinning raise from NTA. This also gives me the option to checkfold the turn if something ugly like a 3 comes and there's all kinds of action.
You clearly have at least a call on the turn (I would have checkraised for value).
You also have a crying call at the end.
Don't sweat it. Move on. And the next time you get AQ offsuit UTG....raise with it again and hope that NTA calls again with his 53.
"Fairly loose?" You raise under the gun and get 5 cold callers? On the flop NTA raises your bet and gets 4 cold callers? I would eliminate the word "fairly."
This is the kind of hand that Abdul Jalib refers to as an example of the schooling fish, the live ones unintentionally colluding with each other, each call making the next bad overcall less worse because of the ever-increasing odds. I probably wouldn't have re-raised on the flop because of all the players, but I probably would have raised or bet out on the turn because if the right card hits on the river I'm going to win a monster.
In answer to your specific questions: raise most of the time with A-Qs UTG; yes, once you made it 3 bets, invest one more small to see the turn; yes, make a crying call on the river.
You were not "forced" to make calls on the turn and river because you overplayed your hand on the flop. On the turn you have top pair with the 2nd best kicker plus a draw to the nut flush.
Doug,
Since skp has already answered and we often think alike, I’ll answer without peeking at his and see how we match up.
Before the flop, tend to raise with AQs in the real tight games (where your blind stealing equity is more important than getting better odds on your flush draws) AND the real loose games (where they call you anyway and your flush draws welcome the big pots).
On the flop I think it is close between reraising and just calling. But once it went to four bets don’t even think about folding with top pair, good kicker and a back door flush draw. BTW, if you just call on the flop you should lead on the turn most of the time.
On the turn I wouldn’t worry about anyone saying you should throw it away. The only choices are between betting out or checkraising if you think NTA will bet again (this checkraise would be for value rather than to thin the field). I like the checkraise quite a bit more.
On the river it isn’t even close. I lost count at about 20 big bets and you have one opponent who could be overplaying a weaker hand. This is an easy call for me.
Regards.
Rick
I think you played it right actually. The NTA coldcalled your UTG raise with 53s...you can't really put him on that hand. You also can't give him credit for having you beat just because he raises you on the flop. There is a good chance that you have the best hand, and you are certainly getting value with 6 way action. When he caps it on the flop you can be pretty sure you are chasing(unless the guy is a total maniac), but you still have to call. After picking up the nut flush draw you have to call the turn. I think making the call on the river is a losing play in the long run. It really depends on how bad the player is and how aggressive he is. I would have called though...psychologically too disheartening to give up a pot that huge. I would say that at least 95% of the time I have made a crying call, I have been beat. If you think about it, what could the NTA have held in his hand that could not beat AQ?
I was thinking the exact thing when i threw that last bet in. I'm thinking of just letting my hand go in that situation, I can't think of anyone so crazy that would bet into that many ppl without a big hand to show down.
I posted an 8-16 hand a while ago where I played the hand passively. This hand is similar in that I played it passively but was a different situation and I'm interested think of my play. All Commnets are appreciated.
UTG (tight aggressive player) opens for a raise. Folded to me in the cut-off, I hold red queens and make it 30. Everyone folds to the UTG who just calls ( I feel he would reraise with AA, and KK 75% of the time)
Flop comes K 10 3. UTG checks, I check.
Turn 3. UTG bets, I call.
River is a 5 UTG checks, I check. My Queens bet his AQ.
Comments
Bet the river.
AC
I would have bet the flop when checked to, and I definitely would bet the river.
Why?
And If I bet the flop I'll get raised or called only if I beaten. By Checkig i encourage him to try and pick up the pot on the turn (which he did) I also risk losing the pot by giving a free card but I might already be beaten anyway.
In this instance I know I got the maximum I could get from this player. Betting on the end is essentially a value bet with no value. Against a lesser opponent i would have bet the end.
"In this instance I know I got the maximum I could get from this player. Betting on the end is essentially a value bet with no value. Against a lesser opponent i would have bet the end."
Quite the opposite. Against a lesser opponent you might check the end. But against weak or tough opponents betting isn't bad. You have played your hand in such a fashion that a tough opponent cannot readily read you. There are enough hands he would call with (even AQ) that should give a bet some value. Also, you there is little chance of getting raised.
AC
Why?
And If I bet the flop I'll get raised or called only if I beaten. By Checkig i encourage him to try and pick up the pot on the turn (which he did) I also risk losing the pot by giving a free card but there's a good chance I'm already beaten.
In this instance I know I got the maximum I could get from this player. Betting on the end is essentially a value bet with no value. Against a lesser opponent i would have bet the end.
Why?
If I bet the flop I'll get raised or called only if I'm beaten. By Checkig i encourage him to try and pick up the pot on the turn (which he did) I also risk losing the pot by giving a free card but there's a good chance I'm already beaten.
In this instance I know I got the maximum I could get from this player. Betting on the end is essentially a value bet with no value. Against a lesser opponent i would have bet the end.
I bet the flop to define where I am and avoid given a free card. Even though (given his cards) he's a longshot against your hand, your giving him infinite odds to beat you. If he has A-K it only costs you a small bet (assuming you lay it down to a check-raise). By calling him on the turn it's now costing you probably 2 big bets to see his AK.
I bet the river because it's obvious you have him beat. Give him the opportunity to make a mistake. If he had JJ or 10-10 you probably get a call anyway. People are naturally curious and their tendency is to call to see your hand. Even if you know he won't call, by betting you don't have to turn over your hand thus depriving the table of free info.
Andrew,
You should really put your results in a separate post!
Seems like you had a couple chances to find out where you were at earlier in this hand. That said, I think you won the maximum (maybe even one big bet more) but could cost yourself the hand too.
My guess is that you were afraid of the checkraise on the flop. I know you have an aggressive image, and therefore sometimes you may (rightfully) decide not to bet after a check, if you assume a player might have pegged you as someone who *always* bets if they were the last to raise, or if they have position, or both. Still, I think this flop was worth a bet to a) find out if you were checkraised, in which case its easier to get rid of the hand or b) get on overcall from your opponent or c) avoid giving a free card to Ace-Big.
On the turn, I would raise in order to win the pot right there or get out if I am three-bet. Just calling, in essence, gives your opponent another chance to catch up.
By the river, our stategies have obviously parted ways, but hypothetically speaking, I think you can rationlize checking, on the assumption that only a better hand would call you down.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on this one. Send me a personal email. I am going to Europe tomorrow until the 27th (poker in Vienna if a couple weeks!) but will write you when I get back. Hope all is well.
KJS
The key to this hand was the small pot size. Betting the river is an option but you probably won't get a call.
Without looking at anyone's answer I would venture to say I would have raised on the turn. Him not betting the K high flop indicated to me that he most likely had AQ and your Q's are good. This is especially true since he checked the river. If he makes it three bets on the turn if you raised then he's got you beat. Next hand. But above all a bet on the river was necessary.
Stephen
Since you said that you felt the UTG did not have pockets aces or kings, then he must have overcards or a pair smaller than you. For example A-K, A-Q, A-J, pocket Jacks, or pocket Tens. Maybe there was a remote possiblility he had Aces or Kings. I think you should have bet the flop. If he's got A-K you're already beat. If he has A-Q he's got seven outs (three aces and four jacks). If he has A-J he has five outs (three aces and two queens).
If he has A-K, Aces, or Kings, he will call your bet on the flop and check to you on the turn waiting for you to bet, but this time you will check. If he bets on the river your done.
I think waiting for the turn to bet was too risky considering what your opponent could have had. I would not have given a free card on the flop.
In a heads up structured game (small blind on button):
#1) What % of the time(top % of hands) should I protect my big blind against a player who only raises 20% of the time? What about 50% of the time? (I would prefer a detailed answer so I could apply it myself to a variety of players)
#2) When I am in the small blind and it's 1/2 the size of the big blind, against an extremely aggressive player (who likes to raise when I limp or re-raise more than 50% of the time) what % of hands should I come in with (call or raise)? Against a passive player would Q2 off be a raising hand?
Thanks ahead of time.
You should definitely read the shorthanded section of HEFAP 21st century edition.
I'm taking some heat from my friends for a hand i played Sunday. Reasonable table, I call with A-Jo in midddle position after 1 limper. Cutoff limps, SB calls and BB (a very weak passive player) raises. This means either A-A,K-K, Q-Q or possibly A-Ks. Limper calls, I decide to see the flop as does cutoff. Pot- $90.
Flop A 9 4r. BB bets, limper folds, I raise, cutoff who is also fairly weak and passive re-raises. BB looks disgusted and calls. I fold. Comments?
Winger
P.S. I was almost positive I had the BB beat, so he's of little concern. Results to follow.
What made you think you had the BB beat? He looks disgusted yet calls a double raise? I assume from your P.S. you did indeed have him beat, but I wouldn't think he's of "little concern."
However, if you did think this, then you should have called the re-raise on the flop. Since cut-off did not raise pre-flop, this lowers the possibility of him having A-K or A-Q. If he has A-9, you have outs, and if he has A-4, you have additional outs. The fact that he re-raised lowers the possibility of a set. You're getting 17:1 at that point.
Andy,
You may be right. Somehow I lost track of how big the pot was. There is more than enough in there to try to spike the jack if you are against A9, AK, AQ or A4.
But what about the possibility you are up against a set and almost drawing dead? Anyone on the button would be in there with 99 or 44 preflop. And wouldn't some play a set hard on the flop when they are in back? I'm guessing the typical button would have the set about 35% of the time or so with this action. (I should do the math on whether this would effect my decision to call but I just got tired enough to sleep).
Comments (especially regarding the likelihood of the set)?
Regards
Rick
I suppose it's possible cut-off would play a set hard on the flop, but I would wait until the turn with an uncoordinated flop that contains an Ace. Let the weak Aces in to make two pair on the turn.
Winger,
I’m starting to think calling an early limper (if he is decent) in the middle with AJo is a losing play. But El Supremo doesn’t want us to talk much about pre flop stuff so I won’t elaborate.
In general, I am rarely sure I can narrow down a raise from the big blind that much. But if you really thought his hands were in the indicated range, calling one more pre flop bet with AJ may have been a mistake. But if it is close why talk about it? And El Supremo also doesn’t want us to talk about close ones so the discussion would have two strikes against it.
Now comes the flop. If you knew the big blind would only raise out of the big blind pre-flop with big pairs, then I assume you felt he would often bet his KK and QQ type hands when an ace flops. If this is so, than I like your raise. But when the “fairly weak and passive” player behind reraises and the big blind calls (he could be frustrated holding AK facing two raises if he is also weak and passive as stated) you are beat in at least one spot. So I like your fold and to me it isn’t close as long as your assumptions are correct.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I think the button has A9 suited and the big blind KK or QQ.
Rick:
Looking at 15-1 from the pot and 6 more if a jack on the turn is good, he needs to be beaten by more than A9 or AK to justify not trying to spike a jack on the next card. It seems to me that the only issue regarding calling the raise is how often the cutoff needs to have a set.
-Chris
no text
I think you laid down your hand too easily. I doubt the cutoff player had A-K or A-Q as he probably would have raised BTF. He probably has A-9 or maybe A-4s. Of course it's possible he has a set, in which case you are drawing very slim. If he has A-9 or A-4 you have at least three outs and are getting 18:1 to call the re-raise on the flop. If a card higher than a 9 comes on the turn you will have more outs on the river hoping for the board to pair.
I'm not sure what the BB had. If he had KK or QQ I don't think he should cold-call two more bets with the Ace on board. He may have AK in which case he has many outs as well.
Your fold was virtually break-even except for one thing: even most "fairly weak and passive" players won't drop the hammer with a set on the flop when it's only 3-way action. I'd put the chance of being up against a set at closer to 10% than 25%, which makes calling one bet in hopes of spiking a jack correct.
If you say the cutoff was weak I'll take your word for it, but when I read you post my first thought was: what a great spot for a bank shot. Let's say the BB only raises with big pairs in the blind after limpers and cab blown off of an ace flop, and the cutoff thinks you're the sort to sometimes try this without an ace. Now he almost has to 3-bet regardless of his hand. The bb can't call, cutoff will win more or less automatically if you're bluffing, and even if you have an ace you're hard-pressed to call the turn. He also knows you don't have AK/AQ or a set, top two or bottom two (you won't play hands that make bottom two and would slowplay a set and top two for fear of shutting down the action). Looking at 4-1 I'd go for it.
The discussion group that has mocked me for my play agrees with most of the replies here; the pot was big enough to take one off. Generally I try to avoid this play as I think it's one of the biggest money losers in hold'em.But in this case I agree I made a mistake.
The turn was, of course, a jack. It was checked around. The river was a rag. Cut-off bet his A-Q, BB called with his K-K.
Thanks for the replies,
Winger
I am sitting to the immediate left of the UTG player in a $10-20 hold'em game with 2 red Aces. UTG calls, I raise, get a couple of cold callers including the button, SB calls, BB mucks, UTG calls. So five see flop for $20 each. Flop comes something like Th, 7h, 2s. SB checks, UTG comes out swinging, I raise, 2 folds behind, SB cold calls and UTG calls. Next card off is something like a 3h so the board is Th, 7h, 2s, 3h. SB checks, UTG comes out firing again what should I have done? HFAP says it is often right to raise in this spot. I called for the simple reason that I was almost certain that UTG had a flush. SB calls as well. River is an Ac giving me a set of Aces. Again UTG comes out betting, I think for a minute to review the hand and I fold, SB check raises, and UTG calls. SB has J8h, UTG has KQh. I believe that if UTG was a good card reader he would have known that his KQh was worth a re-raise on the river. What do you guys think?
Certainly, he ought to reraise:
No only is it unlikely that sb slowplayed the nut flush on the turn, there is also the fact that you called the turn but folded the river which should indicate to him that you were fishing in with the Ah and missed.
On mitigating factor against a reraise is that UTG holds both the King and the Queen of Hearts. So, if he figures that the sb would never checkraise here with the 4th nut flush or worse, a call may be the better play but on balance, I would reraise.
BTW, I simply could not fold AA on the river for the initial bet unless I knew the player in question extremely well. I should say that the guy with the KhQh made a silly bet on the flop. He has a draw and is betting into you- the preflop raiser- so that you can raise and choke off his action...I don't get it.
I agree that UTG played it bad (the small blind was worse). His bet on the flop was almost like a macho thing but he probably wasn't sure that I had an overpair either. Thank goodness for bad, easy to read players.
I agree with you skp in that the UTG's flop bet was not good poker. He has a flush draw and two overcards but there is a good chance his bet will get raised which will fold everyone. This is not what you want when you are drawing. He was probably thinking that by betting he might win the pot outright but this is highly unlikely given four opponents and the presence of a pre-flop raiser.
Just playing the devil's advocate here. It was by then a decent size pot. UTG has 2 big overcards with his flush draw. Would it be so bad if Tom Haley raised UTG's flop bet with JJ (instead of AA), and shut out hands like J9s,98,AJ,AQ,AK,KTs,QTs, etc. in order to give KQ a better chance of winning should a K and/or Q come with no flush? There were some clear as well as obscure straight draws out there that could have used a K and Q not to mention a K or Q followed by a J...
AC
On the turn, if you raise again, it may be difficult for the UTG player to re-raise, because you are looking at the Ah. However, I have made this play on occasion, and run into the re-raise from two types of player: 1) the non-thinker who has a flush and by golly, he's going to re-raise come hell or high water, and 2) the aggressive good card reader who is putting you on just what you have and making you pay one extra BB to get to the river.
As far as the play on the river by KQh, I suppose that a good case can be made for him re-raising IF he reads you for exactly what you had: AA or some sort of big Ace including the Ah. However, he's just been check-raised on the river, is expected to call the bet by the SB, and he's looking at the K and Q of hearts. If he is up against a weak player who is making this play for value on 4th-best flush, then by all means, punish him. If on the other hand, UTG gives the SB at least some credit, a call of the check-raise is more prudent. He's either going to gain two additional BB's from the SB (who will not likely fold the J-high flush to a re-raise, IMO) or cost himself 2 BB's if he's wrong. Coin flip.
Hey Dunc I guess I screwed up my first post to you. I'll explain my reasoning later. One thing about raising the turn, I was not planning on putting any more money in the pot on the river without a flush thus the call on the turn.
Wow. It takes a lot of guts to lay down a big set like that. Nice work.
I would not have made it 3 bets if I were UTG. He bet, you folded when that ace came, and he got checkraised. If I were UTG I would conclude that you had KK. Laying AA down is one thing but laying down a SET of aces is quite another. I'm sure he couldn't conclude that you had AK. Unless you had the A of hearts I suppose.
I am very leery of making it 3 bets on the river without the nuts or close to it against many opponents. There's just no future in it.
There is an exception.
If I think that I have the same hand as a second person, and we have a third person trapped between us, then I'll gladly keep raising and reraising without the nuts.
IE if I have AKo and the river is
Kc 8s 5s 5c Ks
I will gladly keep raising back and forth, trapping the flush in. I won't put the other raiser on K8 unless I have good reason to - IE checkraised the flop but backed off on the turn, etc. -SmoothB-
On the turn, raising is unclear. If the UTG has a flush, which is highly likely given the betting so far, then you have 7 outs to win. There are 44 unseen cards between your hand, the UTG, and the board. The odds of you making the nut flush are 37:7 against or over 5:1. Your raise will only pull in one or two extra bets for a 5:1 proposition. Agreed, you have the Ace of Trump so no one can get too frisky but someone with a flush may well re-raise anyway. However, if no one has a flush than you may be raising with the best hand which makes raising the right play 100% of the time. At the table I would just call like you did.
I don't like your fold on the end. Agreed, that you are almost certainly beat but a set of Aces will beat anything except a flush ignoring the remote chance of someone having a wheel.
I think the UTG was correct in not re-raising without the nut flush. I don't know how he could be sure the small blind did not have Ace-Little suited from the betting. When he re-raises he is risking 2 bets to win 1 bet because his opponent will know what the nuts are and whether or not he has them.
I think it's asking a lot for the UTG player to divine that you had the Ace of hearts, but I would reraise on the theory that the check-raiser has no basis for thinking I have hearts, since I led out on the flop (which I agree was a weird play). BTW, SB should have folded preflop. Yet another example of how loose calls with suited hands get you in trouble....
Ok here is my reasoning on why, if UTG was a good card reader, he should have been able to deduce that a re-raise was right. You guys will probably think I'm crazy. The way I played my hand through the turn the UTG player should be able to deduce that I am calling him down with a good hand or drawing to a flush myself. If I was calling him down with a good hand I would have had to have believed that neither the UTG player nor the SB had a flush. Given the play on the flop it would seem reasonable to assume that there was a pretty good chance that one of my opponents had the flush. Therefore I believe that the UTG player would have to rate the chances of me drawing on the turn as something like 2/3 of the time. What hands would I play like I did and be drawing to a flush? Well it's either a hand with the Ah in it or a hand with the Jh in it. If it's a hand with a Jh it's most likely JJ given the way I played it preflop and on the flop. When the Ac comes on the river I had to pause for a bit (not too long). I will say that I do try to pause when there is no reason to do so but in this case I had to think a bit before discarding a set of Aces. So I think it should have been fairly clear that the Ac actually helped my hand on the end. I also think it should have been fairly clear to the UTG player that I put him on a flush. Since I chucked the hand on the river the UTG player knew that I had been drawing on the turn. Would I pause on the end with JJh or would I more likely pause with something that contained the Ah? Would I really draw to Jack of hearts from a UTG caller? Also if I did have to pause with a JJh this means that either I was pausing because I was going to call but the Ace changed my mind or I was pausing to cover up the times I needed to pause. I suppose I could have done this with a set of Ts as well but I still think the odds favored me having the Ah by a big margin. Even with a set of Tens, if I was going to pitch them on the river, there really wasn't much of a reason to pause unless I did it to cover up the times I needed to pause. Even though I hate to admit it I probably elicited a very readable tell on the end. That coupled with the fact that I was probably drawing on the turn and that I wouldn't likely draw to a Jh from a UTG caller in my mind makes the re-raise the right play.
8-16 loose game, typical bad opponents, a couple so-so.
Pre-flop: All limp to me on button. I raise with Ah-Ks. SB folds, BB calls, rest call, we see flop 9-handed for 2 bets each.
Flop: Jc 9c 8s. All check to me. I check and take the free card. There is no chance everyone folds if I bet.
Turn: As. Late position player (average, tight for this game) bets, next player (so-so and aggressive) raises. I call, weak player in early position calls (I put him on a flush draw), original better folds, rest fold. The raiser may well have me beat with a slowplayed straight, or a set or two pair. However, this player had been playing draws extremely aggressively. On a hand 30 minutes prior, he raised the turn bettor to his right with middle pair and a 4-flush, bet the river when the flush didn't come, and lost to top pair.
Question: Was my turn call correct, or would a fold or raise have been better? The pot was big and I felt there was enough of a possibility that the other two players were on draws that calling was worthwhile. Opinions? Results later.
Thanks, Caddy
The flop is fairly coordinated so I don't like your chances of having the best hand here. In addition there are several players still to act who may 3 bet it.
Having said that, given your read on the raiser, i think a call is in order. Forget the raise, there's a very real chance your behind here.
In a game this loose I can't imagine folding as an option here. The player to your right is dangerous since he could have flopped 2 pair and expected you to bet his hand for him. Since you are already at the turn, you won't drop any draws with a raise, so I think a call is right.
What kind of server you guys got? Commodore 64?
I held KK in seat 5. UTG is seat 3. He raises preflop and I 3 bet it and all others fold. He just calls. The flop is Qxx rainbow. He bets out I raise, he just calls. Turn is a blank of 4th suit. He bets out again. I know him to be an intelligent player and I can't figure what he is up to. I just call. He is capable of a laydown with AQ and he would certainly reraise with QQ. The river is another blank and he bets out again, I just call. He shows me a Q, I show KK and he mucks. I feel my no raise on the turn gave him a cheap shot at the ace but I guaranteed myself a bet on the river. Should I have raised the turn or river?
You should not have raised the turn since you might be beat and you don't necessarily want to lose another bet if you have the best hand. If you were absolutely sure you had the best hand then it might make sense to raise, but that is not the case here. On the river, you should raise if you can be absolutely sure that you can fold if he reraises and that there is some reasonable chance he will call your raise when you have the best hand. (Note: It is my experience that typical players are less likely to make it three bets if you raise the river than if you raise the turn.)
Mason,
You wrote: "Note: It is my experience that typical players are less likely to make it three bets if you raise the river than if you raise the turn."
This is a key point applicable to many river situations. Since on the river a typical player no longer has to make an opponent pay dearly to draw out on him, a three bet by anything but the nuts or near nuts is extremely rare.
Regards,
Rick
Tony G,
I'll write this before reading Mason's answer. I'm not sure he has recovered from all the "Badgering" he has been getting lately and his reply might be suspect ;-).
You wrote: "He is capable of a laydown with AQ and he would certainly reraise with QQ."
I keep hearing about these players on the forum but I have yet to meet one in limit poker. By this I mean that it is very rare to see someone lay down top pair top kicker when the top card on board is a queen (and perhaps a jack) against a single opponent. And I rarely lay down AQ (heads up) with a queen high rainbow flop myself. However, I could lay it down against a very tight predictable opponent who three bet my preflop UTG raise with players yet to act and continued to be aggressive on the turn.
"The river is another blank and he bets out again, I just call. He shows me a Q, I show KK and he mucks. I feel my no raise on the turn gave him a cheap shot at the ace but I guaranteed myself a bet on the river. Should I have raised the turn or river?"
I like the call on the turn but would raise on the river. You tend to win more when you are ahead and save more when you are beat. For example, aces AND queens (a set) will usually reraise you on the turn. Only queens will reraise you on the river unless you are against an extremely aggressive player.
Regards,
Rick
Tony,
Let's pretend your opponent does have AQ. Would you want him to lay it down or call if you raise holding kings on the turn? Note that after a turn raise he would be getting just under 7 to 1 on his call (five outs and 46 unknown cards). But the pot has almost nine big bets so you really do want him to throw it away.
The reason some tight players may throw it away is that they worry that they are up against AA or QQ. If those three hands (AA, KK, QQ) were the only possibilities they would be correct (someone less lazy than I am at 2:00 a.m. can do the math ;-). But if you are in his position and are against an opponent who will fire a second barrel on the turn with AK, JJ and AQ, then throwing away this hand is a big mistake. This type of player is common in California.
Regards,
Rick
Here are a couple of hands that I question my play on recently.
1) On the button with JJ. Early position raise from a player who is aggressive and will raise with all sorts of hands out of position - medium pocket pairs, QJ suited, etc. I just call on the button and we take the hand 4 handed.
Flop comes T 8 5 with 2 hearts. He bets, all drop to me and I raise. He calls. I look and notice that he has a quizzical look like 'what could this guy have to be raising me?' He knows that I'm a tight player.
Turn is an offsuit king. He checks and I check along. Was checking here bad?
River is another small heart putting 3 on the board. He bets I fold.
I am sure I did something wrong here. Thing is, he checkraises a lot so I was afraid to bet the turn if he had AK, KK, etc.
2) On the button with JJ again. Same guy raised preflop, same call from me. We took the hand 4 handed this time.
Flop came J 87 all diamonds giving me top set. Preflop raiser checked, limper checked, loose semi maniac in cutoff bet, I call as does the limper.
Turn came with a black 3. Now the limper decided to bet out, and the flop better folded.
I have only played with this person maybe 3 times - she is a straigtforward semi loose semi passive player. I once saw her bet on the river with pocket threes when it was checked around to her. She sat next to me and showed me her hand before she threw it in and took the pot.
I decided that she may well bet here with hands worse than mine, so I raised. It was heads up now. She reraised, I called.
River was a blank. She bet, I called. She flopped the nut flush, I mucked top set.
Where did I screw up in this hand? Did I play it badly on all rounds?
3) Shorthanded. (4) I am on button with 2 red kings. Cutoff raises - he is a semi maniac who was on a real rush of good cards. I lost about 35 BB to this guy in 2 hours when he won about 80 out of 100 hands. He raised preflop with 72 offsuit and flopped 2 pair against my pocket aces. I would have AK, flop would come with a K, and he would have KK. You get the idea.
Anyway, I reraised. He called. Flop came 965 rainbow. He bet, I raised, he called.
Turn came offsuit 8. He checked, I bet, he raised and said 'I have Q 7 offsuit, is it good?' I called.
River was a blank, I called down to see his straight and mucked.
Did I play this one poorly?
4) Full table. I had AA in late position. 3 limp, I raise, limpers call. We take the flop 4 handed.
Flop came A T 3 rainbow. Early position bet, 2 callers, I raise, all call.
Turn comes 6d putting 2 diamonds on board. All check to me, I bet, early position flop bettor calls, other 2 drop.
River comes 2d putting 3 diamonds on the board. Board is now A T 3 6 2 with 3 diamonds. He checks, I bet, he raises, I just call. He has A2 for 2 pair and I win with top set.
Should I have reraised? With his flop bet and call I don't suppose I could have put him on a flush, or 45 for the gutshot. These are the only hands that could beat me. I had the A of diamonds in my hand so I couldn't put him on Ax of diamonds, explaining the flop bet and call.
Should I have made it 3 bets here?
Thanks for any feedback.
-SmoothB-
1) I would have called the river and made him show me a better hand. He may well have A-K or better but if he is aggressive as you describe him he may have nothing as well. If he is a loose raiser I would probably three bet him BTF and hopefully get the pot heads up. When the flop comes T,8,5 you should raise him as you did. When the turn is a K, I probably bet but your check is not a bad play either especially if he is the type to check-raise. Once you check the turn he is more likely to try to bluff you to win the pot, therefore, I would call the river. I doubt he has a flush. If he beats you it is with AK but I call to find out.
2) Again maybe three bet this raiser with JJ. When the flop comes J,8,7 all diamonds you have to play your set fast. When there is a bet you have to raise and make anyone with a single diamond pay to stick around. As it turned out someone flopped the nut flush so it wouldn't have mattered anyway but you would have found out early because if the early player cold calls your raise or re-raises you know you have to hope for the board to pair. When the early position player comes out betting on the turn I think you have to be concerned about the flush. She likely bet to ensure that there was no free card on the turn. I don't like your raise here as the flop is too dangerous. Once she re-raises you know you are in trouble but definitely have to see the river card as you have 11 outs. When the river is a blank and she bets you probably should fold here knowing she has the flush although a call is not terrible as it is hard to lay down sets, I think I probably call as well.
3) I think you played this hand fine. Nothing you can do about it. Definitely raise BTF and the flop. On the turn with a single card for a straight there may be an argument for a check and then call or bet on the river but I would have bet the turn not wanting to give any free cards.
4) Again I think you played this hand fine. You should raise BTF and the flop. When the limper raises you on the river you have to be concerned about a flush or even a straight although both are unlikely. It is rare for someone to raise on the river without a very strong hand so I think I just would have called the raise like you did. The other player really overplayed his two pair though. You easily could have top and bottom pair beat.
1). You don't mention how it became 4-handed, but you should strongly consider re-raising this type of player pre-flop. Nothing wrong with your raise on the flop. You can bet or check the king on the turn (depending on the player), but you must realize that a check will induce a bluff from many players. However, in this case, there are many hands a reasonable player would bet for value that beat you. AA,KK,QQ,AK,KQ,TT,etc. Some of which he may have been check-raising the turn with. But against a player who is just as likely to have QJs,ATs, as well as AQ or a flush draw, you should be apt to call a bet because these are all hands that would be consistent with his flop play and check on the turn. Against a tighter player only AQ, a flush draw, or possibly AJs would fall into this catagory.
2). Not much you can do here. Your turn raise is more dangerous against a passive player though. There is one key. Even passive players can realize the only way to win is to bet the river (with her pocket 3's). But it's very rare for a passive player to a move like this on the turn. This might have tipped the scales toward a call rather than a raise on the turn.
3). This is a really a question of "just how dumb is my opponent?". Just calling his raise on the river is not had. You don't mention if the Ace of diamonds was flopped or in your hand. Either way, a weak player may have had a suited hand in diamonds with a flopped pair. If you knew he couldn't have the Ad AND he would check-raise with a worse hand, you might want to re-raise for value since it's hard for him to play back again without the nuts.
AC
Jim Brier was kind enough to send me a copy of his limit hold 'em quiz, which I found very instructive.
One topic which emerged from the quiz was pre-flop play out of the blinds, and when to "protect" your blind investment. Jim posed the following question in a "typical" 10-20 game:
"You're in the small blind (in seat #3) with QdJd. Seat #5 calls, Seat #6 folds, Seat #7 calls, Seat #8 raises to $20 and everyone folds to the button in Seat#2 who calls. Do you re-raise, call or fold."
My inclination is to call for an extra one and a half bets with my high suited connectors to see the flop five or six handed.
Jim answered "Even though this suited connector is better than most, it is still not good enough to call a raise out of your litle blind."
What does everyone else think? Am I too loose in playing QJs from the sb?
Andy
I fold in the small blind. Q-Js is a great 2nd place hand and not one I want to get involved in with a raised pot. If I have no respect for the players in the pot I may call.
folding is the right play from the SMALL blind ( in a 1-2 blind structure ) - - - - so why would I have called in a heartbeat ?
I like the call here with this hand. Good chance to flop a monster or monster draw. If I miss the flop I just bow out of the hand quietly.
Just read the other posts - guess I am playing way to loose these days - who woulda thunk it.
I also answered CALL to that question but did not do reall well in the preflop part of the test. I knew I played too loose but the test really emphasised the point. I would almost always call with this hand as I think it will be easy to release and can make a monster. John
I'm the button seat 3. 10 players. Seat 7,8,me,sb,bb see the flop. I have (Ad,Tc). Played about 5 hands seat 7 is loose seat 8 hasn't showed down any hands yet. sb has just won two hands in a row with quality cards one catching flush on the river K2s on the button. bb don't know anything.
The Flop=(Jd,Qc,Ks) sb checks, bb bets, 7 calls, 8 folds, I raise, sb folds, bb calls, 7 calls.
Turn=(7h) check, check, I bet, call, call.
River=(Qh) check, check, What should I do? And why?
Thanks Paul
Without a two-flush on board, I would have waited until the turn to raise.
As it stands, since 7 only called the flop bet, I wouldn't suspect he filled up. That bb didn't checkraise the flop would only tend to suggest he didn't hold two-pair (or trips). Nonetheless, with that coordinated a flop, I would certainly not feel intrepid about betting the river but would bet since there's a good chance both would call with inferior hands; as a bonus, someone with just 3 queens might raise.
Mark,
"Without a two-flush on board, I would have waited until the turn to raise."
That is probably the right move I didn't think of that. That's why I ask questions when I don't feel right about a hand.
The bb did have two pair (Kd,Js) on the flop and 7 had (Kc,3c).
I didn't bet the river because there were two players in and I didn't know enuf about the bb as to a checkraise. Thanks Mark.
paul
I'd bet the straight - can't see a full house out there with the way the betting went. If someone spiked a set or 2 pair on the flop I'd think they would be playing real fast to make the drawers pay for their cards. But you never know.
I had a similar situation a few days ago and the guy spiked a set of 7's on the turn and beat my nut straight with a full house on the river.
I sure hope that didn't happen to you.
I would raise BTF. You probably have the best hand and raising puts you in the drivers seat on the flop. You have to bet the river. Nobody has played back the entire hand and there is no reason to suspect you are beaten at this point.
Bruce
Loose, fairly passive $10-20 game. I am in early position. 2 new players have posted late position blinds.
I hold Ah 4h and decide to limp in since I know it will be multiway and I figure a fairly small chance of a raise behind, plus I was getting bored after not playing a hand for a while :). (BTW, I know this is marginal but that's not the point of the post.)
A player behind me limps, the 2 late position blinds check, SB calls, and BB checks. 6 way action.
Flop comes 9c 3h 5d. The big blind bets.
I am next to act. I have a gutshot straight door, backdoor nut flush draw, and an overcard. What's my play?
Puggy
Unless I'm missing something here, I raise without hesitation. If you don't you're going to need a big hand to stack these chips; by raising it's likely to be just you and the BB seeing the turn ( 3 of the 4 other hands are blinds and prob. don't have much.) An ace probably wins it for you vs. one opp. - may not against 2 or more. If all works out and just the 2 of you take the turn, bet if anything but a
Unless I'm missing something here, I raise without hesitation. If you don't you're going to need a big hand to stack these chips; by raising it's likely to be just you and the BB seeing the turn ( 3 of the 4 other hands are blinds and prob. don't have much.) An ace probably wins it for you vs. one opp. - may not against 2 or more. If all works out and just the 2 of you take the turn, bet if anything but a nine hits - if the 9h hits I'd still bet. If you get re-raised on the flop, and/or bet into on the turn, give it up unless you spike your deuce or pick up a [flush] draw; if an ace doesn't stop the action it prob. didn't give you the lead. Obviously, the same adv. applies if you get ck/rsd on the turn. BB should read you for TT, JJ, or A9 ( or even QQ ) - hard for you to raise BTF with tens, jacks, OR queens when there are FOUR blinds to contend with!! As always, there are no guarantees - "your milage may vary". P.S. If you think the BB has a big hand, not likely since most players would (INCORRECTLY) ck/rse this flop with a big hand, you can still raise the flop just don't oblige him when he tries to ck/rse the turn.
How did the hand play out ???
-Chris
sorry for the f**k-up
Your over card probably isn't any good but the potential of a huge win and the prospect runner runner flush is real - I'd take a run at the turn on cheap street and fold if I got no encouragement.
I raised, but I think I should have just called. The only way the raise helps me is if I knock out an Ace behind me that would have not folded for a single bet AND an Ace comes on the turn (or river if I make it that far). The big blind most likely has a 9 or pocket pair to bet out into 5 people. I will need to improve to win it.
Anyway, I get 3 bet behind, call, spike a blank on 4th and check/fold.
The 3 better won the hand with A9.
Puggy
10-20 fairly tight. Not much action.I am slightly ahead.
Two off dealer. See QQ. first two to act fold, next raises. I was set to raise, but this is a good player, so it comes to me with folds in between and I just call. Dealer calls. BB calls. 4 players.
Flop is K82o. Don't like K. BB checks. Raiser, bets. I was thinking, might be holding KK but would be better to trap. Possibly AK, even likely. I decide to raise and try and find out early. Dealer folds. BB calls. Raiser call! Could be good sign.
Turn is 6o. Check, check, I bet. Fold. Fold. As pot is pushed to me, I overhear raiser say "I just can't get a pair of Queens to hold up". Seemed like a good play. This time it worked. Comments?
Well played - It always does my heart well to beat a guy with the same hand I have - a true test of playing position with aggression. Your opponent probably played it well too and had you as a good player he didn't want to mess with an under pair.
Nicely done, but what was the BB doing? I would have likely re-raised the original raiser to try to drive out the blinds, but I can't really find a lot of fault in calling if you place the raiser on a premium hand.
When he comes out betting into a King-high uncoordinated board, it's raise or fold, IMO. But when the BB calls your raise, I would check behind them on the turn, and then decide what to do on the river. I just can't imagine what kind of a hand the BB had to cold call your flop raise that didn't have a King in it, especially in a tight 10-20 game as you describe.
I'd have 3 bet pre-flop then bet the flop (if checked to me). If it gets capped pre-flop and the good player bets with the K on board, I'd fold.
If capped pre-flop and all check to you, bet and fold if raised.
Joe
My nephew is staying at the Bellagio and plays $15-$30. Huck Seed, 1996 WSOP champion, was sitting at the table in Seat #6 with my nephew in Seat #3 when the following hand came up. The big blind is in Seat #8 so Huck is on the button. Only #10 limps in. My nephew limps in with the AdQh. I think he should raise but he chose to limp. Everyone folds to Huck who raises to $30. The big blind, #10, and my nephew all call. There is $130 in the pot and four players.
The flop is: Qs9s3c
The big blind and #10 both check. My nephew bets $15 with top pair/top kicker. Huck raises to $30. The big blind and #10 both fold. My nephew re-raises to $45 since he has the top kicker with his top pair. Huck makes it $60 and my nephew just calls. There is $250 in the pot and two players.
The turn is: 2d
My nephew checks. Huck bets $30 and my nephew calls. There is $310 in the pot.
The river is: 2c
My nephew checks. Huck bets $30 and my nephew just calls. My nephew wins a $370 pot as Huck shows the KdQc.
All comments welcome.
Generally speaking, when someone who is trying to play well makes it three bets out of position, your play should become more conservative. If I held Huck's hand, I would not have made it four bets, or if I did I might try to get a check in elsewhere. My guess is that Huck was not playing as seriously as he should because this is a very small limit for him.
I have noticed that Huck has been playing a lot of $30-$60 lately. He still plays mainly in the high limit area but he seems to be playing the lower limits more. I was surprised to find out that he was playing $15-$30. I wonder if he has been running bad or lost a backer.
I played 15-30 at the Bellagio for the first time last Sunday evening. This weekend was also my first poker excursion above 8-16 anywhere.
I was amazed at how poorly some of the people played at this limit. They would sit down with a rack of red, call almost every hand, and leave empty handed an hour later. Others would bluff incessantly. I left $235 up after 7 hours play.
It appeared to me that 15-30 would be a very profitable limit to play at the Bellagio on a holiday weekend. That is based on the assumption that people play better at 30-60 & up.
i'm not trying to attack you here, but what is the relevance for your post to Huck Seed, Jim's nephew or the play of the hand? what am I missing?
Your observation is correct. The $15-$30 game at the Bellagio is an outstanding game for the following reasons:
1. There exists a $30-$60 game that the good players like Roy Cooke and Mason Malmuth can play in so this softens up the $15-$30 game.
2. Playing out of the small blind is problematic for many people because the small blind is 2/3 of a bet instead of 1/2 or 1/3 of a bet. Players end up playing too many hands out of their small blind especially when pots get raised.
3. The fluctuation in $15-$30 is less than $20-$40 but the hourly earn can be comparable so bankroll swings are less.
4. You get a lot of tourists in $15-$30 and the amount of pre-flop raising is less than in a bigger game. The tourists like the game better and it is more friendly.
5. Chopping the blinds in $15-$30 makes more sense because it is a rake game whereas the bigger games are collection games. Chopping also speeds up the game and keeps it friendly.
Mason,
Your observation about "someone trying to play well" is interesting and in my opinion worth elaboration. I agree with your assessment of Huck Seed's play. If I four bet I would most likely check the turn or river. There is a valid arguement for either. I'm sure that Seed did not put "Nephew" on A,Q since he limped. I do not play high limits but would be surprised to find early A,Q limpers. Of course if he knew the young man was related to Jim Brier he most likey would fold when the boy reached for his chips.
Vince.
this is really the only domination that i see all the time. flop is Qxx and AQ and KQ go to war. i saw it tonight in a 6/12 game, but i routinely see it in 10/20 and 20/40 games. im really beginning to rethink KQ as any kind of good hand, as any kind of action usually means youre beat.
brad
IMO, Huck overplayed his hand and nephew underplayed his. I don't think nephew should have offered Huck a free turn card. If he respected Huck's flop raises, he could have just called Huck's first flop raise and then lead bet the turn, in case Huck was semibluffing with overcards and/or a flush (or straight) draw.
Next time Huck plays AA the same way he will get called to the river. He maybe made your nephew a weakish player and was trying a move or just playing top pair 2nd best kicker strongly.
How did he do over all in this session?
Rounder wrote : "Next time Huck plays AA the same way he will get called to the river. He maybe made your nephew a weakish player and was trying a move or just playing top pair 2nd best kicker strongly. "
The only reason I think this play by Huck is correct (betting both the turn and river, rather than checking one of them) is if he thought Jim's nephew was very weak and aggressive that he would threebet QJ or QT.
However, I don't think there is any advertising value on this at all, as I would doubt that Huck was thinking that he would play with Jim's nephew in the future. It may have some value if it was a player that Huck was playing against on a daily basis, but not a tourist (which I am assuming Jim's nephew is).
This is one of the mistakes that I make too often as well, as I forget who the player is...I forget sometimes that I will probably never play with the guy again, or that there's not much cognitive process going on in the guy's head anyway, so any play for future hands is not worth it.
I don't know how Huck did. My nephew won about $200.
question 1 : what was Huck Seed doing at 15/30? does he usually play those limits?
on the play : I think it all depends on what Huck thought of your nephew...if he thought he was a loose player, then he probably put him on a Q with a weaker kicker...however, once your nephew makes it $45 pre-flop, I think the raise to $60 is good...but only so he could check either the turn or river.
Good question Doc. I have never seen Huck Seed play anything lower than $80-$160 at the Bellagio until just recently where over the past two weeks he has been stepping down and playing some $30-$60. He was probably just killing time at $15-$30 waiting to get into a bigger game.
Huck is still a champ and played it perfectly. He knows that the opponent only has likely AA KK AQ and all other hands that do not beat him. Most likely. I would not mind gambling to 4 bets myself. I have seen him make similar plays many times and he is right most of the time.
Sounds like a play a Canadian would make.
Vince.
And what play would that be Vince?
Hosh is, if I'm not mistaken, an xcellant poker player that is originally from Canada. Just a little quip. That's all.
Vince
Vince be careful those eastern players play good. I have a great problem for you when you get back here. All the best. For the rest of you Huck is still one of the greatest players I have ever played with. I would put my money down on him in almost all situations. I have played with him many times over the years and have watched him dodge and weave with the best of them. A lot of players think I play great but he puts me to shame. When you get an opportunity to play with great players at low levels watch and take heed you may learn something.
Without reading anyone's postings I'll give my two cents worth. It looks to me since there were no raises pre-flop Huck thought he had best hand. When the flop hits him he probably put your nephew on KQ or QJ. I would think that with all the action on the flop Huck would have known he held AQ. Does this seem reasonable to you? All the bets seem to be bully tactics to represent AA, KK, or QQ. That's how I see it. Why is Huck playing low limits anyway? Now I'll read everyone elses stuff.
Stephen
Without reading anyone's postings I'll give my two cents worth. It looks to me since there were no raises pre-flop Huck thought he had best hand. When the flop hits him he probably put your nephew on KQ or QJ. I would think that with all the action on the flop Huck would have known he held AQ. Does this seem reasonable to you? All the bets seem to be bully tactics to represent AA, KK, or QQ in Huck's hand. That's how I see it. Why is Huck playing low limits anyway? Now I'll read everyone elses stuff.
Stephen
Jim:
This is off topic, but your hand numbering convention is driving me nuts; I spend more time figuring out where people are sitting than reading the post. In know this has been discussed before, so forgive me, but isn't it easier to use the one where the button is seat "0," cutoff is 1 and so forth? It's easy to remember and you'd automatically know where the player sits with respect to the button, which is the most important consideration preflop. In a post, we could say: "seat #4 (4 from button)..." and omit the explanation elsewhere. Over time, everyone could adopt it.
Chris
I think it would be a good idea to have a standard convention for use here on the forum. I believe Mason or David should take a position on this and post some guidance for all of us to follow. I am amenable to using your convention the next time I post. I assume the numbering system would be:
Button: Seat 0 is: "The button"
Cutoff: Seat 1 is: "The cutoff"
Middle Position: Seat 2 is: "Two off the button"
Middle Position: Seat 3 is: "Three off the button"
Middle Position: Seat 4 is: "Four off the button"
Early Position: Seat 5 is: "Five off the button."
Early Position: Seat 6 is: "Six off the button."
Under the Gun: Seat 7 is: "Under the gun or UTG"
Big Blind: Seat 8 is: "Big Blind"
Small Blind: Seat 9 is: "Small Blind"
Is this right? Does everyone agree?"
P.S: Not to be argumentative but the numbering convention I have used is consistent with what is used in card rooms by dealers and floor personnel in identifying seats at the tables. Seat #1 is to the dealer's immediate left. Seat #10 is to the dealer's immediate right. The seats are numbered in a clockwise fashion from the dealer's perspective. However, I will abandon this convention if it makes it easier to understand posted problems.
I would appreciate any feedback on this.
I would tend to think SB is seat #1 and the button is seat #10 since SB is the first one to act?
Just my two cents.
That would also be logical, so now we have a third system to consider. I will go along with what we can all agree to. Again, I think Mason or David needs to step in and decide which convention should be used.
Sb ought to be No. 1 and button ought always to be No. 10...to hell with the Californians:)
I am a Californian and I agree with my interpretation of James: sb is #1 and each seat following is #2, #3, etc. Button is not always #10, but is whatever number equal to the number of players who have been dealt a hand. So you can post, for example: "6 players in the game, #3 raises, #5 calls. . ."
Alternatively, we can use the names of the seven dwarves. Certainly the non-California games always have a Dopey and a Sleepy in them. In a 10-handed game, we can add PITA (pain-in-the ass), SAM (slow-as-molasses), and SADSACK (seems a dab short about card knowledge). :-)
skp,
In California there would almost never be a seat 9. Someone is usually out smoking and we only seat nine in most of the card barns.
Regards,
Rick
There's always going to be a button, but it either can't "always be No. 10" under this system or some of the other numbers have to go, depending on how many people are playing. This makes the numbers hard to be consistent.
If 10 is the button and you write "seat 5 open-raises with KJo," the reader will have to find out how many people were in the hand (and probably count on his fingers) to figure out just what a loose raiser 5 was or wasn't. If you think of the button as 0 you can read it and know he's pretty loose.
It doesn't make sense to assign numbers to the small blind and big blind. They are simply SB and BB. Then, I like the rest of Chris's numbering system.
Puggy
I don't like the "0" button, "1" cutoff, numbering method because the numbers are going counterclockwise. It is counterintuititive to assign numbers in the opposite direction of the action.
Descriptives like, UTG, BB, SB, button, & cutoff work well enough for us to understand the relative positions of the players.
Cast my vote for "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
We've already got initials for the hands that are always there in any game with more that three players. SM, BB, UTG. I don't like the idea of assigning a number to the button. Typing the word "button," isn't that much trouble, is it?
So that leaves at most six other seats. Two of them are covered by "two off the button," and "cutoff." The other four are indicated with sufficient accuracy by "early" and "middle."
I don't know. Call me old fashioned. I like stories with words in them.
Tommy
Duh. You can still use those descriptive words (as I still do) when using this numbering convention. Seat #0 is always the button and you can use either term.
The "new" method will simplify things when describing the seats we don't have names for. For example, if the game is 5 handed, it's silly to say the player first to act after the bb is under the gun, when he is actually in fairly late position (2 off the button).
If instead we say something like "he opened in #2", this player's position and his likely holdings are immediatelly obvious.
Lemme give you an example and I will use the old Jim Brier method to describe the situation:
"It was an 8-handed game. The BB was in the seat #4 and the player in seat #6 open-raised (seat #5 was vacant). All fold to me in seat #1 and I reraise with AA..." (note that there's no mention which was the other vacant seat, I did that to muddle the waters some more).
How fast is your response to the question "What position is Jim sitting in with his AA"?
OTOH a much niftier description using the proposed method goes like this: "#5 open raises, everybody folds, I reraise on the button (or seat #0, if you prefer)". For strategy discussion purposes, there's absolutely no need to offer any more info than that.
Jim sayz he's adopting this convention, a smart move. Trust me on this, it solves A LOT of misunderstandings.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I do trust you, and I think I see where and why we disagree on just a couple things. I presumed that the reason to change notations was to save keystrokes. Now I see that clarity is also a worthy motive.
I agree that the seat-number method takes far too much effort to untangle. I also agree that any numbering system should be based on where the button is, and move up clockwise, once the "1" position is determined.
One potential problem I see is getting a numbering system standardized to the point where all speak and write the same language. After all, the point is to communicate clearly and efficiently, not to confuse people who use a different dialect.
I disagree with you on "UTG." Even if the game is four handed, the meaning of UTG is clear, and it is easy to type.
I still have a problem with calling the button "0." How would that work in a sentence? "I raised from 0." "I raised from the 0 seat."
If a seat-numbering language were to become standard, it seems more logical to me that UTG be assigned the number "1," since that is where the action starts, and that the blinds always be called SB and BB, and that the button remain the button.
All the best,
Tommy
I disagree with you on "UTG." Even if the game is four handed, the meaning of UTG is clear, and it is easy to type.
When somebody sayz "I opened utg with a raise", we immediatelly assume a strong hand, if he doesn't add "it was a four-handed game". This is why I hate it when people use this term in shorthanded games. No sense in using the word (in my mind) if it can denote very different strategies depending on the game.
I still have a problem with calling the button "0." How would that work in a sentence? "I raised from 0." "I raised from the 0 seat."
I have no beef with using the term "button" (again, I still use it myself). I would just like to get an agreement that "Seat #0" and "button" are the same thing. Same for "Seat #1" and "cutoff".
However, "utg" should only be applied to full handed games, for seats #7 or #6 (I don't mind a little inconsistency here).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Izmet,
I agree that "UTG" would be misleading in the telling of a four-handed poker story if the writer did not tell us that the hand was four-handed. But would anyone really leave out such pertinent info? I would think that ANY four-handed story would BEGIN with that fact.
With your system, if the writer fails to mention that a hand is four handed, and writes, "#1 opens with a raise," the story still suffers from insufficient information, but not because of the seat-assignment protocol.
As to the button being "0" and the cutoff being "1," I did not realize until just now that you are suggesting that the numbers go counterclockwise. My oversight. Sorry. Now it makes a little more sense, but it's hard to imagine the entire community going along with it. Are you suggesting this for 2+2 only, or for all poker literature?
Tommy
I propose it universally (but note this numbering system is not nearly my idea). There exist no better in my mind, if only for pratical reasons.
I propose a challenge: is there a way to decribe the following event more concise and/or with fewer words:
Seat #7 open-raises, cutoff calls, bb defends.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
THE POINT WAS HIT HOME JIM BRIER, THIS NUMBERING SYSTEM IS SO MUCH BETTER, AND GRASPED IN THE MINDS EYE OVER THE INTERNET...KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK
BACK AWAY FROM THE CAPS LOCK KEY !! You're shouting at us. Thx.
YOU SOUND LIKE A STEAMER PAUL T. Anyway I AGREE with the button being "0", and I can always know the position related to the button quicker... therefore being able to study the intended problems in the mentioned threads more intently...NOTHING LIKE A FREE EDUCATION COURTESY OF twoplus FORUM.
No steamer here. A player on IRC poker used all caps, and another told him what I told you -- you're "shouting" on the Internet. Not needed. It's bad enough trying to read that e.e.cummings wannabee Ray Zee.......
Jim,
I agree with Chris on this and think the off the button system would be easier to identify with when reading posts.
Jim,
I admit that I usually draw a diagram when I read your posts but they are crystal clear.
Anyway, I would use this or any other good system if it could become standard. If the people who post the most would pledge to support it, eventually most would emulate it. BTW, we should specify the number of players first (I haven't been in a ten handed game in three years).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Since you are so organized and write so well, why not come up with a few alternatives, get the kinks out via email with Oz and others (I'll help if I'm deemed worthy ;-)), and then we could submit it to a vote. But then again, we don't even have standard rules in poker so this is a pipe dream.
This numbering system is natural to me, as I have been using it from the start of my poker career. One of the benefits is that it doesn't matter how many players are there. Seat no.6 will always be early and seat no.1 will always be the cutoff. Therefore, one only needs to mention the seat number (off the button) and one immediately knows what type of situation it is.
"The guy in #1 open-raises" describes a steal situation, both in four or twelve handed game, while "#7 open-limps" describes an early position limp.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
"I'm UTG in a full, ten handed game... I'm second to act in a full... I'm third to act, five off the button in a full... I'm in early middle position (four off the button)... three off the button, two off... one off... on the button... I'm UTG in a five handed game... one off the button in a five..."
I do think of my position as so many off the button, but for descriptions in posts no set numbering system is needed, is it?
On the other hand, posters, particularly newer posters, sometimes seem to have trouble conveying clearly where they were and how the action went. So if a set system would help, okay.
I agree with the comments regarding the comparison of these two games at the Bellagio, set forth earlier in this string.
I go to the Bellagio twice a year or so to "test my mettle" at the 30-60. Last time I was there, I was stuck about $600 in two hours after a horrible run of bad starting cards and unfriendly flops. I had heard about the comparatively easier 15-30, and I looked over to see folks laughing it up with 3-4 guys in before the flop in mostly unraised pots.
Next time I head out to the desert, I'll leave the macho at home and enjoy myself for awhile!
Good luck to all,
Joe
Based on the inputs from 2+2's finest minds, I hereby declare that the "Chris Alger" seat numbering convention will be used by "Yours Truly" from now on. Good work Chris!
Jim,
Chris Alger's idea makes the most sense from a logical perspective and I will try it out also. But Caro tried to promote this method years ago and it never caught on. I think it is just to counter-intuitive for most people but we can give it a try.
Then again, it sort of works like a countdown on a rocket launch and you did work for NASA. So for you it may come naturally :-).
Regards,
Rick
If we want this to catch on quickly it will be important to explain the system along the way for a few weeks.
I'm in seat 2(2 off the button). However, it is still easier and more readable to use the popular ones (button, cutoff, UTG, BB, sb).
What do you think, Jim?
I was reading the Huck Seed thread below and I was shocked by some of the comments I read RE playing AQo from early position.
I think that anyone who raises with AQo in early position is losing money and has some leaks in their game that need to be plugged. AQo is no where even CLOSE to a raising hand in early position. If you do this and someone calls you or reraises you, you are really sunk.
AQo can be a terrible hand to play out of position after the flop if you raise with it preflop.
Let me ask you this - if you raise with AQo in this position, what do you do with AJo? Limp? You'll never catch me playing AJo from early position PERIOD.
What about KQo? I think Huck Seed's preflop raise with this hand after at least 2 limpers was way out of line. Personally I think KQo is one of the most losing hands in poker and I shudder every time it's dealt to me because I feel obligated to play it in late position. Early position in a tough game? NEVER!
I am not dogging on AQo. It is a very nice starting hand if you are playing it IN GOOD POSITION.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB,
You are weak tight.
David
AQ is indeed a tricky hand, but I think that against most lineups you should raise with it in any position as the first in. This hand is too good to muck and, as it is a reverse implied odds hand, raising is better than calling. If you get three bet you should be able to get away from the hand cheaply if the flop doesn't hit you well. Anyone cold calling is probably making a mistake.
When you say 'get away from it if the flop doesn't hit you well' what exactly do you mean?
If you raise with it UTG and get reraised by the button, and you get it heads up, what do you do when the flop comes Q 8 2 rainbow? Bet? Check and call? If you bet and get raised, what do you do? Fold? Check and call all the way to the river?
You could very well be drawing to 2 outs here. Or drawing completely dead.
If you play in easy low limit games, it's just like I said - I didn't intend this posting for those games, so it probably isn't a bad idea to raise with it in those games.
If you ARE playing in tougher games, I challenge you to do the following -
keep a diary of every AQ hand you play for a few hundred hours. Note when you won, when you lost, and how much. Be careful to specifically note the times that you flopped well and still lost - what did you lose to? Did you lose because you flopped a king and the turn brought a king? Did you lose to AA, AK, KK, QQ, etc?
Keep track of those hands - then think about whether you still want to raise with it.
-SmoothB-
DeadBart,
I am pretty far from weak tight let me assure you.
I used to raise with AQ from almost any position. In my younger more naive days when I just started learning the game.
Then I read what Sklansky had to say on the subject in HPFAP. I thought about it and decided to take his advice. I'm sure I make more with AQ now than I used to.
Think about it. If you are in a tough game (my intention was not to gear this posting for play in 2-4 games, where you might actually make more if you raise because of all the calling stations), who is going to call your raise?? Only hands that will beat you.
If the raise comes from a player that I feel plays well, and he raises in early position, and it is folded all the way around to me, I will only call with pocket pairs down to TT, AK, and nothing else. There are no other 2 cards in the deck I'll take heads up against this raiser.
You do realize why AK is MUCH MUCH better than AQ, right?
Incidentally, Doyle Brunson claims that he NEVER plays AQo. This may or may not be true, who knows. Certainly he would play it short handed. Do you consider him weak tight? Or Sklansky?
Now, if it were YOU and you were on my immediate right, I might gladly make it 3 to go with AQo. You are obviously a very loose raiser and I would like to get this hand heads up against you with position.
Now, a really soft low limit game is another matter. But I don't play in these games any longer and I wasn't thinking of them specifically when I made my original post. In these games, people might very well call your raise with junk like Jx suited, 67o, and other trash hands. Furthermore, a lot of these players will pay you off if they flop bottom pair. Fine - if this is the game you're talking about, really loose, really passive, lots of calling stations, go ahead and raise preflop with AQo.
But never in a tough game.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB:
Your post is well thought out, but I don't agree for a number of reasons.
I will address your points in order:
I used to raise with AQ from almost any position. In my younger more naive days when I just started learning the game.
I remember only a few months ago you were talking about "moving up to $10-$20." While I don't want to cast doubts on your play, since I've never seen you play, I'd appreciate if you didn't claim to be some seasoned holdem player. I've been playing at the middle limits longer than you have, not that it means anything.
Then I read what Sklansky had to say on the subject in HPFAP. I thought about it and decided to take his advice. I'm sure I make more with AQ now than I used to.
I assume you are refering to the "Loose Games" section of HPFAP-21, since the main text suggests raising with AQ in early position. Yet you claim that in loose games you should raise with AQo.
Think about it. If you are in a tough game (my intention was not to gear this posting for play in 2-4 games, where you might actually make more if you raise because of all the calling stations), who is going to call your raise?? Only hands that will beat you.
This is where I partially agree with you. Good players will usually not call with worse hands, except AQ of there own and sometimes medium pocket pairs which you don't make that much money off of. However, if only better hands will call you, then I contend you will make money by raising here even if you never win a hand where you are called. Here we need to do some math. There are 12 ways to make AK given that you have AQ, 6 ways to make KK, JJ and TT each, and 3 ways each AA and QQ. So 36 hands will call you, out of 2450 possible hands that can be dealt. That's about 1.5%. So a ball park is that your 9 opponents will have at least one hand better than yours 14% of the time. By your logic, I would win the blinds around 80% of the time. Sounds good to me. If you are called or three bet you can fold without seeing a a flop and still make money! ;) The reality is that people do call you with other hands, and of course the blinds will call with even less. Add to this the fact that you will sometimes win against all those hands that are "better " than yours. However, I still agree that in very tough games you may not want to raise with AQ.
You do realize why AK is MUCH MUCH better than AQ, right?
Yes, AK is much better than AQ, no doubt about it. But do you realize that AA is much better than AK? Yet you can still play both.
Incidentally, Doyle Brunson claims that he NEVER plays AQo. This may or may not be true, who knows. Certainly he would play it short handed. Do you consider him weak tight? Or Sklansky?
Doyle Brunson was speaking of no limit when he said that. I don't play AQ in no limit much either. Sklansky, as a I mentioned before, does advise raising with AQo in most situations. I'm sure he won't bother to post it here, but if he did would it slow you down a little?
Now, if it were YOU and you were on my immediate right, I might gladly make it 3 to go with AQo. You are obviously a very loose raiser and I would like to get this hand heads up against you with position.
Now, that's just not called for. You don't know what my raising standards are, except that I'll raise with AQo UTG in most situations.
On to more general disagreement.
If you only open raise with AK and AA-TT, in a very tough game, you are far too predictable. Your opponents should be able to make very few FTOP mistakes against you post flop, while you may be forced to fold the best hand and call with the worst often.
If you play in games where all the players are tough enough to fold all but the very best hands to your raise, you probably are going to have a hard time making money anyway. This is probably where my main disagreement with you stems from; I choose to play in games that actually have fish, and so I almost never see a game so tough that I would not want to raise.
Good luck, David
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You make some good points.
RE my playing experience, you are correct that I just started playing mid limit a few months ago. In fact, I have only been playing poker PERIOD for about 10 months! That makes me sound pretty inexperienced, and in some ways I am. But I have been a winning player since the very first time I sat at a poker table (I won 7 of my first 9 sessions) and I now play up to 40-80 making slightly over 1BB per hour.
I guess I am a prodigy. I don't mean to sound conceited - I just have to explain my seeming lack of experience.
I don't have HPFAP but I remember clearly that it says that in general you should play it this way -
Limp in with it, and then bet any flop if it is checked to you.
I think this is great advice. I admit that I don't remember specifics right now - I don't remember him saying to raise with it, but I could be wrong. I will check up on that.
Now, I should point out that I will *GLADLY* raise with it first in if I am in mid-late position. That's totally different. This might look like a blind steal and I might get 3 bet by AJ or KQ, which I would very much like to have happen. Or I might get called by worse hands. I was specifically refering to plaing AQ in early position.
Anyway, I will concede that it probably isn't that bad to raise with AQo if the game is fishy.
-SmoothB-
AQo is a marginal raising hand in most gams when played UTG (IMO). Having said that at FW you probably have a positive expectation most of the time with this raise (IMO). In a wild CA game you have huge -ve expectation. In a good 15-30 game at the Bellagio it varies but may be slightly positive most of the time. In a tought 30-60 game at same, forget it except perhaps occaisonally.
So -raise where u are in an appropriate game. Most of the time you are giving at least a little EV away - unles you can play perfectly post flop.
SmoothB, I would like to make a few points:
1. My nephew was not in early position in the thread below, he was in middle position. The big blind was in Seat #8. #9, #10, and #1 are the early position seats. My nephew was in Seat #3.
2. The $15-$30 game at the Bellagio is a soft game filled with players who will come in on all kinds of weak holdings in early position like AT offsuit, KJ offsuit, KT offsuit, any suited Ace or King, a suited connector like QJ suited and JT suited and worse, etc. Against these kinds of players you should raise with AQ every time.
3. I agree that in a tough game you should not routinely raise with AQ offsuit but I would still raise with it most of the time so that my opponents cannot always put me on big slick or a big pair when I raise.
4. I agree that Huck's play seems out of line but there may have been extenuating circumstances based on his read of the table and my nephew in particular. Personally, I think Huck over played his hand quite a bit which is why I posted the problem.
SmoothB,
IMHO AQo is a clear raise UTG in early position in almost any full game. That being said, it is the worst offsuit hand you can say this about.
AJo and KQo would be the borderline hands and depend on game conditions. Even weaker raises are OK in special circumstances (e.g. you are the big stack and are attacking scared blinds just before the final table of a tournament).
If Doyle was saying he doesn't play it I believe he meant UTG in a full no limit game. I'm sure he would raise with a lot less in late position.
That being said, I think it is suicide to cold call a tough early raiser with AQo and several players yet to act behind you. This is not the same as calling a tough early raiser from late position when several weak players have already called. You may be dominated a lot of the time by the UTG raiser, but you make up for it with the position and the bad players inside. The thread from a few months ago regarding John Feeney's AQ offsuit test goes over this (one that will be destroyed if we delete the contributions from Badger if I recall correctly).
BTW, under certain circumstances I will raise UTG with a weaker ace such as ATo. The best example is a medium tight table full of weak players that you have dominated but for the last few rounds you haven't played a hand and are sitting on your stacks. Sneaking in a power raise with less here is probably OK.
Regards,
Rick
Loosish $10-$20 half kill game at Foxwoods.
I open for a raise in middle position with AcQs. I get one cold caller, a good player who is hard to put on a hand and doesn't seem to respect me, and the big blind also calls, a tight and slightly weak player.
Flop is AQ4 all hearts. BB checks, I bet, both call.
Would anyone disagree with my play so far?
Turn is Ts. To my surprise, BB bets out. I don't think this player would call with a gutshot on a suited board unless it was KhJx. My best guess is AT. I decide to go ahead and raise, thinking that if the BB has AT, I want to convince the good player that his Jh or similar is drawing dead. Anyone just call here?
The good player shrugs and calls two cold in a manner that suggests to me that he already has a flush. Maybe he cold called my raise with KJh? BB calls. At this point I am thinking check call the river, maybe even check fold.
The river is the beautiful Qd. BB checks, I bet. Would anyone consider going for a check raise considering my feeling about the "good player"?
All comments appreciated.
David
You played fine. I would bet and make sure I collect something on the end especially with a third player in the hand. The good player may not have a flush or he may decide not to bet.
I'd play it the same way you did, max it at every turn.
Checking the river would be a horrendously bad play. If you bet the river and the player behind you who called two bets cold on the turn raises you, then you have a problem. If he's the type who would just call with a non-nut flopped flush to wait and see if a heart hits the turn or river, or if he would just call with a made straight on the turn for the same reason, then folding to his river raise would be reasonable.
If you can make that laydown, then betting the river is even more important. That's because if he DOES have you beat, it costs you one bet either way; betting and folding to a raise, or checking and calling if he bets. But if he doesn't have you beat, you're freerolling after you bet, collecting from whoever feels like paying.
Tommy
I'm in a fairly tough 15/30 game last week when I pick up JJ in middle position. To my surprise I get 3 limpers to me. This is the 1st multiway pot all night and I didn't see a raise folding anyone before me so I just called. Is this a mistake ?
Player behind, a rockish sort, raises. Now I wonder if I had raised would he have reraised making it difficult for limpers to call ?
The SB, BB and all limpers, me included, call. $210 pot on the flop ! Flop comes KQJ with 2 diamonds. The SB bets, BB calls, UTG raises, a call, then another raise from the player in front of me. I'm facing 3 bets with with my low set. $345 pot, This is where I wanted to release the hand but I called. I figured if there was a made straight that my raise wouldn't get it to fold anyway. Rockish player behind folds. SB makes it 4 bets. He is a new player who just sat down, although younger than the rest he appears to be solid. At this point I put him on AT for sure. All the others except BB called. I then felt there must be a diamond or str8 draw, made straights or two pair in my mist. $540 pot, Wait, if someone limped with KQ I'm practically drawing dead. But this pot has gotten real big for this game and there's no way I'm letting it go just yet. I call. 2nd mistake ?
$540 pot if I haven't lost track.
Turn is the 8c. SB bets, all (3) call to me. $660, Now I know there must be two pair out and I figure if I raise that the SB will reraise his AT and possibly knock out my friend holding the KQ giving me 4 additional outs. $660 pot Flawed thinking ? I raise, SB did reraise but it moved no-one off the hand. Should I now call again knowing I'm drawing to 1-J and 3-eights ? $810 pot, or close to it. I'm on tilt, my stack is low, and I know I'm going to lose this hand, but I also know I have the odds to call (about 27:1). Bad call ?
The river is the 2d. Making the flush possible. SB checks, it's checked to me and I turn over my loser. Results were just as I had figured. SB had ATo, UTG had 9T also a flopped str8, and there was one player with KQ, the other had a T, and no other set. I was drawing dead to 4 cards or less and knew it, but couldn't release my set, is this an acceptable loss ?
I'm sure I made mistakes all trough this hand, I humble myself to all comments, thanks.
Pre-flop you should raise with your pocket Jacks. You almost certainly have the best hand and you want to make everyone else call two bets cold to take a flop. With any luck everyone else will fold and it will be you and the three limpers with you having the best hand and the best position. After limping, when raised of course you call and take a flop. He may have AA,KK, or QQ but he might also have AK,AQ, or TT. You are still a favorite to have the best hand.
On the flop you have bottom set which could easily be the best hand and if not you have ten redraws to a full house. Folding is absolutely unthinkable. If the UTG or one of the limpers had KK or QQ they would have probably raised pre-flop. You should make it 4 bets and put pressure on any draws. If anyone has two pair you want make them pay through the nose.
On the turn when it is bet and called to you, you should raise. Again if you don't have the best hand you could have outs to a full house at least with any Eight (3 outs) plus a Jack for quads (1 out). A certain percentage of the time a King or a Queen might actually be an out. If re-raised just call and see the river. Your implied odds are around 30:1.
Your river play was fine. You should have lost more money on this hand.
I agree with everything Jim says except for the pre-flop action. I believe that your call was correct. Once there are about 4 players in you're going to get your equity from this hand with a set. You want lots of players to pay you off if you make it. You'd rather have 7 people in this pot than 4. Now if there were one limper than it would clearly be correct to raise since You'd like to get the hand heads up.
rob
Thanks Jim, no one can recite the obviously correct, as well as you. At times I think you are a listbot. Nothing about your answer surprises me. I feel like I known you for years.
Can we get beyond "what to do when I get a set 101" ? Can we get to THIS EXACT read. What to do when the pot odds say "go for it" but the cards and player's betting patterns are telling you that you are "deadmeat", which do YOU listen to ?
I'm trying to remain calm and humble about this, but it really bothers me to hear "you should have lost more money with this hand". When did our objective become "lose as much as possible with sets," ignore your hand reading ability and pile as many chips in whenever possible.
Jim, you close, "your river play is fine." You approve of not betting a loser ! Next sentence " you should have lost more money with this hand", you disapprove of not betting more with a loser ? I smell a conflict.
Please note. I knew the SB had AT when he reraised the flop, (there was no need for me to reraise), and so did everyone else. I realized a player had KQ after SB bet the turn and no one raised. Question: should I continue to play against these reads ? Beat now,and drawing dead is not where I want to be.How about you ?
Is this hopeless ? What I genuinely seek comment on is evaluation of the reasons for my turn raise, then the call, after realizing I was drawing pratically dead. Even with proper pot odds. What good does it do to have the ability to read hands if one does not act upon his judgement? Do pot odds outweigh one's card reading ability and judgement ?
Jim, thanks for everything. I wonder if your responses will ever move past "pot odds" as the only justification for ones action. Which, by the way, is the reason everyone one of us "calling stations" stuck with THIS hand.
when in doubt, go with your gut. Your gut was right as it usually is with all of us. The pot odds should be adjusted based on your read.
The problem here is that you didn't trust yourself completely. What I would take away from this is that you are a very astute player who is probably able to play with most anyone in the world at 15-30.
You have very good judgement so start using it. based on your read you can't stay in the hand. You can't play textbook poker and do better than brake even. it wasn't a stupid play, you simply did what most of us mere mortals do .
Not to go on and on, but I made a similar mistake playing 15-3- the other night. I was in a pot where I flopped trips but I was sure that my opponent had aces, and an ace had flopped as well. Even though I was certain from the pre-flop betting that he had aces I played my trips fast and ....as he scooped the pot with his trip aces, I was saying to myself,"right again". its almost like we have to prove we are right by staying in to find out. I fight this with myself constantly. we all need to know that wee are right and let it go. Were going to be wrong sometimes, but theres always going to be much more secure situations to invest in. okay, i'll stop blabbing. seeya
Clint,
Your questions about reading ability and "book be damned" hit home with me. Most of the time I feel like I'm playing a different game than all the other folks. At every turn all options are available in my mind. Sounds like you're the same way.
I don't know what I would have done with your hand because I would have almost surely raised before the flop, and that changes everything. But given that you did NOT raise, and that you saw the flop for two bets, I would have VERY likely folded on the flop. Here's why:
If by some fluke you do have the best hand on the flop after all that action, then that means every draw is almost out. Rephrasing, if the two players who flopped straights do NOT have straights, then what the heck do they have? Draws. Straight draws (with a pair most likely), and a flush draw or two. And if KQ is out as well, as you rightly suspected, then the three hands combined have a shitload of outs. So in order to win the pot you have to either have the best hand on the flop, unlikely, and if you get past that, you have to dodge the draws. You've got two bets in. It'd be a great play to dump it early. And if that turned out to be the wrong choice, and you happen to be tilt prone, then walk away from the table and don't watch the outcome.
Tommy
I have failed to defend not raising preflop as I find this insignificant. I used to lose a lot of money with JJ until a low limit player wrote " if you think a preflop raise will eliminate opponents then raise. If not you might as well see the flop cheaply and see what it brings." It is now a winner for me. Yes, the hand would have played differently if I had raised and been reraised by the rock behind. His raise may have put ATo (sb) and 9Ts (utg) to the grind, and they may have folded. Afterward, I could have lost to AA from the rock, who knows, who cares ? I'm not apologizing for not raising. I think the guy behind was buying position with low suited connectors and thus was promptly invisible on the flop. Which tells me he would not have reraised, as he was happy with action ahead but the tougher players were in back.
This is not my point or my problem !
1) With my position in this gane I can always make up a bet on the flop if I'd like. 2) I have tried both raising and calling with this behind limpers and have lost each way. In 15/30 ! You can't convince me this is not a small error in a multiway situation. You may convince me I've been robbed. What matters is a) overcards on the flop b) the number and quality of hands played preflop, before and after your jacks. 3) Whether you can separate yourself from the hand early if you don't like the flop (multiway aggressive).
IMHO these are the things that determine how well you do with JJ.
My problem is the turn. After my raise did not eliminate the holders of my outs, coupled with knowing I was up against a str8 or two. I'm not talking about what I have guessed, these things I somehow knew after hrs of playing with these guys ! Should I Fold early ? "al" says yes.
Does the fundemental theory ever enter into our reasoning here ? If you play your cards correctly, as though you can see thier cards, you must gain ! I don't often find myself with a read on 4 players simultaneously in a tough game. But I still welcome this whenever it may come.
This time I think "al" may be right. I didn't have enough experience at this level to trust my read and release this hand at any point. I find myself still trying to force a hand through that I read as a loser but can't be sure because of all the flop aggression. This is LV 15/30 I attempt to speak of. I'm sure there is plenty of disagreement with what I have said. I'm just trying to learn.
This is why I hope for more discusion on the turn raise and it's merits, knowing it would be benificial to eliminate the KQ draw. A princple outlined by S&M, which apparently failed to enter this conversation. May have worked preflop but I doubt it. I didn't work on the turn either. My turn raise was not a value raise this time and I thought I could get some responce. This "HE" is not an exact science governed only by pot odds, is my only observation, trying to balance this is my challenge.
gee, somebody saying i'm right, ......they don't do that often here, as I have been contreversial in the past. Just remember that all the top players are excellent readers, and they don't fall in love with their hands.
This pre flop raising with jacks is bullshit. I don't neccesarily agree with the advice you were given, but with jacks and tens you are better off raising with them when you are either first one into the pot or only one limper, not three. In this situation I agree with you just calling. It is close either way, but you are certainly not wrong for just calling. In fact with several limpers I'm not going to raise with aq, and sometimes not ak.
With jj and 1o-10, these are still in t he medium pair category, and you either want to be heads up or multi way. Raising once in a while to get more money in there is of course fine, but it might be better if your on the button . The big disagreement here is that most players feel that 10s and jacks are in the big pair category. I disagree and believe they are very difficult to play correctly. There was another post below regarding tens. Anyway if you hadraised pre flop your read still would have been correct.
Oh, I play in CA but have played many times at 15-30 bellagio. good luck, trust your gut and don't let any of us steer you away from it.
Thanks for the emcouragement.
You're not going to get rid of someone with top two in a pot this big. If you doubt me, ask yourself this: When was the last time you saw someone make a laydown like this? When was the last time you yourself laid down top two on the turn in a monster pot? It wasn't a bad raise (I made have made it, if only for value), but if what you were trying to do was get top two to muck, then your reasoning was flawed.
Good point. I had to carefully consider this answer. I think I had hoped they would fold 2 pair for 2bb at this level, in this situation. Bad assumption on my part, everyone this time is playing the pot and not what's out against them. Oh ! the agony of FPS.
I wonder what you think of the statement "playing well after the flop". Is this all about calling and raising or could folding have anthing to do with it ? cheers !
I think folding has a lot to do with playing well after the flop, and I think it's a part of the game that's widely ignored. In recent months there seems to have been a lot of talk on the forum about the necessity of 'calling when the pot's big', and in large part I agree with this. However, a nasty subcurrent to this kind of banter seems to be 'don't worry about mucking, since in the long run it won't cost you much'. In 20 BB pots, I agree. But when you're in a game where most of the pots are in the 6 to 7 BB range, not knowing when to lay down top pair or an overpair will ruin your EV.
As for your hand-- I know you didn't like Jim's response, but I think he has a legitimate point. The fact is, your read was correct on this hand-- but, I know I've been in plenty of hands where I've 'known' I was beaten, only be proven completely wrong on the river. As Jim says, it wouldn't have surprised me at all to see everyone with KJ, AK, etc., with you dragging the chips. And even if this was an example of a hand where you should have layed down (and I don't think it was, but let's just say), it probably doesn't matter much. I don't think I've played a hand like this in over 100 hrs, which would indicate, amongst other things, that one's play in situations like these doesn't have much of an effect on one's overall expectation.
It was a fluky hand, really, and I'd let it go at that. Maybe you should have just called the turn, maybe not... but I wouldn't give it much thought. You'll profit much more by reviewing the hand you played earlier, the one where you flopped top pair with a 98s in a six way pot, then laboring over this one.
". . . Pots is the six to seven BB range."
How about three?
I played a small pot last week that had me grinning from ear to ear inside. It was the kind of buzz I wish I got more often, cuz its fun! I'm not boasting, just sharing the joy. Heck, for all I know this kind of hand is routine for you guys.
One limper from the cut off seat. I raise from the button with AA. The blinds fold, and the limper calls. The guy who limped is a snug, winning player, but he's also utterly predictable. He's in the top five of players I happen to be able to read well. Otherwise this could never have happened.
The flop came 7-2-2, rainbow. He checked, I bet, and he called. I decided that he would have raised preflop with a pocket pair in that spot, especially with me one seat behind him on the button, since he knows I wont get out of line when facing one of his raises.
So he must have a seven or duece, period. But there's never a "period," right? Well, this time I just made a choice that there was, and ran with it. Right or wrong, I wasn't budging from the initial read.
The turn came another 7. Danger! Danger! He checked and I checked. The river came a three. He bet with a slight hem-haw, which meant for sure I was beat. Plus, just on the off change that he DID have a pocket pair, he would check and try to pick off a bluff. He would not expect me to call him with ace-high after he called the bet on the flop.
So when he bet the river, I mucked. This fold was made easier because he often shows me his hand when he has a big hand after I fold to him on the river, even though I never show mine. Sure enough, he flashed me his seven on its way to the muck.
What a game we play!
Tommy
Clint: Your smart-ass reply to Jim's well thought out response to your post makes me pleased you lost this pot. The fact that suckers like you, Clint, agonize over these losses thrills me. You are a dick.
I mean Jim no ill will. I was simply aggravated that he delivers the "company line" on how to play a set regardless of the narrative. At no time did I fear another set. 2+2 er's know to play a set fast. I'm just trying to get myself to think outside the box. Coordinated flops are no better for sets than for AA if there is a made 5 card hand. In my case the board pairing (K or Q) would have only made the hand more costly, but it would be full stem ahead for someone that had not considered this. Jim's answers are always inside the box and confines of pot odds poker. That's fine but I fear that at the level he plays and where I wish to play, this is considered "unimaginative" or routine play. Not an asset. I have no wish to carry on and aurgument with Jim or anyone else, you may notice I only responded to him once. For those that wish to keep this forum dumbed down to insults and routine play, more power to you.
But Clint in a full tabled limit hold-em game with lots of opponents betting and raising, you can never have an exact read on everyone's hand. Your read on Player X might be 80% reliable, your read on Player Y might be 50% reliable, your read on Player Z might be 90% reliable, etc. But the combined likelihood of you being correct on all your reads is very small and it will cost you money frequently since you only have to be wrong in one spot to end up taking the wrong action. Failing to raise pre-flop with pocket Jacks against a few limpers is a mistake regardless. A small one for sure but a mistake nevertheless. If you had pocket Queens and didn't raise that would be a bigger mistake. If you had AA or KK and didn't raise that would be a very big mistake. This is true regardless of the game unless you know with 100% accuracy that someone has a better hand. You might fear, suspect, be apprehensive, etc. but in the long run the more you significantly deviate from correct play the more money it will cost you.
You flopped a set. Yes the board is scary and you could be beat but you must realize that against numerous opponents you could have the best hand. Given the lack of pre-flop raising ahead of you, we can rule out KK or QQ which would be a bigger set. This only leaves AT or T9 which are possible but so are a myriad of other hands like AK,KQ,AQ,KT,QT, or even KJ,QJ, or JT all of which give the player a pair, two pair, or a pair and a draw. Furthermore, you have outs to beat someone with AT or T9. This all adds up to one thing on the cheap street: raise, re-raise, and cap. Yes there will be many times you lose but when you win you will win huge.
On the turn, if you want to slow down okay no big deal.
I think we both agree that betting the river is pointless since with a flush possibility now out there only better hands will call.
Use your reading ability to perhaps save a bet now then by calling instead of raising. But don't start folding hands like this based on trying to be 100% accurate against a lot of opponents. If you are right you are not right by much and if you are wrong or if you are right but catch a full house or quads it will cost you a ton of money.
the other night i was heads up and was 90%+ sure i was beat on the river. my opponent was predictable (a weak woman player - no flames please!) but i had a strong hand ... (ok,ok, so im playing mostly stud now and used to cry calling on the river, you got me:) ... so i called, and guess what , i pulled down the pot.
i remarked to my table buddy on my immediate right that i was sure i was beat, but called because im sometimes wrong:)
brad
.
I think you played the hand fine. I don't know how you put SB on A-10 given that he had just recently joined the table, but you did an excellent job reading the table. Pot odds dictate at least a call throughout the hand.
Your call on the flop is mandatory (raise is fine too). The board is coordinated with a flush draw which will create a lot of action. There was a very real chance that you had the best here. The re-raise from the small blind helps to define things.
I don't mind your raise on the turn. The pot was huge and it was worth an extra $60 to try and get 4 more outs.
As an aside, I want to mention that Jim Brier doesn't deserve snitty, sarcastic replies. He spends a lot of time answering questions on this board, and adds a lot to the group. It's a bulletin board, designed to give you a variety of viewpoints. If you don't like a reply, ignore it. I think you owe him an apology.
Winger
I agree entirely and extend best wishes and apologize to Jim again.
"I don't know how you put SB on A-10 given that he had just recently joined the table,"
Watch the beter as he is raised and reraised, he will often give you an indication of how he feels about these developments. Everyone is watching the action and he doesn't know your spying him.
In a fairly tight $20-$40 game...
Player A raised from early, I re-raised in late position with Ah Ad, Player C capped it in the cutoff, Player A called, I called.
The flop came 8s,5s,3c. Player A checked, I checked, Player C bet, Player A called, I raised, Player C called, Player A called. The turn was a 9c. Player A checked, I bet, Player C called, Player A raised, I called, Player C called. The river blanked. Player A bet, I called, Player C folded. Player A shows 99. (Player C had KK)
There are a few areas where this hand could have been played/thought through differently. I'd appreciate all comments.
Let's start with the river: Can anyone make an argument for my poor payoff? I don't think I can. I justified it due to my knowledge of Player A's propensity to semi-bluff raise (and check/raise) the turn with a draw. But in this case it's very unlikely, since he must know he's up against 2 big hands and will be called. I then grasped at the fallacy he may have had a really big draw and would even make this play for value. With the pot as big as it was on the end, I went through denial about 98 or a set and justified my call since I was NOT worried about Player C behind me. Does anyone have any tips or advice on how to dissassociate yourself from this kind of fictitious during the play of a hand?
The turn: My bet might seem obvious, but can a case be made for checking? I know Player C has a big pair (at least an overpair), if I check, I begin to look like AKs with a draw or TT,JJ,QQ and he most likely bets his overpair. If Player A calls, I can check raise continuing my quest to get as much $$$ in the pot with what I figure to be the best hand. If player A now raises, I slip out the back door losing 3 big bets less. Comments?
The flop: Of course betting out was an option and may have won me the pot when Player C raises and Player A folds. But can it be that wrong to get the most possible $$$ in the pot with the best hand? I also counted on Player C re-raising the flop with his big pair which also figures to shut out Player A...
I'd really appreciate any arguments for playing this hand differently. I am more interested in ways to have a cleaner thought process for this hand. Thanks.
Kevin
Kevin,
Great flop for AA - you have the flush draws and with all the preflop heat you are sure to be against over pairs or AK which you dominate too.
I think I would put A on a set when he ckraised the turn and slow down. I think your crying call on the river was necessary.
The flop must be bet and raised here - I don't believe in playing AA slow if you win it right there OK but what you want to for the KK/QQ to folllow you and the other possible AA busters to fold - AA in the final analysis is still just a pair that I want to get heads up asap.
Kevin
I was player C and when you bet the turn i called and when player A raised you called and i mucked the turn i did not call the turn raise. When you checkraised the flop it was pretty apparent to me you had AA and i took one off on the turn to see if i spike a K. IMO there was no way he was on a draw when he checkraised the turn since a semi-bluff would never work in that spot because one of the pre-flop raisers is going to call and he would be putting in more money being a big dog. It was pretty easy for me to get away from my hand but you were in a tough spot. It's a tough laydown but i think you should have not called the river as it was apparent he had a big pair beat. Take Care Larry
Sorry Lar. Thought you called the turn.
The bottom line is I should've led the flop. I'm sure you raise and while only Player A can answer this for sure, I think he folds his overpair 99. If he doesn't, there is nothing else I can do. Ironically, if he folds, you lose more because now you pay off the rest of the way. No need to thank me, just buy me Loui's next Thurs. :>) Take care.
Kevin
It's been my experience that Player A has a propensity for semi-bluff raising the turn with a draw (it seems to be a favorite play of his). I agree it was less likely here due to the situation. But he gets paid off from me. I am just not going to fold a big pot to him just because he raises the turn.
Having players pay him off when he hits his hand is very good for him. The bad news is that he will miss more times than he hits. Also, a potentially potent weapon (when used correctly) is gone from his arsenal.
Kevin
Problem is that if you lose with AA in this situation, you can talk "coulda, shoulda, woulda" no matter how you played your hand.
It really just comes down to how well you know Player A. If you think that there's a chance he would checkraise the turn here with a hand less than yours or a hand that you can overtake with relative ease(i.e. 98 which is unlikely given his early position preflop raise), you play on. Otherwise, you muck.
Generally, it is tough to muck here because even if you know Player A can't be fooling around with a semibluff checkraise against 2 players one of whom surely has a big pair, you can't rule out that Player A may be checkraising the turn with a slowplayed KK or QQ.
I leave the big laydowns for the no limit types - I pay off here.
I wouldn't have check-raised on the flop. If C can cap preflop, there's a pretty good chance he'll raise this 8-high flop, so you'll get 3 bets out of him by betting even if A folds to 2 cold. And C won't 3-bet your check-raise with QQ and JJ so hoping for this isn't reasonable. My calculations indicate that winning 7 bets after the flop by betting and driving out A (3 on flop, 2 on turn and 2 on river), is marginally better than getting 10 bets after the flop by check-raising and keeping both opponents in (4 on flop, 4 on turn and 2 on river -- I figure they won't both pay you off).
Kevin,
Rounder and Skp gave you the straight scoop on the play of the hand. You must bet the flop and look for a raise to thin the field. In some instances the nines may fold to a single bet if he thinks someone will raise behind him. Of course it is tough to get an over pair out without a raise but it happens, especially if the images of the preflop raisers are strong and the oppponent with the nines is also a strong player. You must do everthing possible to win the pot at this point. Getting more money in the pot with the best hand in situations like yours is not your goal. Limiting the ways you can lose has to be your primary focus here. That must be foremost in your thinking.
Vince.
I'll assume that you guys were the only ones involved. The size of the pot is $270 before the flop.
>>The flop came 8s,5s,3c. Player A checked, I checked, Player C bet, Player A called, I raised, Player C called, Player A called.<<
Now there is $390 in the pot after the flop.
>>The turn was a 9c. Player A checked, I bet, Player C called, Player A raised, I called, Player C called.<<
When it gets back to you there is $550 in the pot. It's going to cost you $80 to see it through to win $590 at worst. Now it's time to eliminate hands.
Could player A have a 76 which would be suited most likely. Possible that he would raise for deception in early position but he is not likely to have it. So one thing you know is that you are probably have a couple of outs. Although you can't totally eliminate 76 you can put a very small probability of the early position player having it.
Could player A have two pair? Only if he raised with 98 suited before the flop. I would rate this as a very small probability.
Could player A have a set? Again there is a small probability that player A could have a set of 3's or 5's but I think you can put a low probability on this hand as well. How about a set of 8's. This hand is more likely but would your opponent play it slow on the flop? Probably not even with the action before the flop. I believe you can assign this a somewhat higher probability than the set of 3's or 5's but not too much higher. How about a set of nines? Well player A would have had to raise with a set of nines in early position pre-flop. So I guess this makes a set of 8's more likely if you entertain the notion that he has a set of nines. He is certainly playing like the nine helped him on the turn. Would he play a 9,9 on the flop as he did? Sure you check after him and he calls Player C. You may have wanted to bet the flop hoping player C would raise to increase your chances of winning the pot that is already pretty big. So I think you have to assign a high probability of player A having a set of 9's and there also is a reasonable chance he has a set of 8's.
Could player A have an overpair? At first glance this seems like it could be true. From Player A's prospective he must believe that there is a high probability that you both have overpairs. It is possible that one of you might have A,K but I would think that he would figure that at least one of you had an overpair. Is it possible to deduce what overpair he might have? Well if he had KK or AA the possibility of either you or Player C having A,K would have to be pretty small in his mind. If he has QQ this play might make some sense. Does he feel that you would fold KK if an Ace fell on the river? Probably not so he would have to believe pretty strongly that his QQ was good in this spot. Ditto for JJ or TT. Your play on the flop marks you for a really big overpair and since player C didn't raise back, player A would not figure him for AA. It is possible that Player A is getting out of line with an overpair. So overall you would have to assign the overpair possibility with a probability that is somewhat likely.
Could player A have AK? Doubtful in this spot maybe specifically AK of spades but that is only one hand.
I didn't mention player C because it's pretty clear you have him beat.
So here is how I would assign the probabilities.
76 = 4% 98 = 4% AK = 2% 99 or 88 = 60% Over pair = 30%
Looking at it from another perspective, only considering the possibility of an overpair or set, what would be the likelihood of my opponent having a set to make my calling him down NOT correct. Probably something like 90%.
>>The river blanked. Player A bet, I called, Player C folded. Player A shows 99. (Player C had KK)
There are a few areas where this hand could have been played/thought through differently. I'd appreciate all comments.
Let's start with the river: Can anyone make an argument for my poor payoff? I don't think I can.<<
I just did make an argument for the payoff I think.
>>I justified it due to my knowledge of Player A's propensity to semi-bluff raise (and check/raise) the turn with a draw. But in this case it's very unlikely, since he must know he's up against 2 big hands and will be called.<<
I mentioned this but it does seem like there is a chance that he could have been getting out of line here.
>>I then grasped at the fallacy he may have had a really big draw and would even make this play for value. With the pot as big as it was on the end, I went through denial about 98 or a set and justified my call since I was NOT worried about Player C behind me.<<
I believe in my clumsy way I covered these points.
>> Does anyone have any tips or advice on how to dissassociate yourself from this kind of fictitious during the play of a hand? <<
As skp said only if you can read this player so well that you know what he must have. The pot size tied you on and I think you made the right play.
>>The turn: My bet might seem obvious, but can a case be made for checking? I know Player C has a big pair (at least an overpair), if I check, I begin to look like AKs with a draw or TT,JJ,QQ and he most likely bets his overpair. If Player A calls, I can check raise continuing my quest to get as much $$$ in the pot with what I figure to be the best hand. If player A now raises, I slip out the back door losing 3 big bets less. Comments? <<
Player C could have checked behind you as well. He folded KK on the river so he suspected that you had AA.
>>The flop: Of course betting out was an option and may have won me the pot when Player C raises and Player A folds. But can it be that wrong to get the most possible $$$ in the pot with the best hand? I also counted on Player C re-raising the flop with his big pair which also figures to shut out Player A... <<
I suspect that your EV was higer by betting out on the flop but I haven't done the math but I should.
>>I'd really appreciate any arguments for playing this hand differently. I am more interested in ways to have a cleaner thought process for this hand. Thanks. <<
What I outlined is what I got from The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky. As has been discussed many times on the forum, you don't have time to do all of this analysis in the heat of battle. Training your mind away from the table is what is required IMO. As a quick analysis you might have estimated the chances of your opponent making a play with a worse hand and assess this percentage of what the pot was laying you. In sum your opponent that sometimes plays deceptively forced you to pay off and you were probably right to do so IMO.
>>Kevin<<
Thanks Tom for such a thought out analysis (I overlooked this post until just now or I would've responded sooner).
You have given me much to think about (as well as showed me how to think about it).
If I had to do it over again, I bet out on the flop. I haven't done the math either, but it just makes sense that when the pot is getting that big you should do what it takes to win. Period. Attempting to get more $$$ in the pot with the best hand was a HUGE mistake. As a matter of fact, it was exactly a $560 dollar mistake! This is the difference between what I would've won by betting out and what I ended up losing by playing it the way I did. That's 14 BIG BETS!!! The good news is that I don't think I'll be making this same mistake any time soon... Thanks Tom.
Kevin
Thanks for the comments. You guys are all 100% right I suffered from a mild form of 'fancy play' syndrome here. I Nomraly bet into Player C on this flop, using his aggressiveness to raise and put maximum pressure on Player A. But for some reason I just thought I was too big a favorite in a 3-way situation (which as it turns out, I was. There were only 4 outs against me). But my lesson learned here is that even in this case, it's best to try and win A.S.A.P. No more getting cute for me. Thanks again...
Kevin
Good to know Kevin, I'm planing to move to the 10-20 that is if I can pull myself from the 5-10 - I always had a problem leaving a game I am comfortable in (One In know I can beat) for another just cuz a seat has opened up.
MikeG
Of course you must do what's best for you. But there's no question you will "average" more per hour in the $10-$20 games. The game usually plays much tighter early in the day. I still like this game because tight doesn't equal tough and this game is still very beatable. Later in the day the game becomes more loose and can sometimes border on insanity. Here's 2 examples from yesterday's $15-$30 game to give you an idea.
It was a 3 handed $450 pot on the river. Player A bets, Player B calls and Player C (the only solid player in the hand sitting next to me), shows me his AQs busted flush draw and mucks. Player A shows a J high nothing and Player B wins with a Q high bust!
In another hand the board read 998Q9 on the river and the same Player A bet. The same Player B raised. Player A re-raised and Player B called. Player A shows an 8 and Player B shows AK!
I probably shouldn't post these hands here because I might not be able to get a seat next time due to all the 2+2'ers flying down here to get into these games after reading this! :)
Kevin
l
Kevin
You right i would have raised the flop and i think that would have put a lot of pressure on A. I'm coming to this 15-30 game it sounds to good to pass up! you should have not let the cat out of the bag!Take care Larry
"Tight doesn't equal tough."
Agreed.
Since moving to California four years ago, I quit going to Vegas, except for a couple trips to see Blue Man Group at the Luxor. (A MUST see.)
On one of those trips I played at the Mirage while my gal hit the shops. A hysterical sequence of hands went down. I was in the starting lineup of a daytime $10-20. Everyone folded every hand, including me. When I got the button, they all folded, and I raised in the dark. Both blinds folded.
Next hand, everyone folded to me, and even though I was one off the button, I raised in the dark again. The button folded, and both blinds called. Woops!
The flop came KQx. Are you ready for this? The small blind MUCKED without checking. And the big blind MUCKED without checking. Take it down, Tommy. Two pots in a row without ever looking at my cards.
I think I'll go see Blue Man Group one more time. :-)
Tommy
Wow. I don't blame you for going back. Why not take in a couple of more shows while your at it? With games like that, the 2 drink minimum shouldn't be a problem...
Rounder
The way you play i don't know why you wastin your time in 5-10 You'll do very well in 10-20. If you remember i came up to you in the room and asked why you were playing 5-10 i was shocked. It's none of my business and i sure don't want to see you in 10-20 since the game justs gets that much tougher. Whatever you decide i wish you the best. Larry
Larry - I've been in the 10-20 at times over the last 2 1/2 years while visiting on my monthly trips to Chicago - since relocating here I've just not been willing to leaving a game (well let's just say I feel comfortable in) for another - But is seems I have taken a 50% pay cut in the Midwest vs the South West and I want to do somehting about its, short of driving up to Michigan every day. :-)
Mike
I think you should have bet out on the flop and then player C would probably raise and make player a fold to what he no knows is a two-outer.
Russ
I sent the following e-mail to Bob Wilson(wrote Turbo Holdem) pertaining to heads up play:
*****Start I was looking at the preflop play by ADV_2, and it seems to me that it was designed to have the big blind act last on all rounds, (Big blind on button) therefore protecting too many of his hands by calling.
In a traditional heads up match, the small blind is on the button, acting first before the flop, the big blind should only be calling or reraising with about 40% of their hands (Holdem For Advanced Players; pg. 184-187 21st ed.) and folding the rest, since they will not have position. *****End
The above % was actually formulated for an opponent that raises nearly every time. I would therefore assume you should call even less against a tighter player.
He responded: ********Start Adv_2 was set up with the dealer blind (as the small blind) in mind. In fact, the Tips booklet has a test which uses that condition.
I have an older version of HFAP and can't find the heads-up info you're referring to. However, assuming that quoting verbatim, I disagree with the statement. Laying down 60% of the hands costs more money. You can test this for yourself. *********End
Now I did not look at the exact % of hands that TTH ADV_2(Heads up advisor) called/raised with, but I would guess that it was in the 85-95% range.
And if I test ADV_2 vs. ADV_3(plays tighter), ADV_2 is victorious.
Maybe I should set ADV_3 to loosen up after the flop???
Anyways there is a big difference between calling with 40% and 90% of hands in the big blind...
Who is right or closer vs. a typically aggressive opponent?
Excuse me but is this suppose to be on another forum
You must have misread it. Folding 60% headsup in the big blind is suicide, small blind would show profit by raising every time (thus betting even money preflop).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I dont think I did. In fact they (S&M) say that if you call 50% of the time that the raiser will almost certainly show a profit, however he is ENTITLED to a profit because of position..
They go on to say "Thus it appears that in a heads-up match in the big blind you need to call(or reraise) at least 40% of the time against an aggressive opponent."
I sure would like to know who was in the right ballpark.
How often you call is highly dependent on how often he raises. It is also very dependent on how well he plays from that point on.
I agree. Your books example if for an aggressive player who raises every time and bets the flop every time...
Against a tighter player shouldn't you even call less?
These would drastically differ from Wilson's software.
I am really not even concerned with who is right or wrong here...
I just want to know how to apply what I should call with with a player who raises 80% of the time and another who raises only 20% of the time... Any idea?
But that's obvious. If the guy only raises you with AA, you need to throw 99.9% of your hands away. What I'd like to know, seriously, would you throw 60% of your hands away against me?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
its amazing ...while i`m waiting for a 5-10 game I got to watch a 10-20. Particularly one hand in particular.... Woman in early position utg calls, two limpers follow..flop is face face x,she calls a fold, last to act calls.turn isface no pair but flush and straight possibilities as well as trips likely.she calls ,I figure this guy is gonna raise nope he calls.river is A.she calls he calls...he has k~s,she hasA3o..Well I`m blown away how anyone would take this hand to the river as well even to play it after the flop..BUT heres the kicker she continued to play almost every hand and no one challenged her and I`m thinking shit she`s playing a lot of randoms and no one is challenging.she won alot of blinds but her play i question much and the caliber of players she faced.. Needless to say I was pissed that I didnt have the funds to sit in my first mid limit game. I was amazed the starting hands from early position were so poor....the game was loose passive and a great opportunity to get my feet wet cheaply for a mid limit game.
jg
Where was this.
Since moving to CHicago I find it strange that many (even usually fair players) will play any A out of position. I mucked an A8o the other day it was exposed cuz it hit the dealers hand and I got a lot of shit from the table for not playing it (UTG happened to win that hand with an A7o). They don't even play it they will call to the river looking for the miracle A to drop.
Hell, I don't play it in late position with limpers.
Rounder this was at the yearly fair we have here in london ontario. Hands like that make you drool to play higher limits cause as you mention they`re hands experienced players would never play outside of the big blind in an unraised pot,let alone utg at any stake... The game was perfect though to play above ones normal limit....One guy always gave his hand away by staring at the flop and mucked every time when it got to him..one guy shockingly was shuffling his cards when he was on a draw and I thought no way,well shit sure enough he was on a flush draw and made it. Geez I`m still kicking my ass for not getting in there..I thought for sure it was a 2-4 game by the way they all played only thing was no maniacs...
jg
I play in Vancouver and this was my reaction when I first moved up from 5-10 to 10-20. I couldn't believe how bad most of the players were. I mean at least 75% of the player don't have a clue. There are some tougher players at 10-20 as opposed to 5-10 but not a lot. Since moving to 10-20 about 7 weeks ago I have done extremely well and regret not moving up earlier. I would recommend that you save your money and move up to these limits as soon as you can.
Funny story from last night's 40-80 game. An unknown, older, fun-loving guy plopped down in the five seat with a rack of blue chips ($10). He played almost every hand for three rounds. Now he had about three racks, scattered, with no time to stack them yet. Weeooo, he was having a good time. We all were. Where I play, weeks can go by without any bitterness expressed at the table.
Then the floorman comes by and says to our new friend, "Your $3-$6 seat is open. Do you still want it?"
"Yes, I do!"
And off he went, obliviously.
An hour later I happened to be walking by the $3-6 table where he was. He had $3,000 on the table in blue chips, and just enough $1 chips to play the next hand.
We're all bozos on this bus.
Tommy
Funny. I was playing 5-10 on Paradise yesterday and had to good fortune to be dealt KK twice in the same lap. Lost both to the same player, and both times he had A3. I looked up the chance of this twice in a row and it was bigger than I thought, about 8%.
I never played A3o even when I first started but playing it is less dumb than a lot of the calls tighter players make when they're confused or upset. It just costs more over time.
sorry to hear that chris.. but i`m laughing my ass off cause if we tried that garbage sure as hell we`d burn..It seems the poker gods dont let dedicated players get away with garbage..whats truly scary is they think they played brilliantly....
jg
You've discovered one of the secrets of HE. I've met lots of players, usually women, who will play any-Ace religiously to the river. For this reason, A-3o always sticks out in my mind when I see an Ace hit the board and a woman still in the hand.
5 players limp and I called in the sb with Ah Kh. The flop came Qh,Qc,3h. We all checked to the button who bet. I raised, and an early position player who is an otherwise very good player but loose/aggressive, immediately calls 2 cold. Everyone else folded.
The turn was the Kc. I checked, he checked. The river was a Th. I bet, he raised, and I called. He had 8h 6h.
A friend thought very strongly that I should've re-raised the river. I just couldn't see him calling 2 cold on the flop with a paired board and 3rd nut flush draw. But in hindsight, he couldn't check a Q on the turn unless it was KQ. So did I miss a re-raise here?
I would doubt that he had a fullhouse in this situation, however, you never know so I think I would have just called. It is a scary board, anyone could have Q-T or Q-K.
Incidently, I don't agree with your raise on the flop from the small blind. I would think you would want the other players in to pay off your flush draw if it hits. By raising you have a good chance of getting the pot heads up with the button who likely has a Q and may beat you with a fullhouse and you are also out of position. Actually it should have been heads up because I don't think the early position player should have called $40 with 6h-8h.
"Incidently, I don't agree with your raise on the flop from the small blind. I would think you would want the other players in to pay off your flush draw if it hits. By raising you have a good chance of getting the pot heads up with the button who likely has a Q and may beat you with a fullhouse and you are also out of position. Actually it should have been heads up because I don't think the early position player should have called $40 with 6h-8h."
I agree that he made a bad call. But I disagree that just because the button bet, I must put him on a queen. It's more likely someone other than the button checked a queen in this spot. And even if the button does have a queen, I should have outs. The problem I see with just calling, is that my chances of winning immediately, are now reduced to zero.
I strongly agree with the check raise on the flop. Clinteroo, you even said that you felt the 8-6 should fold. And since the button folded to the check-raise, that means the AK was likely the best hand on the flop. So even in the most straighforward sense, it was a good raise, and in other scenerios where AK was beaten on the flop, the info gained will steer the best course.
As the hand played, I would definitely have three-bet the river. If the other guy checked a full house in last seat on the turn, gawd love 'em, take the extra bet. The nice thing about three betting with this hand is that if the other player makes it four bets, its an easy laydown. So the questions are, will he call the third bet with a flush or a Q? And is that likelohood greater than the chance that he has a full house? I think it is.
Not that it matters, but after taking charge on the flop and then hitting a king, I would have bet the turn for sure. Part of the reasoning would be that if the caller had a queen, and the flop has two of one suit, and the button is yet to act, I'd think he would three bet the flop. So my first read is that he does not have a queen. If that read is wrong, I'll find out soon enough. If he raises my turn bet, I'll call and draw to a heart or a king, and if that misses, then I'll check the river and fold if he bets.
Tommy
With 5 players limping, you ought to raise with AhKh even though you are in the sb.
Having missed the raise preflop, you ought to bet the flop: You may win outright or you may go on to improve or you may be called by a worse hand.
Having missed the bet on the flop, you ought not to raise a late position bettor. Notice that in the face of a button bet and your suspicious looking "mere call", no one can overcall unles they have a Queen, flush draw or possibly a pocket pair. By raising, the only hand you will get out is the pocket pair. You will not get a Queen out (obviously). Notice also that while you may have the best hand, you don't need to raise to protect it; a mere call may suffice. If your call gets it heads up with the button, there are lots of ways to play the hand thereafter including checkcalling the turn and river even if 2 blanks come.
I like your turn check. When the player coldcalled your bet on the flop, you can put him on a Queen or a heart draw. You have paired up on the turn and no overcard can beat you on the river. So, a check saves you $ if the other player has a Queen and also gives him an opportunity to semibluff with his heart draw which you of course hope he goes on to hit.
On the river, I probably would have reraised given that the way this hand played out, your opponent's most likely hand is a flush.
skp writes: "Notice that while you may have the best hand, you don't need to raise to protect it, a mere call may suffice."
Before I put my foot in my mouth, let me make sure I have this situation straight. Three players. Betting on the flop goes: check, check, and the button bets. Right?
Let's just assume that the middle player is going to fold, so that the decision to raise or not raise has no bearing on him.
If the first player has the button beat, and the first player does not check-raise, he is giving infinite odds to the button to draw out. Right? And since the first player has no pair on this hand, the button gets to draw to one pair for free. However, if the first player check raises, the button may very well fold his six-out hand, not realizing how good his draw actually is.
How can giving a free card when holding the best hand ever be called "protection?"
Tommy
I assumed that there were 5 limpers and the 2 blinds making it 7 handed.
In any event, the key to the call (as opposed to the checkraise) lies in (a) the size of the pot and (b) position.
Scenario 1
Assume that no one has a Queen.
In most cases, the button bet and Kevin's call should make the contest headsup. And if the button does not have Kevin beat now and is just betting any 2 cards, say JT, he probably only has 4 or 5 outs (not 6 as one or two of his pair draw cards will give Kevin a flush). Further, if the button hits one of his 4 or 5 outs on the turn, Kevin still has redraws on the river.
Scenario 2
Someone has a Queen. Well, raising is not going to do you much good other than the fact that you may get some indication that a Queen is out if someone coldcalls. But that raise for info does you little good here because no matter what you find out from the raise, you are not going to fold.
Scenario 3
No one has a Queen but someone else has a flush draw (as was the case here).
Again, raising is not going to do you much good because I know very few players who while holding a flush draw will lay down for a bet and one raise on the flop. In any event, you probably don't want him to lay down here as you stand to get some action if you make a flush. Furthermore, raising to get info could mislead you if you get a coldcaller. You are apt to put him on a queen rather than a flush draw. This could cause you to misplay your hand on the river.
Position
Your position is a key here. Change things around to Kevin being on the button and the cutoff betting the flop...well, now a raise makes more sense as Kevin *cannot* be raised on the turn. i.e. if someone coldcalls his flop raise or if the cutoff calls his raise, he can just check the turn if he doesn't make his flush. He should also check if he hits a King or Ace.
Pot Size
Had the pot been raised preflop, a checkraise on the flop would once again make more sense. Giving 4 outs to the button may be too many given the large pot.
Damn! That was awesome. I take by what I said and I totally agree with you. Bravo.
Tommy
skp- I always come away enlightened by your posts but I'm a little confused here.
I agree that it's Ok, and even advisable to sometimes raise with hands like AKs from the blinds. But I think "ought to" may be going a bit too far. You don't have a hand yet, and need to hit the flop. Even then, it's often rough going with 6 players and worst position. I do make this play, but it's an exception rather than a rule. Do you think I'm giving up too much?
I see parts of your point about betting out. But I would consider this a bet for value, and not a true semi-bluff, since the chance of running through 6 players in an unraised pot seem remote at best. Make it 3-4 players, and it has semi-bluff potential.
Your comment about the effect my 'mere call' would have is interesting. But do I really want a pocket pair in? This hand beats me. I can see wanting to keep a flush draw in, but both of these hands have position on me. Which means there is a possibility they will try and outplay me.
It's for this reason that I usually like to take control when playing a draw into a paired board. The reason is that in many of these situations your outs could be negated. In this case, an A,K,Jh,Th, even a 9h or 8h, are all cards that go nicely in a multi-way unraised pot with a Q. Now let's say I bet and get raised on my near left. This has the same effect of shutting out players. But in addition, I am now put into a guessing mode. He may have a pocket pair, a Q, or a draw himself. Notice also that it's not unreasonable for a Q to raise immediately in this spot due to the flush draw. If I did play it this way, I'd probably re-raise to represent a Q, and follow through on the turn regardless of what fell (with the exception of an A or K). But I'd never feel comfortable here. If I bet and get exactly one caller, I'd have much of the same problems. What am I drawing to? Does an A or K help or kill me? Of course taking control with a check raise doesn't make things 100% clear, but it does give me a better idea. Most importantly I think it gives me a chance to win immediately while making it harder to outplay me with a hand like 99 or Jh Th. Nothing wrong with taking down $160 right away best hand or not.
I do agree that I should have re-raised the river. Do you think my thinking on playing this hand in general is very flawed? Thanks.
Kevin
I think you have to raise before the flop, given that you have roughly a 43% chance of flopping either a nut flush draw or top pair. Unsuited, maybe not... although with a 32% chance of flopping top pair I'd usually be inclined to give it a pop.
Your counterpoint to skp's argument for just calling the flop is interesting, but consider this: is someone was going to outplay you later on, they'd also be the type of player who would lead bet with an underpair on a board like this. Few players have the cajones to fire away with an underpair on the turn and river if they didn't have the guys to bet the flop. So, I think your concern about getting outplayed later on is unwarranted.
Like skp said, nobody's going to overcall this flop without either a) a flush draw (which isn't a bad thing), or b) a Q (in which case why put more money in the pot when you have no position and can't get trips to muck).
The pre-flop play may be a subject for a seperate thread. I do see the merits of it. But you must agree that always raising in this spot is a play designed to increase variance, even though it figures to be a long term winner. Flopping top pair out of position in a 7-way field that is now competing for a pot which already contains $280, is a far cry from a lock.. In addition, you will also have to do a fair amount of chasing due to the large pot you created. I'm not saying it's unprofitable, just high variance.
As far as the check/raise vs. call goes, could it be that it merely comes down to what it's worth to win immediately? Having it get checked to the button makes it slightly more likely that no one holds a Q. Agreed? Only very early players are apt to check a Q here since the later their position, the less they can expect someone else to bet. For example if I were in the BB on this flop with 7 players in an unraised pot and I checked with the intention of folding to a bet, but it now got checked to an aggressive/bluff prone player in late position, I will sometimes check/raise with 9s 3c and lead the turn if I have to.
So if you felt there was a play that would enable you to win right away, would you and skp still opt not to make it?
Preflop
I do believe that you are giving up way too much if you just call preflop. I would raise everytime in this situation even with AK offsuit. You can always do things to try and limit the field postflop eg. you flop a King or Ace and still finesse a checkraise on the flop etc. The key thing is that you are going to flop top pair a third of the time...you have 6 opponents...to me, that calls for a raise. And if your slick is suited, you are going to like the flop more than 40% of the time.
Flop
Against 6 opponents, your chances of running a semibluff on a flop like Qh9h5s may be remote...although you could perhaps bet for value. But betting on a paired flop and having everyone fold is not all that uncommon. With 2 Queens on the board, the chances - compared to pot odds - are pretty good that no one has a Queen (incidentally, this should be an easy one to figure out. I am embrassed to say that I have never actually bothered to try and work it out. Of course, I realize that a Queen is more likely to be in the limper's hands than , say, a 5 or something but still I like my chances of winning outright with a bet.)
Flop checkraise
Suppose someone does have a pocket underpair which they will call with if you just call but will fold if you raise. It's not that bad that you keep him in. You have 14 or 15 outs aginst this fellow which makes you a favourite on the flop. Now, I don't mean to say that if you knew no one had a Queen and that someone had a pocket pair that you should not raise. If you knew all that for sure, you should raise. But the combination of factors i.e. (a) uncertainty of a Queen being out and (b) the fact that you can with relative ease overtake a pocket pair, IMO, dictate a call.
BTW, I also echo GD's comments about the unlikelihood of someone outplaying you with a pocket pair on later streets. Players who like to outplay others would certainly bet a pocket pair on the flop.
There likely isn't a pocket pair out there- at least not in the hands of the late position players - as they would have bet the flop. Button could have a pocket pair but he will likely call your raise as he is already in for one bet and his call may cause some concern to you i.e. is he slowplaying with a Queen and is he going to smoke you with a raise on the turn. In fact, I can imagine scenarios where the button would outplay you if you raised the flop but not if you just called the flop i.e. if I was on the button and you raised from the sb, I would think that you *Don't* have a Queen because you would have either bet it out or just called given that your raise now will limit the field which you presumably would not want. If I were the button and had bet a pocket pair and been raised by you, I may well prepare to hit you with a raise on the turn and then check down the river if you call.
What I see most of the time after a button bet in this situation is one of these two alternatives:
1. button bets, I call with AhKh and everyone folds. It's me and the button and at the very least I am going to call him down on the turn and river even if I miss. I may do other things such as bet out on the turn etc to represent slowplayed trips i.e. I make him think that I just called the flop to suck others in but since they all folded, I am now afraid that button will check behind me if I check.
2. button bets, I call and someone raises...well, there is a high probability that he has a Queen (as opposed to a flush draw).
First off, I appreciate you and GD taking the time to help me with this. I'm beginning to see the light. The likelihood that all would fold for a bet on this flop vs. Qh,Qc,8h/Understood. The likelihood of an overcall to the button's bet with anything but a pocket pair, flush draw or hand containing a Q/Understood. (although I'm still not sure I like the fact that I can hit one of my 13 outs on the turn and have a pocket pair or Q go on to beat me on the river assuming I wasn't already behind).
My only remaining quibble is that both you and GD seem to think that a Q would automatically slow play here.
It's both interesting and concerning to me that we might have very different thoughts on the button. Here's what I might think if I were the button with Jh,Th and you were the sb who called my flop bet and led into me on the turn:
"If he checked the flop with a Q it must've been to check/raise, yet when I gave him the perfect opportunity to do so, he chose to just call letting any one of 5 players behind him who might have hearts see the turn for 1 bet rather than 2. This gives me enough doubt about a Q. He may have a pocket pair or hearts himself. I'm going to raise and see what he does. If he just calls, then I think a Q or pocket pairs is less likely with hearts being more probable. If the river blanks, I'm going to fire again. Heck. even if a heart hits and he bets, I might still raise! For all I know my flush beats his and he'd be hard pressed to re-raise without a better hand. He might even fold a higher flush. It sure looks like I put him on at least a flush yet I still raised him twice on the expensive streets. It also must look very possible by now, that I could have 33,KQ,KTs,QTs. And even if he held some of these hands he can't re-raise me."
This is what I mean by a player with position trying to outplay the sb in this situation. Do you thing this reasoning makes sense on the button? Or would it be overly weak thinking against very good players such as yourself and GD?
Kevin
"If he checked the flop with a Q it must've been to check/raise..."
But you would want to checkraise a bettor to your left - not a bettor to your right. Had the pot been raised preflop, you may want the opposie to reduce the field.
If I call the flop bet and everyone folds and I bet the turn, it will be hard for button to raise without a Queen as it sure looks like I have tried a slowplay on the flop which didn't work.
But you do make some good points.
The question is, If you three bet the river, what can he call you with that you can beat?
Exactly what he had...a smaller flush.
I don't know...maybe Canadian games are different than American ones but up here, no one is going to fold a flush in this situation to a 3 bet...they will pay off one more bet.
Absolutely agree with skp here (and above). He hasn't got a queen and he hasn't got pocket tens. He raised with his weak flush because he's aggressive and Kevin raised before the draw came in, which means he could have something besides a flush. This is one of the reasons you need to bet your draws multiway before they come in, because when you hit on the end they think: "he bet early with a draw or something else. Maybe it was something else." He's going to feel pretty sick, but he'll probably pay off.
Kevin was asking about the river so I missed this in ly original post but I can't stress this to much - the aggressive play of the nut draw is so important - it gives your opponent the idea you are already on an inferior hand when he hits and if he doesn't hit he will probably fold to a river bet even if he has you beat with something like a small pair.
Kevin
IF you respect the player and you don't have the nutz it is OK to bet and call the river - BUT I think I bet the turn hell I have a nut flush draw and top pair top kicker - I want to findout where the hand is by betting the turn and IF he is on a Qx I want him to pay to draw out on me for a full house.
Kevin- Way too tight..... What hand did you put him on? 'ET'
You are right. I should've re-raised. As to what I put him on.. I just didn't think he'd call $40 cold on the flop with a paired board and at best a 3rd nut flush draw (I had the Ah and Kh). I'm not sure if you were still there but you know this player (6 seat on your immediate right Thur eve.). Since he's very aggressive, I thought he would've bet the flop with any draw. Not checked it. His check on the turn surprised me, but I thought he may have been getting tricky with 33 or KQ. Also, if he re-raised me I'd feel I'd have to call since he has made it 4 bets against me on the river before without the nuts. All in all, I was running cold that night and didn't feel like having to call a re-raise. But that's no excuse. Thanks ET
Kevin
I really don't think he would be capable of checking a full house on the turn. If he puts you on a Q, then he is going to bet, hoping you will raise so he can reraise. Getting into his head a little, he is already stuck in the game and has rebought for another $1000, so he is going to bet every made hand he has, no way does he check the turn, especially since he knows you play fairly tight.
I guess the other question you have to ask yourself is this: If he reraises on the river, will you call? Based on the player, I think the answer to this is a definite yes, so I can see how you might be somewhat hesitant.
See you Thursday.
The following hand occurred in a four hour session of $30-$60 where I won $3600. I am five off the button with the JsJc. An early player limps in. I raise to $60 and a player to my left calls. The big blind and the limper both call. There is $260 in the pot and four players.
The flop is:KsKc3s
The big blind and limper check. I bet $30 and the player to my left folds. The big blind now raises to $60. The limper calls. At this point there is $410 in the pot and it cost me $30 to take off a card with no possibility of any further raising. It is obvious that someone has a King so I am playing two outs. To play a two outer, I need to win about a $660 pot to justify continuing. I figure to win another $60 to $180 on the turn and another $60 to $120 on the river. In addition, I have some remote straight and flush possibilities. I call. There is $440 in the pot.
The turn is: Jd
The big blind bets $60. The limper calls. I raise to $120 with my Jacks full. The big blind flashes the QhQd while throwing his cards in the muck. The limper calls. There is $740 in the pot and two players.
The river is: Qs
The limper checks. I bet $60 and he calls. I win an $860 pot as the limper had the KhTh for trip Kings.
At this point a mild argument broke out between the big blind and the limper. The big blind said that the limper should have protected his hand by re-raising on the flop instead of allowing me to take off a card for only $30. I said nothing, but I would have folded on the flop rather than call $60 cold.
All comments welcome.
P.S: I am trying to use the new seat convention discussed in a previous thread. Is this right?
Well played! - $3600 in $30/60 should be your record, right? Nice win.
"P.S: I am trying to use the new seat convention discussed in a previous thread. Is this right?"
It is right if you had 4 people to act after you + the button + the blinds. (total of 7).
Especially if you were in a 10 handed game and the UTG (#7) folds, (#6) limps, and you were next to act (#5) and raised 5 off the button.
You get an A+ for this 4 hour session.
Quite the gambOOLer, Jim. :-) Great catch. And yes, the posting style is much easier to follow.
Jim, good hand. It's nice when things go right. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I really would like to know:
If you somehow knew the limper had KJ instead of KT, would you have called the flop raise in this situation ? Thanks for any insight.
Clint wrote : "Jim, good hand. It's nice when things go right. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I really would like to know:
If you somehow knew the limper had KJ instead of KT, would you have called the flop raise in this situation ? Thanks for any insight. "
This sure does seem like a smart ass question, maybe it was unintended. But obviously if JIm knew that the limper had KJ, he would have zero outs, and of course he'd fold....I don't know why you would bother to ask that question.
I'm trying to figure out if the pot odds should outweigh you judgement in these situatiomns. Your read can always be wrong but the pot odds are solid. Do you always call because you may be wrong are do you trust your instints ? How do you balance this ?
Well, you've sure picked one horrible analogy to set up your question. I know you know about pot odds and implied odds from your other posts, so the example you give, i.e. flop KK3 player A is known to have KJ and player B has JJ, doesn't prove anything except if player b continues he doesn't know how to read his own hand and it's possibilities.
If you're asking does anything come into play except pot odds the answer is absolutely. The problem with the other stuff is that it is sunjective where pot odds, probabilities and the such are objective. If you can do the math you cannot be wrong, where reading players real well is great until they decide to mix it up a little. Then where are you?
Maybe I should rephrase. And this is not pointed at Jim.
Suppose this player was your freind. He had told you some time ago that he never limped in with KT, but he would somtimes limp with KQ or KJ. Now that you Know he has a K and it's not AK or KT or lower. It has to be KJ or KQ. You suspect KJ. Do you now go through a full set of calculations to determine if it is worth your while to continue ? Or do you put him on one hand or the other then make a decision ?
This is a sincere question, I am not trying to aggitate anyone ! Thanks
as I said above, if he is your friend and he's confided this in you and he knows that you know that he said he will only limp with KQ or KJ, well wouldn't this be the perfect time to limp with something else? People play unpredictably on purpose. Raising with 96s to steal, betting into a preflop raiser when an ace falls on the flop. How can you know for sure unless you're peeking?
what about 33...would he limp with 33?
Suppose I knew with 100% certainity that he had either King-Jack or King-Queen. Given that I have two Jacks and there are two Kings on the table then there are 4 ways for him to have King-Jack and 8 ways for him to have King-Queen. So 67% of the time I would playing with 2 outs and 33% of the time I would playing with one out. I would fold every time since overall the pot would never be big enough to justify playing. Furthermore, in the 67% of the cases where he has King-Queen, he will win in some of the those cases because when I hit a Jack on the turn he can still hit a Queen or the case King at the river to beat me.
Sorry, when he has King-Jack I am playing with NO OUTS. Obviously, this makes the case for folding even stronger.
Sorry to pick nits Jim but if he has KJ, exactly what is your one out seeing as how a jack on the board fills him up kings over.
.
OK, I think I understand how we should compute this and I do appreciate your patience.
So, in this scenerio, (leaving out the other draws or pairs) no energy is wasted on determining his exact holding (by osmosis, betting pattern or whatever). Most resources would be directed at determining the probabily of both hands. Obviously KQ would win because of you're holding two Jacks. So KQ is favored, KJ unlikely. In hindsight, does the fact that another player was holding QQ, changing this to an actual 50/50 proposition (KJ or KQ) effect your thinking that this is still a more precise way to go. Or is this somehow factored into the pot odds to make a decision ? Seems as though this method, at times, could be just as dicy as trying to put him on a hand. I guess that's why we call it gambling ! All comments welcome.
I won't bother you about this again !
Trust me, you're not bothering anyone. To answer your question the QQ possibility was not a factor in Jim's thinking, I'm sure, because he was already playing for two outs and if he caught one he was going to the showdown. The fact that the QQ folded and would have won had he stayed in was a bonus.
Clint- Just think of it this way: the bigger the pot, the more often you should draw to longshots and to hands that might not be good if they get there. How much? Often times, it's anyone's guess. But once you know the odds of any 'x' outer getting there you have to draw on experience and instinct.
And, generally speaking, I don't think it's as tough as all that. As the old saying goes (although I don't know how 'old' it is, or even if it's really a saying), "if the decision seems close, it's because it IS close". Your hand with trip J's would be an example of this, as would this hand of Jim's.
Well stated and well taken ! Thanks ! I've been making a big deal over that hand because it was the telling hand in a losing session. I said I was on tilt, but it was this hand that sent me ! Knowing I had little chancee to win but was stuck because of the odds plus fearing a mistaken read. I was gone soon thereafter and haven't played since so tilt wasn't really a factor in the session. Tilt was a factor when JB threw out the commonly used quip, "you should have lost more money with this hand", the frustration came right back. I attacked Jim again for his best effort, I am truly sorry for that.
I don't think Jim was very offended. However, while the tone of his message may have rubbed you wrong there was more than a grain of truth in what you said. Most of us just remember the 'good' reads that turn out to be right; I don't know how many times I've 'put' a solid player on A's, or a set, only to have them turn over a busted six high flush draw... And in the hand where you had trip J's it wouldn't have surprised anyone (probably yourself included) to see the whole lot of them showing down one-pair-with a straight draw- type hands. While the particulars of your situation may call for an adjustment, I know I would have lost more with your set, and on the balance I'm an above average hand reader.
I believe any K should make it at least one more raise on the flop (and since he will have position on the turn, he can check the turn if it is checked to him if he is afraid of his kicker).
This is because the pot is so big, that it makes someone with a pair (like you in this case), a fair value to call.
I have a problem with Jim's analysis of how much there needs to be in the pot to call the flop raise. It is not at all a sure thing that someone has a king. He could have been up against a smaller two pairs and a flush draw for instance. If so he may not face a bet on fourth st and may go on to win without improving.
David has the perfect answer - you must call without hesitation!
Of course you are right. There will be a percentage of the time when one player will be raising on a pair, as was the case here, plus the cold-caller could be on a Spade flush draw. That should have been factored into my thinking here.
Jim, David, Anyone,
Although David's points out other factors indicating calling, what about redraws if someone does have a king? In other words, if you hit your jack on the turn, the king can hit back on the river. The king has three ways to hit a 3, one way to hit a king, and three ways to hit its own kicker. And that doesn't even include the times the king was a KJ and you were drawing dead from the get go.
You were only getting a little better than 13 to 1 when you made your call on the flop. The pot wasn't that big if we are looking at it in terms of bets. If the king was out, he will go to the river with at least seven redraws if you hit your jack on the turn. And when he hits you lose a lot of bets.
I'm way too tired to do the analysis tonight but I thought I would throw this out for comment. And I'm not sure where to post it so I'll put in under El Supremo ;-).
Regards,
Rick
In the final analysis the whole pot odds discussion together with redraws is not as relevant as the simple observation that David Sklansky made. Namely, there will be a certain percentage of the time when no one will have a King and I will have the best hand so folding becomes a HUGE mistake. If someone has a King, then calling is a small mathematical error in most cases since if a blank comes and the turn gets bet I will usually be gone. But your observation about redraws is quite correct.
I don't think it very likely that the player who raised the flop would check the turn even if he didn't have a K. Since you have stated that you would fold if bet into on the turn, it is somewhat irrelevant that JJ may be the best hand. However, if you hit your J and no one has a king your implied odds just got tossed out the window.
I think redraws are quite relevant since this situation is so marginal to begin with.
The mere suggestion by David that neither player may have a K is enough to skew this into a good call. Point well taken that if there is no K then the implied odds arn't there, unless he hits his flush, God forbid he improves the K, which we won't recognize, unless it's the 3 pairing or another K. You'd have to play it slowly even if/when you do hit the J. All of this said I agree it was a decent call to take one off, although marginal if you fear a K, to fold without a good read may make you weak/tight.
Jim,
Both David and Rick are right. You simply *can't* make this call if you put the raiser on a K. You could make the call if you held KK, and the board was JJ3, and you put the other caller on a J, but with the ranks reversed, you are putting yourself into a very negative ev situation.
On the other hand David is right about the raiser not needing a King. This means that the most profitable strategy is to check-call down the raiser.
The upshot is that the strategy which you planned on using, taking one off and folding on the turn if you don't hit the Jack is a money losing strategy.
- Andrew
This strategy (check-calling the raiser) makes much more sense than folding to a bet on the turn. I think that if you call on the flop it should be because you think that there is a decent chance that you have the best hand, with the added chance of hitting your jack.
Had I been the player with K-10 I would have asked the BB why he hadn't protected his Q-Q by re-raising pre-flop.
winger, I certainly would have but there are many good players who do not like to 3 bet with pocket Queens from the big blind due to their poor position.
Was the Big Blinds flashing of Queens intentional? if so, is this common practice at this level?
Seems to me that the KT hand would take offense to not being able to represent KQ as easily.
Is it common for players to flash cards at that level? Not in these parts. It almost never happens. That's why I was surprised too.
Tommy
"At this point a mild argument broke out between the big blind and the limper."
Surely the guy with trip kings knew that reraising the flop was a reasonable choice, one he opted not to make. Further, if the trip kings HAD reraised the flop, driving out the JJ, the QQ would have presumably called that raise and then possibly checked and folded on the turn.
Even if the JJ folded for one more bet on the flop, the QQ is now more likely to see the river and suck out because the trip kings did NOT reraise. No matter how you slice it, the trip kings were going to pay the price of not reraising the flop.
That the QQ happened to hit a queen after folding is irrelevant. If he had good etiquette, he would have mucked face down and no one but him would ever know that he threw away a hand that would have won if he stayed in.
I'm surprised to hear of a "mild argument" like this one breaking out at the $30-$60 level. The QQ had a lot of nerve to rib a guy who was probably already kicking himself, especially since the NON-reraise is what gave the QQ his best change to win. Makes no sense.
Tommy
Thanks for sharing this interesting hand from your recent play. Also, a nice win for you.
However, you might want to re-read your post and realize that you actually do not have any "straight" possibilities; only back door flush. With that type of flop, you have only two to a straight and only more cards to come.
I thought to point this out to your for future reference.
Good hand for you Jim.
I think you played the hand very good. I like your call of the flop raise. I think the limper probably should have three bet the flop. I think he may have been concerned about his kicker thinking the BB had a K with a better kicker. However, this is quite unlikely. Not only does a reraise protect his hand but it also gets more money in the pot. I think the limper should put you on a pair because you raised BTF and because you bet on the flop with a somewhat scary flop. Therefore, this is more reason for the limper to three bet.
I think the BB was being a bit of a baby after the hand. He should not tell the limper what he should have done, after all the limper would have lost either way.
Jim, also, I now get your point that in my previous post a flop reraise folowed by the BB raising again MAY have gained some outs for me. Where the turn raise was too late because of the pot size. Thanks, sometimes I learn in an inverted fashion by challeging the teacher.
The following hand occurred in a four hour session of $30-$60 where I won $3600. I am five off the button with the JsJc. An early player limps in. I raise to $60 and a player to my left calls. The big blind and the limper both call. There is $260 in the pot and four players.
"The flop is:KsKc3s
The big blind and limper check. I bet $30 and the player to my left folds. The big blind now raises to $60. The limper calls. At this point there is $410 in the pot and it cost me $30 to take off a card with no possibility of any further raising. It is obvious that someone has a King so I am playing two outs. To play a two outer, I need to win about a $660 pot to justify continuing. I figure to win another $60 to $180 on the turn and another $60 to $120 on the river. In addition, I have some remote straight and flush possibilities."
Jim:
Someone else may have pointed this out, but I don't see the straight possibility.
Nice hand! I only hit my two outers heads up with a tiny pot. What's this feel like?
SW
You are right and someone else did point this out. There is only the runner-runner Spade flush possibility. Since I have been the victim of two outers myself it seems only fair to me. But how different the outcome might have been had the hand been played properly. Pre-flop, I would have 3 bet with pocket Queens out of my big blind. I don't know if the early limper would call two more bets cold or not with KT suited. I would bet the flop and if the limper was still in he should raise. Now the guy with pocket Jacks has to really think about whether or not he should call two bets cold on the flop with the possibility of further raising given the open pair of Kings on the table.
During a 20-40 Hold'em session the other day I won $2500 in a little over 2 hours and although there were many hands I could discuss I think this one is most interesting. I was playing a few more hands since I was running so well and picked up the 10-9c UTG and I went ahead and raised. I normally would throw this hand away playing in an aggressive game of this limit as I'm more of a 10-20,15-30 player.(It's an 11 handed game BTW) 4 people call and the ultra-aggressive BB reraises. The flop is J93 with 2 Diamonds. The BB bets and I raise. It's hard to put this guy on a hand. He could have pocket deuces or 3 jacks and bet. I want to get this heads up with position...2 people calls and the BB calls. I figure one of the callers for a jack, Q-10 or a possible flush. The turn was a black deuce. BB checks I bet and everyone calls. The river is the 9 hearts. BB checks and I bet. Lose two and BB raises. I put him on a steal, 9-8 or my hand so I reraise. He calls and shows 9-10 and we chop. Did I play too aggressively and did I make any mistakes?
Russ
I think you played the hand way too aggressively. Obviously, I think this has to do with the fact that you were doing so well. Ask yourself if you were even or down would you have played the hand the same way.
It is always better to be aggressive than passive but controlled aggression it the key, I think. Playing the 9T UTG is a mistake although the raise with 2nd pair is tricky and puts your opponents in thinking mode which is always good. The reraise on the river when you had kicker problems may have been a bit over aggressive.
Planet Poker. 20-40. Pretty tight game.
UTG raises. All fold to me on the button. I have AK offsuit. The blinds have ben playing tight. I choose to call rather than reraise b/c I figure that UTG has a pretty good hand plus I don't think the blinds will call even if I just smoothcall and maybe I can represent a wider range of hands if I just smoothcall.
Blinds fold.
Heads up
Flop is 7c6c4s
UTG bets and I call.
Turn: 8d
She bets.
Now, this is the crux of this post. When she bets here, what is she likely to have? Note that she doesn't know my play very well. I had only been in the game for about 30 minutes and had hardly played a hand. Well, maybe she drew a concluion that I was a tight rock based on that.
In any case, I would think that a good player is unlikely to bet AA or KK here. He is probably more likely to bet TT, JJ or AK, AQ etc. In fact, given the pot size, should one even bet JJ here? That is, is it better to just give out the dreaded free card rather than risk being bluff raised? Perhaps you bet into habitual bluffers but not players who bluff with the proper frequency (obviously, I am thinking out aloud as I write this post).
What do you guys think?
Just to finish off the hand...I raised the turn. she called. I hit an Ace on the river and bet again. She called with JJ.
Raise or fold, I would probally fold. Calling is a terrible option.
Well my "learned friend" I think you got a little lucky here.
I think you were correct to just call BTF. I don't think AKo is worth three bets. It may depend on what you think of the UTG raiser, however, since you had only played for half an hour you probably didn't know much, therefore, I would tend to err on the side of caution.
When she bets on the flop I think I would raise her here and get a free card on the turn. I don't agree with your raise on the turn. You are paying two big bets and only have 6 outs. Of course you may win the hand if the UTG does not have a pocket pair but I think you have to be concerned about a pocket pair. Like I said I would have raised the flop bet, check the turn and if a blank comes on the river probably fold.
I don't really understand your thoughts about a good player not betting the turn with AA or KK or even JJ. Why would she not bet JJ on the turn? What is the impact of pot size? If she is concerned about being bluff raised then she should bet and hope that you will bluff raise her because she has the best hand right now. In fact this is exactly what happened and you got lucky on the river. I do not believe she should check the turn and give anyone with overcards a free card. Even with AA or KK I would bet. Why give someone else with a pocket pair a free card to make their set?
The reason I posted this is to see whether I am putting the typical player on the proper thought process.
If I was UTG and held AA against an unknown button, I would lean towards checking. Again, pot size is key here. I have no worries about giving free cards to any overcards. The number of outs the button would have if I checked would be 2 (if he has a pocket pair) or 5 (if he paired on the flop). The pot has 7.5 small bets when it is my turn to bet. It's not the end of the world if I give a freebie, he accepts it and hits a 2 outer. BUT in most cases, the button would likely bet his pocket pair or his 5 outer on the assumption that I missed my AK and therefore checked. Thus, I may not in fact be giving a freebie. My opponent may charge himself to draw.
I also give him a chance to run a stonecold bluff with unpaired overcards.
I also protect myself against a raise if in fact he does have the straight.
So, I see a lot of reasons why checking with AA is correct here.
Checking with JJ is more problematic because here UTG potentially could be giving a free card to the button when he has 6 outs. But I wonder if it is still worth it for the reasons stated above.
So, what I am driving at is that a bet by UTG here is more likely to mean AK/AQ as opposed to a big pair. Or at least so I thought..that's why I raised the turn..obviously I misread the situation but got lucky on the river.
Anyway, it's late...I just took a loss on Planet Poker (probably b/c my radar was off all evening as shown by the turn raise in the above hand)...I am stuck, tired and off to bed...I will add to this in the am.
Frankly you didn't learn much just calling here but I understand your thinking - of course when a tight decent player raises UTG you have to give them credit for a decent hand. All things considered, heads up you missed the flop there is a real good chance she has a pair already I'm not so sure I see the turn here. AK mis played is a very expensive hand you hit it this time but the other 4-5 times you don't make it on the turn or river really don't make up for the one time it hits. I am in the habbit of dumping it in this situation unless the opponent is a loose and bluffing a lot.
I think it is a big mistake to play hands differently just cuz you are "running good" it is a good way for your stack to melt away - I see it every night some guy gets hot and "plays the rush" right in to someone elses stack - hopefully mine - of course this is coming from a grinder type so what do I know.
Skp,
I think, given her hand, against an unknown player, she played the hand correctly. I don't believe she bets the turn without a pair so I would not give her A,K or A,Q. If I were her and you raised on the turn I would call as she did. Your raise is marginal in this case because you have outs. Since I put her on, TT, JJ, QQ, or KK (yes KK, I think it is better to bet KK in this situation and I think she will also) she will call your turn raise so there is not much chance of her folding the turn. But at least it buys you a free show down on the river if you don't hit an Ace or K.
The problem with the hand from her perspective, I believe, is that you cold call 2 bets prflop. This is a confusing move . The only hand that could beat her that you would play that way is A,A. Most players good or bad will play the hand the way she did with any big pair except Aces. I think they even cry call the river when the Ace comes.
Vince.
Oh, I think she did quite right in calling the raise on the turn but the question is "did she do right in betting out on the turn in the first place?"
I am thinking here that a bet by UTG with an overpair is correct:
1. Against a player who will only raise if he has her beat. She can therefore fold and save a bet as compared to checkcalling twice.
2. Against a player who is prone to raise a high percentage of the time with nothing.
Checking is correct against:
3. A player who will fold to her bet if he doesn't have her beat but will bet himself if she checks. Notice that the pot is small enough that UTG would want to keep her opponent in on a 5 outer or less.
4. A player who will bluffraise with the proper frequency.
Now, of course, she didn't know me from Adam but likely correctly assumed that I would not call an UTG raise with a 5 in my hand when headsup and therefore correctly deduced that I was bluffing although she couldn't be so sure of it that she would reraise.
Anyway, based on what you, Rounder and Clint have said, I guess I am reading people wrong in this situation.
Thanks for pointing that out.
One last point: Based on your post above, am I correct in thinking that you would check AA in this spot if you were UTG?
Skp,
Yes, I would check raise the turn with A,A. If I had a good read on the opponent I might check raise with K,K and in some cases Q,Q. But I would like to know them very good before I make that play.
Your position on checking with J,J is logically sound however your point #3 is very opponent specific. In general I would prefer to bet and if my opponent folded that would be fine. I prefer to give them the opportunity to make a calling mistake.
vince
If you want the opinion of an average non-tricky player here it is. I try to put someone on a hand and adjust as the cards come. I bet when I am ahead.
In this example I can't put you on a hand that I would be behind on (if I didn't consider you tricky). I would bet the flop, and reraise the turn. If you called the re-raise I would check call the river in case you took a shot with KcQc or Kc9c
Your move may have worked better against an expert IMHO
skp I think you missed out preflop by not reraising. In the field you describe, this almost guarantees a heads up flop. You may have to pay one more sb to get there but, if that is the case, and you miss the flop, you will be able to dump the AK. It is doubtful that she would reraise w/o a pocket pair and then you know that you are way behind. If you are not reraised, you will then be in control of the hand and she will probably check the flop to you. Now your position and table image will become even bigger factors. Even so, it is nice to get lucky sometimes.
oh...for sure...I think as a rule reraising preflop with AK is the better play. I smoothcalled as a change-up if you will.
your bluff raise on the turn imo was a mistake. you are against a raiser from utg to begin with. your strategy,(since you didn't reraise)would be to see as many cards cheaply as possible.
in this situation, how can you view either an ace or for sure a king as an out?
I would have raised on the flop and if reraised, release the hand. If not, then I'm hoping to get a check, if i don't improve so i can check behindand see the next card.
When you first started posting, this type of strategy was my main complaint with you.You tend to want to bluff raise your way out of hands more than normal. As it turned out you hit your 6 outer. You were over a 5-1 dog .
On the other hand I can see you making this play in a different situation with a later raiser and a few other situations. The flop has to be right for sure.
The problem is that you can burn up alot of chips if you do this too much. seeya
Glad to have ya back, Al..I saw you on Planet about a week ago. We were in the same 10-20 game for about 10 mins or so before I moved to the 20-40. Hope you are doin' well on Planet and life in general.
When I called the flop, I wasn't planning on raising the turn. But when she bet on a scary looking board (for her - not so for me cause I know she doesn't have a straight), I thought that she was more likely to bluff with overcards as opposed to bet with a real hand and risk being raised. As Vince and the others have pointed, this read of mine probably has little application to most players.
So, you are quite right.
Slight nit:
"As it turned out you hit your 6 outer. You were over a 5-1 dog."
It was worse...I only had 6 outs out of 44 cards!
Another nit:
"In this situation, how can you view either an ace or for sure a king as an out?"
Having made the turn raise and then hitting an Ace on the river, I clearly have a bet for value. Thus, I do not agree with the tenor of this statement of yours although i do agree with you that a river value bet with a King is a little more debatable (although I would make it).
well thats why you play 20-40 and I play 10-20. whats your handle over at Planet? Are you Mentor???? seeya
Let me have your E-mail address and I'll tell ya.
suppsport@aol.com
I have some questions about some 10-20 hands I played last night:
1.) I have Ac Ad in the small blind. Four people limp, I raise, the big blind and all of the limpers call. The flop comes As Ks Qd. I bet, the big blind folds, everyone else calls. The turn is the Kd. Should I bet or go for a check raise here?
2.) I have 9s 8s one to the right of the button. Everyone folds to me, I raise, the button folds, the small blind calls, the big blind folds. The flop comes 10c 6d 3s, giving me a gutshot draw with a backdoor flush draw. The small blind bets. Should I fold, raise, or call here?. Her bet seems kind of strange, as I would almost always bet if she checked to me, so it seems like she would check raise with a lot of her better hands. I called. The turn was the 8h, giving me a pair and a gutshot. The small blind bets again. Should I raise, fold or call? I called. The turn is the 6h. The small blind bets again. Should I fold or call? I always have trouble in these heads-up blind stealing/defense situations. Should you be as tenacious and aggressive as you would be in a shorthanded game? For example, should you turn the top card on board into a deuce in your mind? I realize that a lot of this depends on the player you are against, but some general guidelines would be really helpful here. One more question, do the blinds need to be fairly tight for you to raise with hands like 98s when everyone folds to you in late position?
3.) I have Kh Ks in mid-late position. Everyone folds to the player on my right, he raises, I reraise, the small blind thinks for a second, then calls. The original raiser calls. Everyone else folds, we take the flop three handed. The flop comes Qs 9s 6h. The small blind and original raiser check, I bet, they both call. The turn is the 8s. They both check to me, I bet, the small blind check raises me, the other guy folds, I have an easy call with the Ks. The river is the 8d. The small blind bets. There are 11.5 big bets in the pot, should I fold or call? It is my experience that you are almost always beaten when you have shown strength before the flop make top pair or an overpair, and then get check-raised on the turn when a scary card hits. Most players will not check raise on the turn without a hand that can beat top pair or an overpair. In this situation the call on the turn was automatic because I had the Ks, but had I not, should I have called the check-raise on the turn? When I miss the flush on the river, should I fold if the small blind bets again?
Thanks, Hugh Jardon
1) It really depends on what you think the others will do behind you, if you think they will call and possibly raise go ahead and bet it out, but with that board there are a number of hands that will play with you on the turn QQ TJ AK KQ and 2 spades so I would probably check call any raises and reraise if it looks like someone caught up a bit of someone caught a smaller monster on the turn and/or river I can have at it.
2) I think I fold the longshot here not eneough $$ to go fishing for the few outs you have on the flop. Stealing blinds is OK with just about anything against tight players but can't work against loose ones you ought to have a real hand to raise with.
3) Depends on the sb style - if he is tricky and likes to make moves maybe you call turn and river if a sort of straight forward player you muck on the turn when the flush comes. It really depends on the sb and the way they play.
good post. My dos centavos:
(1) Check the turn. Little danger of a free card hurting you. If it gets checked around, someone may make a straight or flush on the river and you will get more action. And someone will probably bet for you on the turn (if you are lucky, it will be the guy to your immediate left!). Your check represents a hand like AQs or AJs and a king will fire away, as might a hand like A-10.
(2) I like the raise preflop unless the button or blinds are loose aggressive types. I would raise the flop and bet the turn unless the BB is very straightforward and would only bet a 10. Once you went into call mode I think you have to call her down because she may have put you on a big ace and thinks you have no pair, though the 6 on the river is ugly for you. I think she has a ten or a hand like 9-9, though I agree that most people would have checkraised you with a ten. If you raise the flop/bet the turn and she calls you on the turn you save a small bet because you can check the river.
(3) No way should you fold here, IMO. The 8 is a great card for you on the river because you can now smoke any queens over hand like Q9. You are probably beaten by a flush or worse better but I think this is an easy call. If a blank or an ace falls on the river you should probably fold unless the bettor is a maniac.
I had a guy checkraise me, representing a flush, when he had absolutely nothing last night so you have to consider the player, of course....
1. Having bet the flop, there is too much danger that if you back off, so will they, since you have been so aggressive so far. Bet.
2. I agree that these are tough situations. But she called a raise from the SB, and has bet at every opportunity. I think I would call with little expectation of winning, but as you say why did she bet the flop if she had strength? The pot odds are enough with that much doubt.
3. Unless I knew the player really well I'm calling here too. Looks like aces to me.
My last three pocket kings have flopped an ace. Uggh.
Here's the question: Say you are the small blind with KK and there are two limpers. You raise, the BB folds and the limpers call. The flop is A-3-7 rainbow. You bet and the next player raises. This is a classic, recurring situation, and depending on the player, I think you can lay it down right there.
But let's say you are one of the limpers -- say you limped with QJs, the button called and the SB raised with his kings. You whiffed on the flop, but you know SB is tight and would only raise with AKs, AA, KK, QQ and maybe JJ or AQs in that situation. You also know from experience that the SB is not going to call you down if you raise him on the flop UNLESS he has at least one ace. He is a rock and you are not known as a bluffer or playmaker. So raising may make a lot of sense (especially if you are heads up or there is only one other limper who is also solid). Do any of you try this play? What if the flop is A-3-J, so you have outs if he has AK?
SW
Such players are rare but yes, against such players, a raise is called for on the A73 flop based on the Bayesian analysis that Jim often uses to make his points in his excellent posts. Obviously, the move is more dangerous if bb is capable of raising preflop with any old AK.
The A3J flop while you hold QJ is a bit more dangerous given that you could lose to AA, AKs, AQs and JJ (10 combos) while you only beat KK and QQ (9 combos).
Another thing to consider as the second limper is how you are perceived. If you are a player who would raise any hand with an ace that you choose to play with one limper in front of you, then an astute player with KK in the blind would not put you on an ace, since you did not raise preflop. In that specific instance, representing an ace would not work.
Tommy
SW,
I like your thinking for what the limper should do but any small blind that has played me much might think I would raise myself pre flop with an ace. But your play still has merit against most opponents.
Given your assumptions, the kings should consider checking the flop. Free cards are not a problem and the check should look a bit scary to the limpers. If they check behind then the kings should bet the turn and lay down to a raise. Otherwise, he should check and call against a single opponent all the way to the river.
Regards,
Rick
Rick wrote:
If they check behind then the kings should bet the turn and lay down to a raise.
Rick, I don't know that a lay down on the turn is always a good idea in this scenario. What if the turn card (or second card on the flop) is a Q for instance. It is now highly possible that our hero is being raised by someone who has second pair and assumes no A is out since the flop was not bet. Also if a flush draw or str8 draw appears on the turn the possibility that you are being raised on the come is very real.
Sean
Sean,
I agree. A lot depends on the turn card, the opponent and so on.
Regards,
Rick
Sure, I've tried this before.
What I really love is when very predictable players raise out of their blinds, and then check when an ace flops. I am known as a very tight player so they will always assume that I have at least AJ. Especially if there is a rainbow board out there.
I have actually done this more than a couple of times.
I will have QJ suited, someone predictable raises out of their blind, and checks when an ace flops.
Of course, I look at them to make sure they aren't slowplaying a flopped set. And if they call I make sure that their call is more of a 'I'll just take one off to see if I hit my set' kind of call, rather than a 'boy oh boy the saliva is dripping down my chin and I can't wait to nail him on the turn' call.
That's what playing poker is all about.
-SmoothB-
I'm a first time poster and was hoping to get some advice on this hand I played. I felt I should have folded somewhere on the flop.
7 players all limped and I just called in the sb w/AA. The flop was J97 with 2 diamonds and I had the ace of diamonds. I checked hoping to check raise in order to think the field. There was a bet and a raise and I re-raised. The bettor called and the raiser capped it. I felt I should've folded right here but I called for a diamond draw. Was this a big mistake? Because it only got me stuck further. Maybe a diamond was the worst card that could have turned.
Anyway, sure enough a 5 of diamonds came and the 1st player now bet and the 2nd player raised. Having now the nut draw I called this raise and the 1st player called. The river blanked and the 1st player checked, the 2nd player bet, I folded and the 1st player called and beat the other guy's T8 straight with a Q high flush. I guess I should consider myself lucky that this guy didn't know enough to re-raise his flush on the turn, huh? I'd appreciate it if any of you guys can tell me where I should have folded. And please lets not make a big deal about my not raising before the flop. I know I could have and usually do. I just chose not to this time. Ok? Thanks.
You can't fold the flop.
On the turn, if you are fairly sure that someone has Diamonds, you have 7 outs out of 44 unseen cards (5 out of 42 if you think that both opponents have a flush already but let's assume it is 7 out of 44 or 1 in 6). The pot has 25 small bets and it will cost you 4 to call. If you hit, you stand to be paid off by at least one player. If we also assume that the turn bettor will call the turn raise, you stand to win 29 small bets for your 4 small bets investment. On this analysis, a call is probably slightly profitable on the turn.
But other things could make the call -Ev i.e. possibility of a reraise on the turn, possibility of one of your opponets having a set and the other a flush which therefore now leaves you with only 6 outs etc.
Close call.
Have some fun and call it.
skp, your logic on the turn makes sensse to me. But I also like the other posters reasons for folding the flop. I don't mean to put you on ther spot, but can you some reasons on why you can't fold the flop?
btw- I did call and it was NOT fun! :^)
Sure.
Unless you are up against a couple of known rocks, a bet and a raise on a J97 flop does not necessarily mean you are up against a hand that you trail or can't catch up to with realtive ease. That is, you would probably fold here if you knew either of your opponents had a set or a straight. You would not fold if say one held 2 pairs and the other had just a Diamond draw or whatever.
Folding AA on the flop for a bet and raise is probably too weak-tight in my book at least on this kind of flop.
Change the situation to this:
Flop of JcTc9c and you hold red aces. There is a bet, raise and a couple of coldcallers. Well, here you are likely already badly beat or someone will get there later on. So, you can and should fold here there but not in your example.
IMO, of course.
You asked not to talk about your non-raise before the flop. But here's something to consider, not related to your specific hand.
I play lots of no-limit. Sometimes its a dandy play to limp or only nudge with AA, especially if it will induce other limpers when one of the blinds is prone to raise big before the flop, as a steal-with-a-decent-hand (AQ,AJ,pocket pair).
Sometimes it seems to backfire. A bunch of people limp, and no one bites on the trap. Now I hate my hand, but with no regrets. I'm not going to put any big chunks of money into this pot without VERY good reason. After all, I have one pair. That's not all that great of a hand, and it's not a good drawing hand. I'm mentally prepared to fold.
In limit, the same thing applies to a far lesser extent. If you slow play a big pair out of position, don't automatically fall in love when the betting and board are dangerous and there are many players, thinking, "Okay, I was 'supposed' to already have more money in there, so I'll make up for it and flail around some." A better reasoning is, "I saw the flop for cheap. This board and betting look like big trouble. Fuggit, I surrender."
Tommy
I think I like this reasoning. Thanks.
If the players are decent and the flop is coordinated with lots of action the AA has to go in the muck. A capped flop is a real danger sign - regardless of your thinking a runner runner flush was a possibility I'm outta there before the turn. If you had to stay in the hand you probably should have just called the raise and seen the turn for 2 sb instead of 4.
I just don't like it you are fighting 2 made hands on the turn and the chance of one of the 5 ramaining d's coming is slim like drawing to an inside straight.
This may be true. However, it wasn't three bets to her-- she made it three bets, which meant it only cost her one more sb to see the turn. With two A's still out (as a rule, the set of A's will be good here) plus the running diamonds, PLUS the fact that she may be ahead already, she has to look at the turn for one more bet.
I guess you can argue that she should have mucked the flop when it was 2 sb's to her, but I think it would be very hard to construct an argument for that kind of play.
Ms Lora Jay,
There is an old addage from Doyle Brunson's book which applies even though it was meant for no limit.
"Don't lose all your chips in an unraised (preflop) pot."
With such a connected flop, I like your thought to checkraise from your position to try and narrow the field. However, when it is bet and raised before it gets back to you, I don't think you are giving up much to dump the hand right there. I look at flops like the one you described as a situation where if you're not beat already, you soon will be.
The problem is that you don't know what cards can come to make you a winner other than runner diamonds or a miracle full house. You are in a situation where you have to guess and also have to commit a lot of chips after someone may have flopped the nuts on you for one small bet - it was 7 way action.
I don't think it would have been incorrect to dump the hand on the flop and wait for a better flop/action to gamble with aces.
Having decided to commit yourself to the hand on the flop, I would have called the raise to see what the initial bettor did. If it were to get capped, I definitely would have dumped the hand for the next two bets. If the bettor just calls the flop raise, you would be looking at calling 2 big bets on the turn (4 small bets) to win 21 small bets - 5.25 to 1. At best you would have 9 wins out of 46. At worst, you might only have 6 wins if your opponents have a set and a flush. In addition, it might get reraised on the turn.
The bottom line is I wasn't there and it wasn't my money and I don't know the players. I can only recommend Doyle's advice in the future.
It sounds like good advice. Thank you.
this is the first of a few hands i'm planning on posting from my trip to vegas. for the most part I found the 10-20 through 20-40 games at Bellagio, horseshoe and mirage to be pretty loose passive and not that tough. maybe I caught the town on a good week.
10-20 at horseshoe. mostly tight passive game with a couple of loose passive players, another tight passive, a semi maniac and a out and out gunner. the table hasn't adjusted to the gunner at all, so he keeps on playing the same way.
gunner(G) limps 2nd to act, one more limper, I'm two before the button with AQo and raise. SB mucks and BB calls.
flop is 853 rainbow. checked to me and I check.
turn is 10. two flush now on board. BB checks, G bets, limper mucks, I call, BB mucks. against almost anyone else in the game I would have given up here. However, G is super aggressive. he plays bad hands and loves to checkraise. he could have a pair here, but there's also a strong possibility of a semi bluff or out and out bluff. what do you think of the call here? is a raise better or a muck? I considered raising, but didn't because it wouldn't have chased anyone who wasn't calling one bet.
results to follow.
river came A of flush suit. G checked, I checked (he love to check raise, remember) and I took it down with a pair of aces. G had J-8 and started berating me about how badly I played the turn. never mind that he opened with J8off or that he checked top pair on the flop.
Ifigured that he has at most one pair when he bets the turn. anything bigger and he checkraises. Also there are a lot of hands I can beat since he would bet with anything once the flop is checked through.
Preflop I raise. On the flop it is unlikely you have the best hand with 4 way action so checking is fine. On the turn folding is probably the best play esp. with one more player yet to act. I think calling is the worst possible play. If I play I will raise and hopefully knock out the player who hasn't acted and the initial better may fold. On the river I think a bet is called for. You now have a real hand, so bet it.
Bruce
I would fold on the turn, partly because the checked flop kept the pot small, and largely because I would not put money in on the turn unless I was planning to call down G with ace-high. I agree with Bruce that with a player behind, raising is better than calling. Doubtful I'd raise the turn since I forgot to make a pair. So I'd fold.
As the hand went, I would definitely bet the river. You say G frequently check-raises. The benefit of that style is that it instills fear and keeps people from value-betting in last seat. Just as the defense against the free-card-buyer is to bet out on the turn, the defense against the check-raiser is to dare him to do it. Bet.
Tommy
I was actually going to call him down on the river with AQ high since he had already shown some funky bluffs on previous hands. forgot to mention that. I checked the river because he wasn't calling with the hopeless hands, only betting them. the flush on board as well as the ace made it too likely that he would only call with two pair or better, and check raise the flush. I figured that, with my preflop raise, the only hand that he would have called with that I would have won with was Ax. Yes, he would have played Ax the same way.
That you were ready to call down with ace high certainly lends support to your playing on after the flop.
If you had bet the river, and he check-raised, would you have been sure enough that you were beat to lay down? Your latest post implies that you would have been. In that case, if you can make that laydown, then betting the river is an even BETTER play, since he'll payoff with any ace, and maybe, who knows, maybe with any pair.
Tommy
as an aside, i found that i get bad beats when I hum Con Te Partiro while playing HE at the Bellagio. hmmm
15-30. my second SB hand. first time around I took down a nice pot in the SB when i three bet before the flop with KK. Now it's my second SB and I look down to AA. cool.
2nd to act calls, next raises. one caller, I three bet, all call. flop comes 853 rainbow. I bet, opener, and raiser call.
turn is Q putting two diamonds on board. I bet and get called by opener.
river is K diamonds. I have the ace diamonds. I check, opener bets I call.
results to follow.
opener has 9-4 diamonds and my rockets get flushed. I was fearing KQ, maybe a slowplayed set, or even a flush with a pair flopped, but that surprised me. opener was very loose, but he hadn't seemed that bad in the previous round. he opened his nose wide open after that, though, and played about any hand.
"as an aside, i found that i get bad beats when I hum Con Te Partiro while playing HE at the Bellagio. hmmm "
i take it it's Con te Partito?
that song is awesome!!!!
okay, just thought i'd let u know that someone out there likes that song also. =)
later.
-jon
sorry for the spelling. I just got back last night and I'm still in a daze. it is a great song, but I just have to remember not to think about it when I'm playing there. Bellagio needs to come out with new commecials with different music in them so I hum something else while I'm there. that song is just not lucky!!;-)
Con Te Partiro is correct
thought so. didn't think I had it wrong, but was too lazy to go back and check.
Get a Pat Benetar song stuck in your head before you start playing. It doesn't matter which one-- although "Shadows of the Night" springs to mind as a particularly nasty one-- as I've had this happen 6 or 7 times and each time have left the felt with virtually nothing.
Looks pretty routine - can't see you playing it any better.
What is it about this hand that's bothering you?
I was wondering about the flop and preflop play. I'm 99% sure the raise preflop was correct (or at least defendable). the small part of me that said to just smooth call was basing that decision on my previous round. I had re-raised out of the small blind the round before, and this was my second round of play. I had kings the first time, but I didn't show them, so there could have been some doubt in my opponents' minds regarding the quality of my SB re-raising hands.
The question I had on the flop was whether to go for a check-raise. I felt it was probably better to bet out on the small flop since I may have been raised, and could have then gotten in three bets. In hindsight, I keep wondering whether I should have check raised.
When you three bet it from the small blind leading on the flop should be a pretty routine play. If you are up against astute players and you check they will probably check along with you. In order to check-raise someone has to bet for you and when you show great strength by three betting it and then you check you are risking a check all the way around.
Bruce
that is the reason why I sometimes consider smooth calling with aces (and sometimes kings) in the SB. My three bet is largely for value, and I virtually eliminate my chances of check-raising the flop. I was just wondering if the trade-off was worth it. By smooth calling I would have a chance to eliminate the players in front of the initial raise by check raising.
This particular hand presented me with a few problems in that I find three opponents the most difficult field to deal with. do i raise since the field is small enough that my chances of winning are high? or do I set up a fancy play later by smooth calling since the field is big enough that my decisions will not necessarily be straight forward? Is this all fuzzy thinking?
I am playing $10-$20. I am currently in the cutoff holding KcKs. UTG limps (She is a relatively tight but also passive player). Next to act is very loose. He raises. All fold to me in the cutoff, I reraise. Button and both blinds fold. UTG and player 1 both call. The flop comes JhJs8d. UTG checks, player 1 checks, I bet, both players call.
The turn is Jc. This is the play that I am curious to hear people's thoughts on. UTG checks, Player 1 checks, I bet. UTG raises, player 1 folds. I paused for about two seconds of thought, and 3 bet. She then called. The river was a blank. She checked, I bet. She called and rolled AA.
My question is - In this situation was my 3 bet on the turn correct? Should I simply call? I don't think folding is an option unless she re-reraises (4 bets). How differently do any others play the turn (or river) here? All help is appreciated. Thanks.
Just hate it when that happens. Nothing you can do here except say "nice hand". You played it perfectly OK just got beat by a tight passive. She could have played a number of pairs the exact same way QQ TT I think you have to see the river with 2nd nut. Better luck next time.
Hell she could have at least given you a courtesy raise huh :-)
tough hand. for some reason, I held KK against AA four times this week in vegas (lost all, of course). the board wasn't even kind enough to make the aces a set so i could get the hell out of there. Interestingly, three of the four times, the aces didn't even four bet (in one case, three bet), so they took me by surprise those times.
Well, here's my first thought about the hand. If I'm UTG and perhaps I know you to be a solid player. What hands do I think you're going make 3 bets cold? AA-JJ? Probably. AK? Probably not. AQ Or AJ? Definitely not. Now that we've established what hands you're in with let's look at the board:
The flop comes JhJs8d
Now I'll check to see what the action is. You bet out so you have an overpair. I have the best overpair. The worst we can do is tie at this point. I would raise here, but your UTG didn't do that.
The turn is Jc
You get check raised and you make it 3 bets. I am pretty sure that at this point she believes that there's no way you could have 3 bet AJ pre-flop. Your raise would only be effective if UTG believed you had the case J. Now if loose cannon made it 3 bets he's got the J and you're both sunk. But that's not how it played.If it were me I would have just called the check raise and called the river. There's only 2 hands out there that could beat you. AA or Jx.
Did YOU think UTG had AA when she check raised you? Or did you put her on the J? Obviously, I don't think you respected a tight player's check-raise. In either case I think the re-raise, although aggressive which I like, was probably overkill since UTG wasn't going anywhere with her Aces.
Stephen
Given the player you described, and given that you three-bet before the flop, it's hard to imagine her having the ovaries to check-raise the turn with a hand that loses to KK. During your two second pause after the check-raise on the turn, did you consider folding? Just curious.
Tommy
Are you suggesting folding?
Bruce
Whenever you read a forum question that includes a tight passive player did this or that it almost always ends with them having pocket Aces. Your turn raise is good but I dont' think you can ever reraise a checkraise from a tight passive player without the stone cold nuts. I am not suggesting you should muck it but I have made some monster laydowns against this type of player. I would have taken the free showdown card.
I would just call. If she four bets, you 'may' be able to muck with confidence, despite the fact that you've got the third nut. However, if you just call, you'll likely win two more bets when you're ahead, and lose only two more bets when you're ahead. Constrast this to re-raising, where you'll likely win no more bets when your ahead, but could lose as many as three more when you're behind.
Of course, all this assumes that your opponent won't call you down with an underboat.
As a rule, there's nothing wrong with just checking and calling if you've determined that you're either a) way ahead, or b) way behind, and the pot is being contested shorthanded.
Hey Matt:
I think one of the profitable aspects to playing witht tight/passive players is that on the rare occasion they play a pot and make a hand, there's usually very little need to pay them off. Most all other times, you figure to take the pot (sometimes right out from under them).
Since I know who UTG was, I'll go out on a very thin limb by saying you actually could have folded the turn! The pot was not big enough to spike a king and even if you did, you may have been drawing dead. Of course, it's difficult to fold the 3rd nuts when the first 2 do not seem likely. Especially for a mere check/raise. B but if you stop and think about it, what else could this particular player be check raising you with? Don't forget you 3 bet pre-flop and this is the turn we're talking about. QQ or less? Not likely.
Frankly, I'm a little dissappointed all she had was AA. I'd expect her to show you the case jack more times than not. Take care.
Kevin
6/12, 3 handed.
i raise with KK on button, BB(weak player) calls.
flop J 8 x.
checked to me i bet, call.
turn J : board J J 8 x
checked to me i bet , call.
river J : board J J J 8 x.
checked to me i bet , call.
BB rolls over 88 and says nice hand:) the funny thing is that BB was weak tight and a check raise on the turn might have folded me. (i guess he got greeedy.)
brad
I sit down at the table and post one off the button. I get Js3s and it's folded to me. Since it only costs me half as much to raise i think about trying to steal. I look to my left and don't see everyone ready to fold so i chicken out and check. Button folds, small blind folds. I think to myself, "there are a lot of high cards still left in the deck." BB checks.
Flop comes Ks7h2s. BB checks, i bet, BB raises, i call. Turn is 10h, BB bets. BB is a tough looking guy in his late 40's. He has the most chips in front of him of all the players at the table. By the way that he acts i get the destinct feeling that he thinks everyone should just write him a check so that he can leave. Unfortunately, i never seen him before, and since i just sat down, i don't have a clue about how he plays or how he got all the chips in front of him.
I raise. BB 3-bets and i call. The river does not improve my hand, BB bets and i fold. Am i better off writing that guy a check?
well if your gonna play a draw to the river and three bet it on the turn with nothing to fall back on i`d say you left alot to be desired outside of trying to bluff and get him to lay down.. just my thought..
jg
Preflop raise. Raising is costing you half price. Hopefully you can pick up the pot right then and there. If not you have a better then random hand and you probably will buy the button. That not being the case when the blind checkraises raising on the turn is pointless. Call on the turn and hope for a spade.
Bruce
bruce,
I wrote my reply before looking at yours. We agree preflop but for different reasons. No big deal.
I'm not so sure the turn raise was hopeless. When the BB bets into Guy there are a little more than five big bets in the pot. With the flush draw Guy will call anyway which brings the pot to six big bets. In my experience, we should see laydowns at least one time in five or so out of the big blind.
Now in this case he made it three bets but I would say that is relatively rare. One thing is for sure. If Guy makes his flush on the river the big blind will probably lead into him again. And with the pot so big he will make the crying call of Guy's raise. So all in all I believe the turn raise is not as bad as one would think.
Comments and flames would make my day ;-).
Regards,
Rick
This post just cries for a reply by someone with a more acerbic wit than I (where is Louie Landale?).
Pretend you didn't post the blind and were dealt the same J3 suited in the cutoff and all fold to you. Against typical blinds your best plays are in order 1) fold, 2) raise, and 3) call. Since you posted a blind, folding is not an option. So you might as well have raised since this is your second best option. Save the half price rationalizations for the times when there is a raise in front of you.
Two nits before I move on. When you say "I look to my left and don't see everyone ready to fold" I hope you look in such a way that no one knows you are looking. If they catch you looking too much then they get a lot more careful or they misdirect.
Next you mentioned "there are a lot of high cards still left in the deck.".
I wouldn't count on this factor very much in this spot or in general. If you have the energy, there are some old threads on this topic from a year or so ago.
"Flop comes Ks7h2s. BB checks, i bet, BB raises, i call."
After he checks, the flop bet is OK. Given you didn't raise before the flop, he will probably discount the chances that you have a king in your hand so he could be aggressive with as little as second pair. I might put in the reraise now. If he makes it four bets, you can be absolutely sure you have to make your flush (or a running two pair/trips) to win.
"Turn is 10h, BB bets. BB is a tough looking guy in his late 40's. He has the most chips in front of him of all the players at the table. By the way that he acts i get the destinct feeling that he thinks everyone should just write him a check so that he can leave."
I don't know if I look tough. I do keep a lot of chips in front of me (but I usually buy them). So if you said late thirties (I'm a youthful looking 46) that could be me. I do prefer Visa and Master Card.
"Unfortunately, i never seen him before, and since i just sat down, i don't have a clue about how he plays or how he got all the chips in front of him."
Generally speaking, if they look tough and confident they tend to be tough. The look of stupidity is hard to feign ;-).
"I raise. BB 3-bets and i call. The river does not improve my hand, BB bets and i fold. Am i better off writing that guy a check?"
No. Make him work for his money. Actually, your turn raise is not as bad as you think. You ran into a relatively big hand. Keep in mind that a fair amount of the time a tough looking opponent will lay down a medium strength hand against an aggressive move by an opponent on the turn. Combine this hope with your flush outs and you play isn't that bad in the long run. However, I still like making it three bets on the flop a little more. The rest of the hand becomes easier and less expensive to play.
Regards,
Rick
Guy, if I may offer an opinion. When you find a player you don't know, with all the chips, you have to figure him for a better than average player, an extremely lucky one or both. He isn't the type to give excessive action to early in the session. Bruce, has good advise and I've heard someone (not sure who, maybe D.S.) say a raise preflop in your situation is well advised. I think if for nothing else, to define his hand and his play better. He probably flopped a set of dueces and knew how to play them. I know it has also been advised that yours could be a good semibluff on the turn , it is only if you know the guy may fold. You don't know enough about him to figure his folding frequency. If you were setting him up for later in the session, consider he may leave soon and never return. Some treat all new faces as suckers, since that's all I ever see,(new faces that is), I tend to give them some respect until they prove it's not deserved. Tough look may be bluster also may be confidence. If they are fishy it won't take long to see it. Don't let your blinds get you in trouble just because they are "free". Better luck.
I will almost always raise BTF in this situation, most of the time without even looking at my cards.
Bruce
You get no argument from me, I agree. I was mostly commenting on the tackling of a winning player after he became aggressive and only in general at the start of a session.
When I sit down and I am up against a player who I have never seen before who has a monster stack of chips I assume at least initially I won't be able to run all over him. I figure he didn't get all his checks by passing and playing conservatively and that he may be on positive tilt. Bluffing or semi-bluffing is probably not a real high probability play against him. Therefore when he check-raises me on the flop and he leads on the turn raising on the come on the expensive street is not a real high probability play. He either will not fold with a marginal hand or by him check-raising he more then likely has the goods.
Bruce
Playing in a game last night ran into this situation. I am in the small blind with KQo. A raise comes from 2nd position. Three guys call after. Now I am in the small blind for half bet and I throw my cards. My reasoning is that either the raiser or three callers have something. What do you experts think
I play. I agree that either the raiser or 3 callers have something, but your hand has some value too. Since no one made it 3 bets, the chance of one of the 3 callers having A-K is somewhat diminished. So if you flop a king, you're likely to have the best hand. If you flop a queen, only A-Q beats you and you have redraws. I wouldn't worry so much about whether or not to call before the flop, but more about how to play well post-flop. But I am far from an "expert" and I look forward to comments from others.
hosh,
Against most opponents I think it is a good fold. You can easily hit a king or queen and probably finish an expensive second best. And with this action there is no way you can steal. Keep in mind that your position is terrible and a 25% discount is not that great. If the small blind was 2/3 of the big blind (now you get a 33% discount) it would still be a mistake but one that most players seem to make all to often.
Regards,
Rick
This is a very easy fold, like Mr. Nebiolo said. The domination possibility against AK, AQ, AA, KK, and QQ is too expensive to dismiss easily. These hands destroy KQ. Do not be destroyed coming in from the small for a raise.
There is another point I would like to make here that seems to be an ongoing problem. Often, posts start off with..."a solid player raises from an early position...". Why is everyone so hell bent on mixing it up with these guys? I realize your post does not state the limit or the quality of opposition from the 2nd spot, but i believe this axiom applies "Dont mess with good players in early positions."
Good luck and take care.
Thanks for your posts. Even good players need help along the way. I just wanted to know about mistakes. All the insites make me think.
Well let's see, a raise and 3 callers. Now let's assume, Hosh, that you are playing 15-30 at Bellagio's. When it gets to you there is $145 in the pot. If we assume the BB will call and not raise then there is $165 in the pot. You must call $20, so you are getting either 7 1/4 to 1 or 8 1/4 to 1. One could conclude that almost any 2 cards are worth a call. But I know who you are Hosh. You're not just anybody. You folded. First, let me say that I believe somewhat like Sklansky (I believe that he believes this), that how you play before the flop is not where the money is made in Holdem. That said the quetion is whether you are getting proper odds to make calling correct. With the odds you have and the implied odds this hand offers one must conclude that the odds are in favor of a call. That is, given that you do not have enough information to conclude your hand is a bigger dog than the odds offer. Let's assume for the sake of arguement that you are an expert Holdem player. Kinda like me. Why would an expert Holdem player throw away his cards in this situation. I believe that an expert would consider the situation. Make some expert type evaluations and then (mistakenly?) throw his cards away or (correctly?) call. I call and trust my post flop play to see me through in this situation.
As a footnote. I will say that situations like this are come from behind gambling situations. Those of you that prefer to be in the lead when the hand starts should fold as Hosh did.
Vince.
Vince, let's say you flop 1 pair after calling. Would UTG raising you or lead betting at the flop be enough for you to fold on the flop or do you see the turn as a rule with top pair. Do you plan to lay low and perhaps checkraise to see how UTG takes it.(or perhaps call 1 bet to see how the turn bets develop ?)
I'm just curious how you decide if the hand is worth continueing after the flop. 2 pair or a openender is a no brainer. But what about one pair, flop action is sometimes aggressive but doesn't tell the whole story. Do you stay till the turn or is all your faith in reading the players (set,overpair,underpair,maybe overcards) can all be with UTG. I'm supposing a noncordinated flop giving you one pair K or Q. I know I may be reaching into judgement here but just something general would be nice, and appreciated. Thanks in advance, if you bother to answer me.
"Vince, let's say you flop 1 pair after calling. Would UTG raising you or lead betting at the flop be enough for you to fold on the flop or do you see the turn as a rule with top pair."
Playing top in pair this situation can be difficult not to mention costly if you are drawing dead. For instance you flop a Q and the UTG has pocket Queens. Yuck!. But that doesn't answer your question. A non coordinated flop makes the hand a bit easier. The pot is big enough that you want to try and increase your chances of winning it if you are behind or even if you are ahead. How do you do that? Since the raiser is UTG trying for a check raise to thin the field is probably not a very good strategy. It more than likely will not thin the field. You could bet and look for UTG to raise. This is your best strategy to try and thin the field on the flop. What you are hoping for is that UTG has A,K ( if a queen flops) and he will raise looking for a free card on the turn. If you really know your player and UTG will raise with an under pair (or A,Q if a K flops) to try and buy a free card then if a K or Q flops you want to bet. I like this strategy with this hand. It insures that you do not give a free card and may just thin the field and get you heads up with the UTG. There has been arguements made here on 2 + 2 in the past that by betting you may actually get folks to fold that you don't want to fold. Someone with a Q,J or K,J for instance. I think that letting these hands play free is a losing strategy. I have a buddy, "Dangerous Dan" that tells me that you will never get him off of top pair with an uncoordinated board, heads up that is. When the pot is as big as this one then I would be with Dan and have to see my opponents cards before I would muck my hand. I guess that means I call down almost everybody with this hand. A third option, waiting to the turn to check raise does not seem to be pratical in this situation. You may get 3 bet and then have to pay the river off also.
Footnote: If I bet the flop and get raised and manage to get it heads up or at the most 2 opponents. I will call the flop raise and most likely bet the turn if a blank comes. Almost all opponents won't raise me on the turn unless they have A,A or a set. By betting I ensure that overcards or smaller pairs don't get a free card. If I don't get raised on the turn I then probably check and call the river against the UTG opponent. If I get raised, man this is complicated, I probably call the raise and make a decision on the river. I tend to call the river because of pot size but it's a crying call at best.
Vince.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I will have to reread your post to make sure I understand. But as a side note it reminds me of a hand I played once. 1/4/8/8, I decide to limp under the gun with KJs, everyone folds to the button who raises. The BB on my right calls. He is the only player I fear in this game, that's why he's on my right I guess. To make a long story short, a Kxx flops and he bets. I raise, the button calls, he reraises. I can't imagine him playing anything lower than 2 pair like this and I fold. He and the button go to the river with the button calling. He shows KT (1 pair) and takes the pot. Somehow I gained respect for his play rather than losing it. He got me off a better hand and knew he could. Neither of us was sweating the button. Taught me about limping light as well. I've still got a lot to learn before I take on Jim and his buds. Thanks again.
Mr. Lepore,
Would you ever consider checking the flop and letting it go without a bet at all if the action indicated it? Or is that way too passive? (i think it is). I am assuming the K or Q high board here.
Also I think it is important to consider that not only may you be beat by AA,AK,AQ,KK,QQ, that it is also likely that some of your cards are out (that is the callers hands may hold Ks and Qs as well because these are the types of hands like KJ, QJ often call with (whether they should or not is a different story).
I do think your strategy on the flop and after is sound.
Good luck and take care.
Most recommend a fold here. That's why I was curious to hear Mr. Lepore's answer as to how he planned to proceed.
1)all the misguided arrogance in the world will not overcome card domination. 2)arrogance combined with an utterly apparent lack of education and literacy is laughable. 3)all the fools who believe they can outplay others from an inferior position when dominated are justifying there moniker. 4)WHAT FOOLS BELIEVE NO WISE MAN HAS THE POWER TO REASON AWAY.
factspeaker,
So what's your point? (Remember you are speaking to a 1) misguided arrogant 2) uneducatd 3) fool 4) and you are the WISE MAN). By the way please point me to the one other (besides this one of course) significant contribution you have made to this forum. Just the FACTS please, Oh, anonymous idiot!
BTW - If you don't, can't or won't understand the underlying concepts determining my play you certainly do not know how to play poker. Remember in the quoted words of a "SELF" proclaimed wiseman: 4)WHAT FOOLS BELIEVE NO WISE MAN HAS THE POWER TO REASON AWAY.
vince
What he is forgetting is that top pair also wins a lot of hands no matter who raised. He is also right that you can lose a lot of money with these hands (AQo,KQo). I was proud of myself recently when I finally folded KQ with a Kxx flop when it was obvious that the pre-flop raiser had AK (he led, I raised, he re-raised, I dropped). Someone else called him down with an even lesser hand, so I was able to confirm my judgment. Calling when I should fold is the biggest weakness in my game, but I am getting there. Like you, I probably call pre-flop except against players who only raise UTG with AA, KK, QQ, and slick. I play on the net where such players are few and far between.
It's a close call and over the course of a year I don't think you will show a significant profit or loss either way. What is really most important is how you play after the flop. If you play well after the flop you can probably play the hand. If you are a beginner muck and wait for better oppurtunities. A lot also has to do with who your opponents are. Against a LOL who has raised her first pot in six hours your decision is much easier.
Bruce
These are almost always good mucks. If you're giving up anything it's very little, and you still have to pay a bet and a half.
Given the size of the pot, I think you can play it either way. But I'll always throw away close decisions in the SB. Bad position will cost you any value you may have in this hand.
Post flop,I would be afraid of not being able to lay down a loser due to the size of the pot.
Winger
"Bad position will cost you any value you may have in this hand. "
Total myth.
vince
if it is a call, I don't think it's a clear call for 1 1/2 bets. When you are badly beat (i.e A-A, K-K, Q-Q, A-K, A-Q), you will lose a lot. When you flop a K/Q and it's the best, you won't win as much.
Playing from up front makes your wins smaller and your losses bigger. In close decisions I think it's best to fold in early position.
Winger
Ok Folks - I would like some feedback on this hand. 20-40 Holdem Game - Loose and agressive game with 1 definite maniac and 3 other very loose players 1 of whom is pretty agressive. Maniac is drunk and raising 23 offsuit from utg pre-flop. Has been hitting big hands with trash cards for about 5 hours but has started to loose some back.
I am in the 3 seat. Button is in the 4 hole. UTG (7 seat) limps, 8 seat (drunk maniac) limps 9 and 10 seat limp, 1 and 2 seat fold. I have 2 red 10's and call. Button who is agressive and a bit on the maniacal side raises. All call to me and I just call. 8 handed pre-flop $320 in the pot.
Flop comes 5h-8d-9d. Blinds check, UTG bets, maniac raises to 40. 9-10 seat fold. I make it 3 bets. Button and small blind folds, big blind, UTG and Maniac call. $560 in pot.
Turn is 8s so board reads 5h-8d-9d-8s. UTG and maniac check, and I bet. Big blind folds, utg calls and Maniac raises. I call the raise and utg calls the raise. $800 in the pot.
Comments on play pre-flop, flop, and turn.
Results to follow immediately in a seperate post for those who wish to respond without knowing the result.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike)
Hey Mike:
Interesting hand and one that often gives me trouble against the type of players you describe. My first reaction was that ALL of your plays might be termed questionable. The non-raise pre-flop, the 3-bet on a flop containing a 2 flush and 3 parts to a straight, and the bet on the turn. But after considering the situation and the players you describe, you probably played the hand excellently. I won't comment since this hand is out of my league, but I look forward to the responses you get.
Kevin
Your call with a med pair is Ok in that position the flop is really scarry your 3 bet found out there is probably no made hand yet. The turn is a mess for you one of these guys has to have an 8. But since they are weak players I suppose it is smart to see the river.
Now let's see what happened.
Agree with all that you said but isn't checking the turn a more prudent course of action?
Since it is a marginal call eigther check or bet is OK by me but I prefer to bet these marginal calls.
My Motto: More good things tend to happen when you are betting and raising then when checking and calling.
Overall I think you played the hand well. My only critique is I would have raised BTF. Primarily I want to buy the button and avoid a situation where I limp and the button now raises and I have poor position.
Bruce
I like your preflop call and your 3 bet on the flop however the pot is now big enough for utg to call with his probable flush draw and overcards if you put him on something like A-something of dias. Maniac as you know can have anything. He is getting favorable odds to draw if he is behind and may already have you beat. When he checkraises you have to consider yourself behind. I call figuring I just have the 2 tens as outs. If no dia or overcard on the river call it down.
I would guess that the UTG player is on a flush draw, and that the maniac has nothing. If he's the 'kind' of maniac I'm thinking of (and I know there are different types) he would have capped it on the flop with top pair or better. Either way, with that much money in the pot you've got to see the river. If the flush comes and the UTG player bets out, well... you've got a problem. But there's no real reason to assume that anybody has you beat on the turn.
GD,
I like your analysis as to the probable hands which makes me want to raise on the turn even more.
Regards,
Rick
Mike, I would have checked the turn. If someone flopped a straight or made trip 8s(or worse yet a full house) they figure you to bet and they are looking to check raise, if even if do bet, you aren't going to drive anyone out so I would have just checked the turn. I don't like the bet on the turn. The preflop and post flop play seems reasonable to me.
Cheers, ET
ET,
You can check the turn with aces and maybe kings (but betting would still be my play). But the tens are vulnerable to overcards so they must be bet. Checking is a huge mistake IMHO.
Regards,
Rick
Soccer Mike,
I might raise before the flop in the cutoff. On the button with the same opponents I would tend to call (since I don't need to buy the button). But this is a nit.
I like your flop play with an overpair and back door straight and weak back door flush. The time to get overcards out and draws to pay is now.
On the turn folding is unthinkable, even if you know an eight is out (and you don't). You are getting 19 to 1 to spike the ten if you call. I do think that making it three bets is a viable option given that it was the maniac who was the check raiser. It might get UTG out who has a hand that is at least drawing to beat you. The maniac could have almost anything but that is the risk you take with a maniac. You have to make the high risk but potentially high EV plays.
I might be the last one to post so hopefully you will let us know what happened soon.
Regards,
Rick
Results are as follows...
River is a 10s so the board reads 5h-8d-9d-8s-10s. I have the nut full house with the 2 red 10's in my hand.
UTG now goes all in and bets $20. Maniac raises to $60. I make it $100. Maniac calls.
I turn over the 10's full. Small blind turns over QdJd for the nut straight. Maniac stares and shrugs but does not turn over his cards.
I am still not even sure if I needed the 10 to win or just a blank but given that the maniac called the raise on the river I am guessing he had an 8. Dream card for me and a pretty good sized pot.
Thanks for all your responses.
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike)
Ahh, excellent result. Cha Ching!
ET
Soccer Mike,
I just saw that you posted the result in a separate thread. Honest, I made my post(s) below before reading the result or any other response. I hate to be result(s) orientated ;-). And working during the day with no net access sucks as I tend to fall behind on my replies.
Anyway, GD had a good read and I think my play of raising on the turn was right. I was very surprised that no one else mentioned it. In big pots you have to make the big turn raise even when there is a lot of doubt as to whether or not you are best, especially with a pair that is vulnerable to overcards.
In this case the Qd Jd wasn't going to fold but you get him to pay big for the time he misses. And when his hit is your hit you get the big reward. To bad he went all in.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for all of your responses.
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike)
game is 15/30 kill pot i am in the small blind,utg calls 7seat calls 8seat raises,button folds to me question is call for $45 with 2 players to act after me,fold or raise.the game is a average game everyone is a semisolid player.please advise and what is the rational.thanks.i folded
It's a close play either way. Don't lose too much sleep about this. Generally with small pocket pairs I like to have at leat 5 way action and hopefully I'll flop a set. You may get 5 way action, but then taking into considertion you have the worst possible position and it may be reraised folding is appropriate.
Bruce
The preflop raise could come from a big pair or two big cards using position, but is not an immediate steal attempt. I might occasionally reraise though, looking to knock out tight/passive players UTG and in the big blind. Now I just play it fast with a favorible board and hope to isolate an AK or such, catch the set on the flop, or check-fold. This would be a fairly rare situation in an action 15-30 game, but I'm only saying that it isn't a certain laydown.
I would have folded. With only three players you will probably not get enough action. Plus you never know one of the early players could have limped with AA or KK and will reraise.
I suspect the reason you are asking this questions is because you hit your set and were kicking yourself for not playing. Don't worry about it. You did the right thing. You will only win with this hand if you hit your set and you will not hit it very often.
well clinteroo i hit it on the turn and it would have cost me $90 and yes it was a big pot but no lost sleep thanks for the input
I wouldn't lose sleep over this one. If you wanted to gamble a bit you could call/raise and not lose much. I would fold because of my position relative to the raiser. A player behind you may re-raise pre-flop. Also if you do get lucky and flop a set it's difficult for you to get action from the 2 limpers. If you bet it out they may fold fearing a raise from the cutoff; if you check raise it's unlikely they'll call 2 cold. I'm more likely to call an UTG raise in this situation.
Don't worry about the results of one hand. Last night I threw away 9-4o against a double raise and flop comes4-4-9. Huge pot. Should I have called 3 bets with 9-4 ?
Winger
Here is a doozy that I have been too lazy to think about since it occurred last night. I am sure there were lots of mistakes made, including by me.
Its a full ring, 20-40 HE game with generally solid-aggressive players, and a couple of live ones. Only 3-4 players are seeing the flop on average.
I am in middle position with pocket Queens and raise after a weakish player limps in early position. A live one in the cut-off seat reraises and the solid (I thought) player on the button caps it. Both blinds fold, the limper calls 3 bets cold, and I decided to call the extra 40 and proceed with caution.
We take a 4-handed flop of KT7 rainbow.
The early guy checks, I check, and the live one bets. The button calls, the early guy calls, and I call, looking to snag a Queen.
The turn is another ten. Still no flush possibilities.
Checked to me. I check, and to my surprise, there is NO bet on my left.
The river is another ten.
Checked around again. I now think my Queens might be good.
The early guy, who also must be an optimist, shows pocket sixes.
I roll my QQ for tens full of Queens.
The live one turns over Kd2d and drags the pot after the button mucks.
I'm sure the live one gave all his money back by the end of the night if three bets with Kd2d. I think you played the hand correctly. Obviously raise BTF. When it comes back to you capped you have to be concerned, however, you have to call and see the flop. When the K appears on the flop you have to be worried and I think your check was correct. When the live one bets and is called by the other three players you probably should have folded, however, one call is not a terrible play. When the turn is checked through some may say you should bet but I don't think so, you have to think with all the pre-flop action that someone had a K or a 10. So I would have continued tocheck and then fold if anyone bets.
There were plenty of mistakes though. The early position player probably should not have called BTF with 66. He definitley should not have called three bets when it comes back to him. Obviously the live one should not three bet K2s. I'm not sure what the button would have had. Possibly A-Q or JJ. Sounds like a good 20-40 game.
You can't rule out the possibility of the live one holding KK, and the limper or the live one with AJ nonsense. 20.5:1 (without even considering if someone else has a queen) to complete the action and catch your set is already marginal, and this would be a dangerous set for the board and action given. I think you can kiss your implied odds goodbye if you think there's as much as a 25% chance someone has AJ or KK. Want to pay 120 on the turn with at most a ten out redraw when you realize you're behind and there's a good chance you're drawing to the case queen? No thank-you, the king and ten around the potential set convince me - into the muck.
This debate stemmed from a conversation a friend and I were having about internet poker. It seems that one of the reasons he enjoys this new medium of play, is that it allows him to participate in 2 games simultaneously while performing other chores such as answering e-mail, doing reports, watching the kids, etc.
When I questioned the effect all this multi-tasking would have on his ability to pay proper attention to each individual game, (such as who's coming on or off tilt, picking up player strengths and weaknesses, factoring in previously played hands vs. certain individuals, etc.) he said that this didn't matter much. His claim was that by merely playing a theoretically solid game, he would be able to beat all but the toughest games. Does anyone else buy this?
Kevin, I tend to agree with you. It's kind of like when I'm reading the Wall Street Journal and playing at the same time. I know my game is suffering because I'm missing subtle things which are going on while reading. I can play and read the newspaper at the same time, but I know it can't be helping my game. I can't imagine playing two games on-line at the same time. I would think playing on-line requires being more attentive than a real game.
Bruce
you'll probably play a break even game if you play more than one, since you can't get a handle on other players tendencies.
"you'll probably play a break even game if you play more than one"
Does anybody else want to comment on this?
I've played on-line for 7 weeks now.
3 weeks in one game only
4 weeks in two games:
Results:
1 game: almost can't loose
2 games: draining my little winnings slowly toward a break even point
I would guess I would have won at least twice as much if I had stuck to one game. I usually won playing one table and lost playing two tables.
I am winning playing two tables and have been for months. BUT only at low-limits. Playing two tables at mid-limits for two months cost me 460 hours during which I cleared all of $42. Mid-August I returned to the low-limit tables and I'm winning steadily again. Playing two tables is difficult, I can't imagine not focussing totally on the games and doing well. I start by watching one game to get a feel for the action, join that game, play a few rounds, then bring up a second, watch that game and get a feel for the action, then put my name up for the second game. Also, I have thousands of notes on various players on-line which I refer to before I get involved with a game. spitball
spitball, the low limit forum is the button above this one.goodluck
Solid poker INCLUDES observation of other players actions during hands you are not in at the moment.
Of course I suspect anyone playing serious online poker needs his head examined anyway.
"Of course I suspect anyone playing serious online poker needs his head examined anyway."
This comment is interesting. I take it you don't trust online poker? I'm not saying I fully do. There must be a reason why S/M have yet to head one of these online start ups. No offense to Mr. Caro or Brunson, but when these guys start endorsing it, it will mean something to many players. They must have by now, been approached with some seriously lucrative endorsement offers and for whatever reason, opted to turn them down.
an ironic thing that I've noticed is that the 2+2 heros, who've been noted for their logical thinking have been seemingly leery of online games while the more emotion driven authors/players ala Caro and Brunson have quickly jumped on the bandwagon. Usually you'd expect the logic driven people to go more quickly to the computer. While this outcome seems a little counter-intuitive, it may not be so given that none of these guys are computer profesionals and that a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing. This isn't an endorsement or condemnation of online gambling, but just something I've noted.
As a sidelight, MJC does have a longer history with computer applications for poker. perhaps this contributes to his eager endorsement of the venue??
I have heard stories of several online poker programmers playing in the phone with each other and the other guys have no chance. I have also heard that hackers have broken the shuffeling sequences.
As far as I'm concerned I'd rather slide down a 50ft razor blade than play on line poker.
And the socalled celebs endorsing it do not impress me one little bit most of them are broken down bankrupts them selves.
Rounder says: "And the socalled celebs endorsing it do not impress me one little bit most of them are broken down bankrupts them selves. "
Someone needs to tell that to the guys that are playing high-stakes poker and making million dollar sports bets with Doyle Brunson.
I never singeled out Doyle in my comments.
Yeah Rounder, cut right to the chase. I agree, I examined my head and got it screwed back on straight again. I certainly include observation as a criterion for solid play. Solid Internet play is enough to keep from losing, but the name of the game is alliances. The show that *saved network TV* may have accelerated the learning curve of some degenerate poker minds too.
I play 2 games (95% hold'em) virtually all the time. I have played so much over the last 4 months (about 400 hours) that I know many of the players quite well, so that means I can hone in on what's happening quickly for a given hand. I do some whacky things now and then but I mostly play 'solid poker' with adjustments for given players. Since there are very few tells and there is no trouble reading the cards (aging eyesight) the concentration level required per hand is not as high. Last night I was at 2 7-player 20-40 hold'em tables, one at 96 hands/minute, the other 89. The average pot was about $220. That's over $40,000 an hour up for grabs. Patience pays. At that speed I can't pay bills too, but when it is 55-60/hr at each table, I can (and do).
Actually, there are tells. It's just that they are temporal instead of visual. Most of the ones I have identified involve other player's use of the *auto* action buttons. The main prerequsite to making use of tells is a feel for the internet traffic on that channel while playing. It is also necessary to know the normal reaction time of each opponent. I'll post more on this subject soon. I just need to conclude business with one site first.
One question I have is. Have you had any problem getting paid from the operators. I do watch 20-40 on Paradise and notice you in two games quite often.
Another question. Do you think is Abdul (sp?) is the same that post here sometimes ?
No, I have not had a problem getting paid. I cashed some for the 4th time today. They promise 10-15 days and the 1st three checks arrived much faster than that (Paradise). Like 3 days. Abdul on Paradise has been asked that question and denied it. Having watched him play I don't think so. He plays pretty well but I don't judge him to be expert. I could easily be wrong, though, because I am also not expert.
Do you think is Abdul (sp?) is the same that post here sometimes ?
No, that is just a fan from Oakland. Mr. Jalib's play is a lot different (and tougher) than that.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
I usually play two games at once. I generally play a smaller game for a while, get a sense of the players (some of whom I will already know), and then sign up for a bigger game. Then I pay attention mostly to the bigger game and just play solid on the smaller. Once I get comfortable in both games I let my attention wander (game on TV, reading, email, etc.). I am sure this costs me money but I am willing to pay a little for the enjoyment and utility I get out of the multi-tasking thing. You can definitely make money in the middle limits just by playing solid, though you are surely giving up some. It's a cost-benefit thing.
I think you can win playing two games at once, but I think you've got to be playing low limit games (3-6 and maybe 5-10).
The reason I say this is that IMExperience you actually run into some good players in the 10-20 and higher online. Not a lot, but definitely enough to force you to keep your eye on the ball. However, the smaller games, and the 3-6 in particular, is still thronged will bad, bad players (although, in there defense, the 3-6 players online do play a bit tighter than those in most casinos).
Now I'll be the first to admit that beating mid limit games requires no small measure of skill, experience and instinct. But the fact remains that just about anyone who's put a few hundred hours under their belt should be able to beat virtually and LL game. To sum it up, if your opponents suck, you don't have to do very much to beat them. In most cases I don't think you have to really even pay attention.
Let's look at the skills you have to have to beat most LL games.
1) You must be disciplined enough to muck pre-flop before calling a raise cold.
2) You must be able to lay down an overpair.
3) You must be able to utilize your position to buy free cards.
4) You must be able to fold top pair-- excellent kicker even when there isn't a four straight or four flush on the board.
5) And this is the most important--- you MUST have the stones to liberally value bet on the river.
Five, incidentally, can't be stressed enough. If someone who's otherwise a solid player isn't winning in the local 4-8 game, I guarantee it's because he's not betting overpairs on the river. If I had to guess, I'd say that top pair and bigger should probably be bet on the river at least 80% of the time, all things considered.
Some may agree with this list. Many will not. However, if one concedes that this is 'basically' what it takes to win at 6-12 and smaller, then I don't know which of these five skills one couldn't utilize by playing two games at once.
At the mid limits, you start 'playing the man' more. And when the game reaches this level, you just have to pay attention. If you don't know who's going to bluff raise and who isn't, or who's going to aggressively play draws, then you don't stand a chance. But in smaller games I certainly think it can be done.
no mkatter what the answer, online gives anyone who has dreamnt of playing for a living, a real chance to test their skill. Although it has its drawbacks, you can definately read players tendencies etc. should we posting this thread on the internet site??
This could possibly be for the internet site, but I just wanted to get some discussion going on other non-tactical aspects of the game. I think this is an often overlooked part of the very good player's edge.
I think you are right about the training ground aspect of internet poker, especially the speed. I play about 100 hrs a month (2 tables) and this is like 300 hrs at a casino in terms of the number of hands. However, I have played in casinos and I think the game is different there. There may be less shots taken because of the physical intimidation of having your opponent right there in your face. I would expect my game to drop off some for a while adapting back to the casino game, because I play a much more TA style than before, and to overcome the casino atmosphere to play that way might take some more experience. I tend to think of net poker as a video game. Playing 2 games just means knowing 18 opponents rather than 9. But even at 2 full games some of the others are also at both tables so it is like 13 or 14. It is not that difficult to handle, IMHO. The vast majority of hands are mucked immediately so one is not playing two at once very often. If I am about to, and one of the hands is marginal (KJs early), I muck it so I can concentrate on the other.
Al- All good points. I think this might belong on the internet forum, but since it deals with tactical questions not exclusive to internet play it's probably O.K. here too.
I really like your #5. I'm not sure this is indigenous to just small limit games either. Since I have started betting more of my hands on the river, I notice a definite improvement in my hourly. The difference being that outside the lower limits, I think hand reading skills and game theory play more important roles in river play.
At the higher limits I agree that more goes into betting the river. And, like you, I think that is without doubt the most overlooked aspect of the game. Louie Landale once said (and I'm liberally paraphrasing here) that he bets damn near everything on the river. IMO this is often the way to go, since even if the board gets real scary most players will call you down, figuring that you don't have the hand your representing. They're right, of course, but what they forget is that you still have something that beats their pocket 4's... :)
Having these skills should allow you to at least break even in a mid limit online game. What let's you beat a midlimit game is concentrating on who the fish are at the table. There are certain players I play with online who are so solid, I just try to stay out of their way and play straightforwardly when I get a pot with them. However, that just means you have to concentrate harder on the players who do have leaks in their game. However, since many of the same characters over and over inhabit the upper-limit online games, it is possible that you could know every player's tendencies at the table just based on your previous experience with them. Maybe your friend subconsciously recognizes the tendencies of certain players and is able to play pretty much optimally based on previous experience.
n/t
$20-$40 Commerce:
I'm a brand new player. " I took a month and a half off because I was running real bad." I'm behind the button. I have Qc-Ts everyone folds. The player in front of me calls. "I would rather him fold or raise." I just call the big blind raises. Do you call this raise? This is a very grey area for me. Please explain thanks..
It's close. Generally I like three other players in to call this raise, you only have two, but your position makes up for it. However, some player will only raise out of the big blind with a very strong hand. If this is the case, you should probably fold. But again it is very close.
Call, not even close. You are getting better than 5 to 1 and last to act.
Vince.
You are also very likely to be playing against a hand that your hand plays very poorly against. This includes AA, KK, and AQ.
Mason,
You may be right I'm not sure. It probably depends on the play of the opponent but rather than argue the point I want to take this opportunity to make a statement.
Gary Carson accused me of having my head up Mason Malmuth's butt because I agree %100 with most of the concepts that Mason and David Sklansky publish. I don't believe that it is necessary to defend Mason or David. I believe their work speaks for them. I would like to tell everyone why I post on this forum and until recently not at all on any other. I responded to this thread in a way that was in somewhat of a disagreement with Mason. He said that a call in the described situation was close. I said it wasn't close. Mason responded with a logical reason for his position. It has been my experience that with Mason and David this is the norm. Mason did not attack me personally. Such was the case with some unknown that calls himself factspeaker. He attacked me and not my analysis. If he was a fact speaker he would have stuck to the facts of the hand in question rather than attack the messenger. This attack the messenger strategy was employed by Badger on many occaisions on this forum. I know he is not here to defend himself but that was his choice so I have no regret in anything I say about him or Gary Carson. Recently I saw some bad blood between Jim Brier and Mark Glover come to light on the forum. I didn't like that. We will all be better served if we stick to the issue at hand and discuss the facts and not the intelligence, or lack of in my case, of the messenger. I hope you are all receptive to this break from the issue of this thread. Mason's response seemed like a good opportunity to broach this subject. He answered as the serious, intelligent well intentioned person (expert) that I found him to be during my summer in Vegas. Nats off to you Mason. Oh, one other thing. I bet you call the hand > %90. The other times may be because of who is in the blind.
Vince.
Vince
Good point. The purpose of the forum is to debate poker related strategies and ideas, not attack personalities. All of your statements, especially when you disagree with someone, should be supported by your reason why. Sometimes people say things along the lines of " I disagree with you, therefore you must be an idiot". While you may be an idiot, they didn't specify WHY, nor did they provide any documention to support their conclusion.
In America, not ALL speech is covered under the constitution as free speech. Threats, insults, and similar speech is not protected because it does not contain any ideas. The same should be true of the forum. Feel free to disagree all you want, but say what your reason is. Don't just attack someone's character because they disagree with you.
Sometimes people like you and me, and David and Mason, get misunderstood as being arrogant or rude when we respond to a post. As you pointed out here in your post, Mason was not personally attacking you, and he provided a reason for what he said.
When you post on the forum, you are opening yourself up for having people strongly disagree with your point of view. As long as you provide a reason why, feel free to disagree all you want, that's what the forum is for. If it were all completely clear cut and there was no grey areas at all, then there would be no need for debate and no use for the forum. Just stick to the point and give reasons why you are saying what you are saying, and skip the personal attacks.
dave in cali
"In America, not ALL speech is covered under the constitution as free speech. Threats, insults, and similar speech is not protected because it does not contain any ideas."
wow, not only is it wrong to call someone a moron, but the reason its wrong is because it "doesnt contain any ideas", which of course means it doesnt contain the right ideas.
brad (proud member of the communist party, as far as you know, so dont target me, im on your side, as far as you know)
Dave,
I'm not sure why you think insults are not protected free speech... but you are incorrect.
sean
Although your post does not contain any insults, you did not provide any support for what you are saying. Simply saying "you are wrong" does not make it so unless you tell me why. I do not think I am wrong but if you can prove that I am feel free. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of the supreme court decision to which I am referring.
Vince,
What the hell does this have to do with posting as a new player?
Bruce
Vince,
Well said.
Rick
Yes call even if its close mathmematically; sometimes you have to make a stand and not get your blinds run over. Where else is a better spot than this? The caveat about the type of big blind player is well taken though.
I would have raised BTF trying to isolate the limper. QTo is a better than average hand and I also want to buy the button. In this example it made no difference with the button passing. Now the big blind raises. From his perspective there is a late limper who probably isn't real strong and a poster who checked, but probably is weak also. The big blind probably has a better than average hand, but still he may not be real strong either. He could have a medium pocket pair or any ace and he is hoping you will pass so he is headsup and he is also taking the initiative on the flop. I would definitely call his raise esp. with you having the button and see what the flop brings. You have taken a self-imposed sabatical, but this is definitely a very playable hand and now is not the time to play scared.
Bruce
Bruce I like your thought process, BUT I think this is a very weak holding. If it were a little stronger like QJ or KT then it would be right to play as you have suggested. I have good position, but does that compensate my bad holding? When I just called why invest any more money in this holding. The BB hand has to be better than mine. I choose to stay out of these tuff decisions if I can. Q-T is a very weak holding. I folded and like I said this is a gray area for me so thanks for the comments.
QT on the button with three way action is not a weak hand perse. Let's look at this hand from the big blinds perspective and I am going to assume I am the big blind. Let's make the assumption that I am a solid player (please everyone don't laugh). I see a late position limper. Anyone who limps in late position as far as I am concerned is a poor player. True, he can have a real hand, but he is equally as likely to play a 67s or 9To. Now you as a new player with your post have just checked. That to me suggests you have a real piece of garbage otherwise you would have raised. The small blind folds and I look at my cards. If I have any half way decent holding I am going to raise. Hopefully I will get the pot heads-up with the limper who has a piece of cheese. If I get the pot headsup I will automatically bet on the flop. The limper will probably not flop anything and I'll win the pot uncontested. I will make this play with just about any Ace and most pocket pairs and any two big cards. By calling there is the possibility that you may be dominated, but that is unlikely. You also have the button. Unless the big blind is a rock who only raises with group 1 hands or an expert I think a call is mandatory.
Bruce
Hands like this are the reason I NEVER EVER post behind the button. It's a nasty way to start the day. And I still have to wait a whole round and play the blinds before getting the button. So I always start with the big blind as my first hand.
That said, I would fold the q-10, automatic.
1) If I know that the BB has the type of hand he is 'supposed' to have, I don't want to play, just because of card strenth. Ironically, knowing what he has could be an inducement to play, but knowing that it is such a good hand tilts the scale in favor of folding.
2) If I know that the BB could be slinging chips with any old hand that he fancies, then my cards could make a call look right. But other things prevail in my mind, namely, that he has the momentum on the hand, and that I don't have a good read on his hand yet.
Tommy
Tommy, I agree that this is an ugly way to start the day but would love to hear some opinions about posting as big blind and posting one behind the button. I always post behind the button. That way I get 7 hands for $15 as opposed to 10 hands for $25. (10 handed 15-30) You also get better position on all but the button hand. John
In a game with a 1 to 2 blind structure taking the big blind instead of posting is probably better as a new player. In a game with a 2 to 3 blind structure, ie. 30-60, posting is a better play.
Bruce
I agree with Tommy. I hate posting behind the button because it's too enticing to take the pot odds and call with a piece of cheese that you wouldn't otherwise play.
Note however that in certain games (irrespective of blind structure) it might actually be more beneficial to post late. I'm thinking of loose-passive games where you will get a lot of preflop callers but rare raises.
How about when a smoker comes back to the table and posts both in front of you? I would always post as a new player behind that.
Whatever decision making parameters are used, I'm sure that the cost-per-hand is the wrong one. First, the cost per hand is nearly identical no matter what you do. Second, there is no way to predict it, since you don't really know how many hands you will get because of lobbying. Third, the cost-per-hand might be predictable, but the VALUE per POSITION is not. In other words, if a round costs $30, it doesn't make sense to say the UTG hand has the same cost (value) as the button, namely, three bucks per hand.
By taking the BB instead of posting behind, you are assured to get the button. In a $30-per-round game, I arbitrarily think of the button as being "worth" at least $8 dollars of that $30. If you think that makes sense, then taking the blinds becomes a clear choice.
Tommy Angelo
especially hold em ? thanks
.
Mike Sexton wrote about European card rooms in Card Player this month and he mentined 2 in London.
I'm in seat 8 and now in the cutoff with QhQd. UTG(seat 2) brings it in for a raise (he has been raising with alot of weak holdings), seat 3 calls (younger player who has gone through a rack already, I haven't seen him show down a winner yet, but he is seeing alot of flops), folded to seat 7 who makes it three bets (this is an older gentleman with alot of cash on the table, I've never seen him play before, but it appears he is not a regular player. I cap it at 40, the BB calls as do the rest of the players in. The flop is 8h 4s 6h. BB checks, UTG checks, seat 3 bets, seat 7 raises, I make it 3 bets, and all call! The turn is 8s, checked to seat 3 who bets, seat 7 calls and its to me. I hate this because I haven't seen 3 try and make any moves on players and he must figure with a pot this big he'll get called, but the pot is huge so I call hoping to snag a Q. Only the BB folds. The River is the 3c. UTG checks, 3 bets, 7 calls, now what do I do? I figure my hand is at least beat by seat 3 if not by everyone, but I call anyway, as does seat 7. 3 shows 10d 8d for trip 8's, 7 mucks pocket 5's face up (I think he's just playing to kill time), and I quietly muck my hand. How would you all have played this?
Probably the same way although I may not have capped preflop although that's just a minor point.
Some hands you can't get away from very easily. Actually, I liked the cap preflop, as it was your only chance to blow out the players who ultimately drew out on you. The only possible place you could've got away from the hand was when the 8 paired on the turn, but I'm confident that an odds analysis will show that even your call there was correct.
Almost 20:1 when you have to act on the turn with no particular reason to believe both outs aren't live, and a raise on the river (should you catch) looks to get paid off by an eight. Call, you actually have a reasonable chance to make three, maybe four more river bets when someone besides a player with an eight could have a big stranded pocket pair.
I would condsider this a protected pot on the river. When 3 bets on the river he knows he's getting called, almost zero chance he's bluffing. If 7 folds I'd auto-call and expect to lose 95% of the time. When he calls in front of you I think a laydown is +EV.
-Fred-
I suspect you were third best.
Planet Poker 20-40 hand.
I was not in the hand but was at the table.
UTG raises. Next to act ("X") makes it 3 bets. BB coldcalls. 3 way action.
Flop: JdTd4c
UTG bets. X raises. BB folds. UTG calls.
Turn: Jc
UTG bets and X calls.
River: Js
Both players check.
UTG turns over 6d5d.
X takes the pot with AcQc.
I have to think that the most egregious error in the hand was UTG throwing in the towel on the river. The pot has $340...surely, there is a 1 in 8 chance that X may fold to a bet on the river.
2 other questions to consider:
1. Given that UTG checked the river, should X bet?
2. If UTG did bet the end (as he should have IMO), should X call?
You are correct that UTG must bet. However:
1. (No.) X has no equity in betting. He only gets called when he's beat.
2. (Yes.) X must call, given that there is a high number of hands that he can beat, plus the large pot. It's an easy call.
"X has no equity in betting. He only gets called when he's beat."
There is very little doubt that UTG will call X with a full house but would he also call with AK? Should he call with AK if X bets.
BTW, I think you are right but I am perhpas not as sure as you are.
skp,
I think most UTG player's with AK would call but perhaps at least one in eight would fold. And even more UTG player's with AQ would fold. That is why I like a bet by X on the river after UTG checks. But I'm starting to get confused as to who had what as compared to what if whomever had whatever ;-).
Regards,
Rick
UTG - gotta bet the river.
X should call a weak/maniac player on the turn. Maybe raise a tough player on the turn.
X should cry call the river.
X should just call preflop unless UTG is a maniac then reraise
Very interesting hand. UTG got trapped after making a preflop move. X may have made a mistake by reraising preflop but in this case was correct. X had just enough on the flop to warrant an attempt at a free card. UTG liked the turn, figuring, correctly, that X did not have a J and took a shot at the pot (with outs). X had enough to call the turn (maybe raise). UTG gives up any chance at winning the pot. X thanks the poker gods. A planet poker hand that does not appear to have been influenced by collusion. Of course collusion is not always evident but still may have occurred. I wonder if Sklansky could show how this hand could have been influenced by collusion. Remember we had the BB fold on the flop.
Vince
There is certainly a 1 in 8 chance that UTG would fold after checking the river, I would bet and hope he was on a flush draw or would fold something like AK or AQ.
If UTG bet the river, X should call with AQ. Same thing, is there a 1 in 8 chance that he has the best hand? with JJJ on the board I would think so.
dave in cali
skp,
As usual, I haven't read the other responses yet. Obviously, I don’t like an UTG raise with 65 suited but I suppose it is OK as a change up once in a while.
You didn’t ask this but I wonder if X had a raise on the turn. After all, he put in the raise on the flop, the top card paired, and he picked up a flush draw to go with his overcards and inside straight draw. But I digress.
I agree that UTG should bet the river. But it would have been better if the river card were a blank. When the third jack comes X can downplay that he is against a jack or a pair and at least call with ace high.
Regarding question 1., when UTG checks the river after betting the turn, he is virtually announcing that he does not have the other jack. Now X has to wonder if he is against a better or tied hand that may fold to a river bet (I’m thinking of AK or AQ). X’s play tends to represent an overpair that could not raise the turn when the jack repeated. But after the river check by UTG, he could safely bet. Of course in this instance, it wouldn’t matter but X didn’t know that at the time.
Regarding question 2., X should be willing to call any UTG player willing to come in for a raise with 65 suited ;-).
Seriously, if UTG bets the river, it looks like he either has the jack, an overpair, an underpair, or overcards that busted out but can be safely bet when the jack repeats (a jack in X’s hand would have raised on the turn). I think UTG would fold overcards and the underpair. So I wonder if a raise! was the play since the call will lose to the underpair and the AK. Once again, the fact that UTG in fact had a freak hand should be eliminated from the analysis of what X should have done at the time.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I wish I could post while taking a break in an office job like I used to have (before the internet). I get pretty lonely posting late at night knowing 95% of the forum is asleep (although tomorrow morning is open for me so I can at least reply).
Someone posted something today to the effect that Sklansky says "most of the money in hold'em is madeafter the flop."
If that is true, where does he say it?
On this forum.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Izmet,
You posted a response to a question of mine about a year ago. I thought it was brilliant.
If you agree, or even if you disagree, with Sklansky's reasoning; would you mind elaborating; perhaps providing a few examples of excellent post-flop play that brings in the money, compared to poor or mediocre play that costs a player money.
Anything you have to say will be appreciated.
Dana
I don't really have a strong opinion on this. We have a player in out private game who plays extremely good after the flop, he amazes me on numerous occasions, given that he never studied hold'em, but picked moves from me. However, he is one of the biggest consistent losers in that game, because he can't seem to fold preflop. He is way too loose.
But I can see where Sklansky is coming from. Late in the hand the pot is usually big enough that any mistake can cost dearly. But if you fold your KJ against KT preflop, it's not that big a deal.
OTOH, preflop mistakes can cost dearly late in the hand. If there's a tightass in there with a couple of limpers and you raise on the button with, say, AJ, it's a sorry sight when the ace flops and you jam away only to get shown AQ on the river.
Much of that depends on one's style too, I guess. My style of play is very dependant on tough preflop play, as I will be pounding very hard if I catch only a piece of the flop. Because I give a lot of action, I need to be fairly sure I'm not walking into some kind of preflop trap voluntarily and my outs (if behind) are good.
But I could go along with Sklansky a bit saying the most money is probably made (or lost) on turn, specifically. It's when the wagers double and where an average player is bound to make biggest mistakes.
If you want examples of especially tough postflop plays, this one first pops to my mind:
Raising in position on turn with a hand that wants a showdown, but might be best already, despite your opponent betting into you. You raise here to check it down on the river and it costs you same, but you extract an extra bet on the river if you improve. If you knock out a player behind on top of it, that's championship play. The bigger the pot, the more this play is valuable.
I welcome other 2+2ers to offer more examples.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
The play that Izmet describes (raising a good hand in position on the turn to get an out-of-position player to check on the river, giving you the option of checking if you don't improve or betting if you do improve) has been giving me fits.
What is the proper defense against this play? Re-raise the turn and bet the river if a blank hits? What if your hand isn't strong enough to re-raise? Should you just be checking the turn? Or is situation just one of the pitfalls of being out of position?
Thanks, NW Card Hack
This play is good and IMO it could be construed as a form of the semi-bluff. Sklansky states in his book, The Theory of Poker, that raising is the proper defense against the semi-bluff. He also states something like those players that can defend well against the semi-bluff are true poker champions. So IMO it follows that being able to recognize when this play is being used against you and acting accordingly is another example of excellent post flop play.
I wonder if this is really true?
If you play in a game where everyone plays quite well, approximately on the same level, you will beat the game and get the money simply by playing tighter than everyone else (as long as you don't play TOO tightly for the blind structure.)
I believe that most bad players probably make their biggest mistakes by getting involved with hands they shouldn't be in before the flop. After the flop many of them play pretty well, but it was this initial bad decision that causes them to make semi-correct, albeit losing decisions, later.
Of course, there are some players like calling stations who simply make too many costly errors on all rounds of betting, but these are not as commonly found as fairly solid players who simply play too many hands. (At the mid limit levels anyway.)
I really wish I could find a game with some good old fashoined loose passive calling stations! Seems like all the games I've been in have been of the slightly loose but solid variety.
-SmoothB-
Three words. Speaking Rock casino.
SmoothB,
The “better players” make money before the flop because these decisions come up every hand. At the same time, the correct decision is usually not hard to come by and there usually is little difference between good and expert play (in a full ring game). Were we disagree the difference is usually very small (e.g., is Qx suited really playable on the button against a large field?). That being said, most of us would benefit by tightening up a bit.
Even more money is made by true experts post flop because the correct play is often hard to come by and there is a big difference in expectation between the best play and the routine play used by "good players". As an example, look at Dan Hanson's article in this weeks "Poker Digest". His article concerns the routine play of "raising on the come to buy a free card" which most "good players" use almost without exception. But Hanson's article makes the case for a more judicious use of this play. His tactics are well known only by the very best players.
Anyway, play well before the flop but post flop is where the real money is at.
Regards,
Rick
Post flop play is most important in middle size gmes. Preflop is usually more important in small games an in very big games.
El Supremo,
That's good, since I play mostly in middle size games ;-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. OTOH, perhaps you pulled a "Sklansky" again and meant to post this under DLS or SmoothB!
"Post flop play is most important in middle size gmes. Preflop is usually more important in small games an in very big games."
You see Sklansky this is why we have trouble. I read your stuff. You say the money is post flop. I agree. Then you say it depends on the game. Small games, big games, middle game. Sure the next thing you will say is that it is important in small games for an entirely different reason than big games. Like in small games you have to be more seletive while in big games you must be less selective and aggressive. Sure, well what's next? Next thing your gonna say that Badger knows what he's talking about. Then I'll really stop reading your stuff.
Vince.
"Preflop is usually more important in small games and in very big games."
I could offer a guess about what you're referring to in the bold part, but would rather hear it straight from the oz-supremo's keyboard. Elaboration?
sklansky's of course is dead right. but who am I? THINK. perhaps it is related to freplop tendencies....hmmm.
As I am sure you guessed, in the biggest games, almost everybody plays great postflop but most of them use that as an excuse to play too many hands.
Yeah, that's what I thought you were talking about. So then you can develop some edge just by playing a bit tighter than they do.
Another thing, I think, at least in the 80-160 games I've played, is that preflop play becomes a bit more complex, in that you're almost forced to add more mix to your play and to play a few more offbeat hands in order to foil the good readers. i.e., it doesn't really add to the importance of preflop play, but is a change that seems to appear. Of course, if one is not careful, that itself can be a step toward playing too many hands...
Very good. You should write a book.
John,
I don't play in the big games. I asked Malmuth and Sklansky to back me but they "just smiled and walked away". I can't imagine that preflop play is that complex. By that I mean that if you play with the same players almost all of the time preflop play becomes fairly simple. If you play with varying players similar to what happens at the mid limits then preflop play becomes a little more straight forward. If you are playing more hands to "mix it up or foil good readers" that has to be a mistake. One need only play a few hands differently to foil good readers. Such as occaisionally slow playing A,K suited or raising with A,J early. "Mixing it up" can become and is usually a gambler's folly. An excuse to play like a maniac which can be fun. I know I do that. The key to winning at any poker game is mistakes. Both yours and your opponents, self inflicted or induced. The higher limits can be no different than the lower limits in this respect. God, John I'm rattling on here. I only decided to post something here to see if I could come up with a fundamental approach to playing higher limits in case someone died and left me enough money to play there, "where the air is rareified". I'm sure your experience counts more than my speculatio. Have a nice day.
Vince.
Vince, my man, you started out strong, man, but kind of petered out at the end, dude. That's okay, maybe you decided not to mess with the book deal I was working out there with the Wiz (Gotta find another nickname; El Supremo never did it for me). So you were thinking out loud. That's okay too. Lemme do the same. You see, I didn't say preflop play became really complex, just that it became a "bit more" complex. Un pocito. Comprende? Kinda like going from Wheel of Fortune to The Match Game. (How many Gene Rayburn fans still remember THAT one?) Not a biggie really.
An example of the kind of "mixing it up" that I think you have to do a little more in bigger games is the open-raise with something like 76s in early position - something I believe Mason may have been the first to mention in print. It is of course useful in some middle limit games too. It just seems to me that there is a somewhat more pressing need to add such mix to your play at the higher limits. It's both so that they won't so easily know when the flop hit you (e.g., after you open-raised early), and so that if the hand gets played on through 4th street they'll continue to misread your hand.
If they CAN gauge fairly well when the flop did not hit you, they WILL try to steal from you when they can, MORE relentlessly than in smaller games. That takes away much of what you normally (in mid limit games) earn from routine steals on the flop when you were the preflop raiser. And the turn is a very pivotal point in the hand, a point when a lot of raises occur in these gamses. So you'd like those raises to be misguided, happening when you have something strong, not happening when you have little.
Hey, here's some support from your favorite of the S&M duo. Look in Mason's essay "Poker Skills: Part II" in his second essays book. Look at the shift in the the importance of "The ability to vary your game" from low to middle to high limits.
I think it's basically a simple formula: The better readers they are, the more deception you must use.
Of course I did suggest that you have to be careful not to overdo such stuff, since that itself could set you on the road to too-loose-itis.
Also, I don't think it's as if you get totally destroyed if you don't add such preflop mix in these games. A good chunk of the money lost to pots stolen from you when they judge that the flop missed you, for example, is recouped on those occasions when they err in their reads, giving you excessive action when you have, say, a big overpair. So you do have to find the right line, some point of moderation in adding any hands (Actually you may not add any, because you first subtract some due to the aggressiveness of the game anyway.) or mix to your play. It's easy to go too far.
John you pretty smart cookie! You should write a book or did Oz already say thet?
I just finished another section in "Inside the Poker Mind" Great Book! you should buy it!
I "petered" out as you stated because I was indeed beginning to rattle on. I found that I wasn't adding anything of value to what you had written. My point was weak and I in fact did not quote you correctly. I knew you said a "bit" more complex but that didn't stop me from rattling. But I am now glad that I posted my response. It caused you to elaborate a little on how to play with the big boyzz. Gotcha! Thanks. Oh, yeah, I don't think I have a favorite one of the dynamic duo. They are distinctly different characters that compliment each other extremely well. Of course David is smarter. But then again, Mason is smarter. See what I mean about complimenting each other.
Vince.
Vince.
Vince -- I think you're wrong about which one is smarter, but I won't debate it. Anyway, I'm still pretty early in my experience playing with the big boyzz, so don't take anything I say as gospel. Amen.
BTW, I've heard amazing things about that book you mention, Inside the Poker Mind. Must be something special.
Fascinating insights.
I'm wondering if the "mix it up" strategy that you employ to keep your opponents guessing as to when the flop hit or missed you is similar to Abdul's oft suggested tactic of never entering a pot without a raise.
Hmmm, I think there is some overlap in purpose, yes. I think, maybe more generally his idea of balancing his play (in tight games) by open-raising certain hands while limp-reraising others, noting that he may limp-reraise with, for example, a particular big pair and a medium pair, while open-raising with a pair in between, is a way of trying to maximize EV while achieving deception. (Not sure how the limp-reraise fits with the always open-raise idea. Maybe they're for different types of games.) He could elaborate on that better than I.
$10-20 holdem online. I just sat down so I don't know many of the players except that I recognize the small blind to be pretty solid.
I pick up Ac Kd next to UTG. UTG folds, I raise, 1 middle position cold caller, 2 late position cold callers, the small blind calls, and the big blind folds. 5 players and 11 small bets in the pot.
The flop comes 9c 5s 3c. The small blind bets.
I decided to raise here even though I put the small blind on a pair (I think with a flush or straight draw, he would have check called or check raised). I'm not sure if this is the correct play but the scales tipped for me because of the backdoor nut flush draw.
Everyone else folds (phew) to the small blind who calls. 15 sb in the pot.
The turn comes the 3s. The small blind bets again.
At this point, I'm getting 8.5 to 1 on my call. IF all my 6 outs are good, the odds of making my hand are slightly under 7 to 1. However, there is a possibility that I only have 3 outs. There is also a small possibility that I am drawing dead to something like A3s). However, there is also a possibility that I am currently in the lead.
I think that I have been calling a little bit too leniently on the turn of late. I think it is close, but I take this opportunity to muck my hand.
Please comment on my flop and turn play. Also, how would your flop play change if you didn't have the backdoor flush draw?
Thanks,
Puggy
If you decide to call on the turn, do you call the river as well?
Puggy
If you believe the chances you have the best hand is small, that has no relevance unless you also believe he will not follow up his bluff on the river.
David,
I don't think I understand. Are you saying that if he is semi-bluffing (with something like a flush draw), he will most likely follow up with a river bet in which case I shouldn't call, meaning that even if my hand is good I will have to lay it down anyway?
If I did choose to call on the turn. I would almost always call on the river if the flush card didn't come.
I have a feeling I didn't interpret your comment correctly.
Puggy
Many times in this tough spot Ill say to myself as Im faced with the turn call decision "am I going to have to call 2 bets here?", and I wonder if thats similar to calling a raise cold?In this case a 40$ turn call.I wonder ,if theres only a small chance that your hand is good and you know for sure he will bet his real hands and his semi bluffs as well,and you will call on the turn and river , the reverse implied odds make it (the small chance your good picking off a bluff)much less of a factor.
Puggy,
I like your raise and would often make it in a tight game (online games are usually tight) with this sort of disconnected flop. Having a three flush gives you extra outs if the third of the suit hits the board. Your goal is to represent more hand than you have (i.e., an overpair) and then gage all of your opponent’s reaction.
When you got it head up after the flop you have the second best possible outcome next to taking it right there. [Note: One could argue that the small blind could call with a hand so bad that you would want him in. The problem is that he could catch scare cards on the turn that could get you to lay down the best hand.]
When the turn repeats the three you can’t like it but at the same time put yourself in his shoes. Let’s say he has the three. You raised the flop so he might think you will come back with a bet on the turn. [Another Note: This is why you may want to check behind him even with the pair of aces or kings and bet the AK with the intention of folding to a check raise and checking behind on the river if you don’t improve.] Many in the small blind would go for the check raise if they tripped up here. My guess is his turn bet is more likely to represent a pair or a continuation of a bet with a draw (most likely with overcards since he bet into a raiser on the flop.
It will cost you two big bets to call him down. I believe you underrate the possibility that you are still leading and overrate the possibility you are drawing slim or dead. There is no one else in the pot to jam you up. I would tend to call down here against most players.
BTW, I don’t like a turn semi-bluff raise because the three cannot be the least bit scary to the small blind unless he just has a medium overpair or top or middle pair. Most in this spot will call you down anyway with all the dead money in the pot.
Regards,
Rick
But if you raise the turn you (probably) get to check it down if you don't improve, yet you can bet if an A or K hits the river.
This may be a spot where TJ Cloutier is right when he says that calling (or presumbaly also raising) with overcards is a losing proposition.
You have 4 opponents and a bet from your right. While I agree that raising is better than calling, I think folding is your best long term play.
I would peel one off if the bet came somewhere from my left although I don't really like doing that too much either as I stand to get very little action if I hit a King or Ace (as everyone and his bartender will assume that you have AK). Also, don't forget that hitting an Ace on the turn can often make you (an expensive) second best. In this situation, IMO, you may be better off calling with QJ (as your overcards) as opposed to AK.
As for your follow up question, I would generally tend to call the river as well if I decide to call the turn. BUT I would be less likely to call the turn against opponents who are likely to fire again on the river with just 2 pairs i.e., I would be more likely to call the turn against opponents who I think will check 2 pairs at the end (fearing that you have an overpair and will call).
skp,
Folding on the flop may be correct but it certainly is close. This flop is so disconnected and full of baby cards that you have a good chance of losing everyone but the blind. If a flush draw calls behind at least you have redraws with the ace of the suit. So with no backdoor flush it may be more of a fold. Of course, if you don’t raise you must fold. Calling is a distant second place with players yet to act behind you.
You wrote: “I would peel one off if the bet came somewhere from my left although I don't really like doing that too much either as I stand to get very little action if I hit a King or Ace (as everyone and his bartender will assume that you have AK). Also, don't forget that hitting an Ace on the turn can often make you (an expensive) second best. In this situation, IMO, you may be better off calling with QJ (as your overcards) as opposed to AK.
I agree with this concept. Believe it or not, I did not understand it until I read this forum. I would add KQ to the mix since most players usually only call with Kx when it is suited and in back were Ax is often played from anywhere (not by me though ;-) ).
I have no argument with your last paragraph.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Unlike most of my posts which come late at night to a slim audience, I will be in today until about 1:00 p.m. PST so you may actually get a timely response if you answer while working away in your office tower with the great view (or was that Dan Hanson?).
If everyone and his bartender will put you on AK or AQ when you raise 6 off the button then an agressive sb should bet out whenever the flop is three small rags. Even if it's a pure bluff from an AK point of view the chances that the sb paired up (even bottom pair) just make it hard to call that turn bet when another rag falls. Of course if an AK or Q hit on the river you can be pretty sure the sb will check.
Are you referring to a heads up situation, short handed or multi-way? I'm not sure but your comments seem to apply to a heads up or perhaps short handed situation where skp is anwering a post that is describing a multi-way situation. I concur with skp's comments regarding the multi-way situation.
In a heads up situation, you make an interesting point. Wouldn't a SMALL raggedy board provide more incentive for the AK to at least call on the turn and river after the AK raised in early position?
I was referring to the play on the turn and river where it is now heads up.
IME this is an area where much money is leaked away; when your opponent has a better read on your hand than you could possibly have on his.
The small blind has an easy bet on the river if the turn card isn't an honor and our hero doesn't raise the turn, especially easy if the small blind happened to be betting a solid hand from the get go.
/
if i read his post correctly, his bartender realized his hand after he checked and called the flop..not in the case described where the flop was raised. i could be wrong as my bartender has been busy serving drinks. take care all....
x
I think most of the time it is better to let this thing go right on the flop. Your position stinks. It is very unlikely that your hand is the best at this time. Many of your so called outs are not always live. But if your judgement and read of the players says go ahead then definitely raise the flop like you did.
Now on the turn you are sitting there with ace high, facing a bet. The small has one of three things: a made hand which at most you have six outs on; a semibluff like a gut shot or flush draw; or an outright bluff.
So what do you do against a made hand? You dont have the odds to call and he will not likely drop to a raise. Additionally, a player strong and aggressive enough to bet right out from this position is almost certainly going to value bet the river if you are still beat. You fold, easy.
And a semibluff? Now whats the defence to a semibluff? Usually folding is the best play especially since you have nothing but ace high. This player will almost certainly continue the bluff on the river.
Outright bluff? Call or raise I guess. If you call it is likely this bluff is going to continue to the river.
So it boils down to your evaluation of these three possibilities. A made hand is the far most likely, a semibluff second, and an outright bluff is a distant third. Given the play of the small a bet on the river is highly likely in all of these situations. So what do you do?
I dunno know.
All recommendations so far are reasonable. Most times I think I would also raise the flop. If you are going to call down, I would consider a raise on the turn. It would be tough for him to reraise the turn or bet the river without a better hand.
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Thanks everybody for the comments. I agree with pretty much everything that has been said. I sort of think calling the guy down is probably better than giving it up.
Anyway, can anyone understand the point that El Supremo was trying to make?
Puggy
Sometimes on fourth st, you have a drawing hand that is not quite getting good enough odds to call, even including pot odds. Say you are getting 7-1 odds and you have about a 10% chance to improve. However say also, that you think there is a 5% chance you have the best hand without improving. This means you have about a 15% chance to wind up with the best hand on the river. You might therefore conclude that it is worth taking 7-1. But that would be true only if you think your opponnent will not bet the river. If he almost always will, it did you no good to have an extra 5% chance of having the best hand without improving. You will lose with those hands anyway.
An "elaboration" well worth waiting for. Thanks for interpreting your previous cryptic post as I had no idea what you were talking about there. This post of course clarifies it.
I assume your first sentence should have read "Even including IMPLIED odds". Correct?
x
Yes. sorry
but the greatest theoretician of them all does not have to state every last obvious point, does he? lets get real.
backdoor,
My comment was not meant to be pedantic. I would imagine practically everyone who visits the Forum reads every Sklansky post on every topic. I was merely trying to avoid confusion for those who are just learning.
Ahhh yes, now I understand.
Thank you, David. So if you still manage to read this far, would you have called the turn? Or is the decision maker really whether or not you think the opponent would bet the river no matter what fell.
Puggy
Here I am waiting for the local boat to open it's poker room it doesn't start spreading HE games until about 11am or so.
Anyway here is an interesting 10-20 hand that took place in Aurora (I know you all want to know where this place is after I describe what happened.)
I have been playing about an 1 1/2 hours and am $300 up playing 5 hands to the river winning 4 - I have seen 2 or 3 flops mucking quickley - cards are really cold for me - anyway I'm in bb and a normally good player now on "major tilt" stradles player to his left calls the $20 this guy is in a lot of hands with a lot of crap and will raise with just about anything I have A5o it is checked to me - I raise straddler reraises (BLIND) both call. folp is nothing much but containes an A&J rainbow I bet straddler raises (STILL BLIND) both call. Turn is a blank (but what could be a blank with these 2 guys) I bet raised by blind straddle guy called by both of us river is another (maybe brick) I bet straddler raises call call.
I show the A non straddler muckes imediately and straddler turnes over one card and says shit then the other and says shit - looks at me and says - "say thank you" I said thank you and stacked a pretty nice pot.
No skill involved here except noticing the guy was flying blind and having a pretty good read on the other guy.
The subject of your title should be "Hand from poker heaven" instead? ;)
Well that is a matter of opinion. Lastnight FRIDAY night the poker room was closed at 8pm as it will be closed tonight at 8. We only get a few copies of CP & PD magazines if you are lucky to be there the moment they are delivered you might get one. Nearest tournament it 4 hours away. If you happen to get to the poker room after 1pm you probably have a 3-4 hour wait for a seat. I could go on but I am starting to get sick. Oh yeah nearest card room is 42 miles away.
Rounder:
Depending on where you are staying, Harrah's in East Chicago might be equadistant. It's a considerably larger room with better air ventilation and more game selection. The drawback is that they still have boarding times there (on the odd hours). You can also be in for a long wait to get a seat especially on the weekends. Another thing is that you might not like the fact that all of their lower limit games contain a jackpot.
Kevin
It's also another 40 min from my house.
I'll stick it out at Aurora. Can't complain I am beating the games there but the silly weekend hours, some bad dealers and lack of service bother me.
I've figured out when to get there so I don't have 4 hour waits any more.
BTW - I don't like the jackpot drop much but I think the players playing a few more hands because they think it might win a jackpot might balance it off.
Loose 8-16 game.
I am in late middle position with AQ off (A of clubs), three limp in ahead of me, I limp, button calls, bb raises, all call (including sb). We see the flop 7 handed.
The flop comes 369, all clubs. SB checks, BB bets, next two players fold, Loose player (LP) raises, I call, button (loose aggressive player, LAP) cold calls, sb folds, BB calls. We see the turn four handed.
LP and LAP both think I'm very tight and generally respect my raises. However, they could have many things at this point. The LP raise and the LAP cold call need not represent made flushes or sets.
Turn is J of clubs. BB checks, LP bets.
Question 1: do I raise or just call? LAP and BB remain to act behind me. If I raise, LAP will muck w/o a high club, set, or two pair. BB is unknown to me.
I just call the turn bet. LAP and BB call. River is a blank.
BB checks, LP bets into me again.
Question 2: do I raise or just call? If I raise, LAP will muck without a high club. LP has been known to bet in the situation w/o a flush.
I think the answer to both of your questions can be summed up in one sentence. You must get as many bets in the pot when you have the best of it.
Stephen
When I'm faced with these situations, I normally just overcall on the turn if there are several people left to act behind me and the bet came right before me.
If I am the last to act after the bet, I will often raise on the turn. Hands like 2 pair or sets or2nd nut flushes and draws will not fold here for 1 more bet.
On the river it is a trickier situation. 2 pair and sets will fold for 2 bets if they don't have a flush card. (And no board pair of course). If the loose player is to my immediate right, and I suspect that 2 pair and sets might make a crying call after he bets, I won't raise. Of course, if you are last to act with the nuts is is always correct to raise.
Here is a hand that came up recently for me:
I had QJ of hearts on the button. Maniac on my immediate right was raising before every flop and betting every round until he got any resistance.
The table was on tilt - this was a family pot. I called his raise with QJ of hearts. It came back capped and I called both of those bets too.
Flop came Th8h 5c. I had 2 overcards, 3rd nut flush draw, and a gutshot to the nuts. And a gutshot straight flush draw. Definitely one of the top 5 percentile flops for this hand.
Checked all the way around, maniac bet, I just called. Normally I would raise here, but I definitely did not want to knock anyone out if I hit my hand. Now, if there had been a checkraise and everyone were in, I might strongly consider reraising or capping if it came back to me with lots of callers in.
Everyone just called, no checkraise.
Turn was the beautiful 9 of hearts giving me the indisputable nuts to end all nuts! Checked around to the maniac again, who bet. Now here was the tough decision. Raise now? Since there was so little action I very much doubted that anyone had anything as good as 2 pair, and I seriously doubted that I would get anyone to call 2 bets cold unless they held 2 pair or better or the A or K of hearts. I just called, called all around.
River came no heart, no board pair. Rats. I really wanted a heart that paired the board so that I would get a crying call from a heart or trips. Checked around to the maniac who checked! I bet and everything went silent. No one could call me! Unfortunately nobody had ANYTHING they could call with! Rats! I took down the huge pot in a no - show! Of course I did turn over my straight flush, even though I probably shouldn't have.
Let's think back. If I had raised on the turn I am sure that I would have lost a lot of callers. The maniac actually had the K of hearts and I don't know if anyone had the A.
Even a raise on the flop might have cost me money.
Especially if you have a very tight image, as I do, and there is a maniac on your right doing all the betting, the correct play is often to check and call the nuts.
-SmoothB-
Call on the turn, raise on the river.
If you raise on the turn you might shut down all the action if the LP is bluffing, and certainly will knock one or both of the others off a weak flush. One reason they'll call on the flop and might well call on the turn is that the chance of the LP having a flush is so low. Your raise takes that reason away.
On the end, one of the callers will probably drop anyway, and I'd be surprised if the LP didn't have a club with which he could call. Thanks to your slowplay on the turn, the pot's also pretty big.
I can't decide whether I played this hand sensibly or like a raving maniac. The bottom line is I gambled and lost. My question is, was this a gamble that's ever worth taking?
It was folded to me in the cutoff and I raised w/88. The button re-raised and the blinds folded. Not to make this an overly long post, but I think the following is relevent:
In a previous hand, I slipped in before his button in a multi-way pot with A4s, he raised with what I'm now sure was a big pair. I had flopped 644. I bet the flop, he raised and I called. I led again on the turn, he raised, I re-raised, he called and paid me off on the river. Please keep this hand in mind when deciding whether I lost my mind on this hand.
Sorry. Back to this hand: It so happened that I had also been raising this player's button and sb pretty heavily this session. Because of this, I thought it likely he would re-raise me with a wider range of hands. I decided to cap it at 4 bets to add deception.
The flop came K43. I bet and he called. The turn was a K. I bet and he raised. I was now either severely behind or slightly ahead. I thought he would make this raise with just about any pocket pair or possibly even be making an outright play with nothing. I also thought if I re-raised and he did not have a K, he may now fold quite a few hands that beat me. I re-raised, he re-raised, I folded. He couldn't resist showing me his quad kings. Oops! So how bad did I play this? Also, I have purposely ommitted whether this flop was suited or not. This is because my next question is, would my play have been more correct or less correct if this flop was rainbow? I'd appreciate any comments. Good or bad. Thanks.
Kevin
What was the point of calling on the flop and then leading on the turn. If the flush hit were you going to check-fold? If you bet out on the turn then you have to muck if he raises. Otherwise, if he is a maniac, then just check call all the way. If he is bluffing and you raise then he will muck and you lose out on extra bets. If he has you beat then you pay the least amount to see it.
I think the only difference the flush draw makes is that is it a bit harder to let go of your hand on the turn if he is the type of player who is capable of semibluff raising you on the turn with just a flush draw.
"What was the point of calling on the flop and then leading on the turn"
I did not call the flop. I bet, and he called.
"If the flush hit were you going to check-fold?"
If the flop contained 2 suited cards, probably. I don't mean to be coy, but I'm just curious (if) the flop was 2 suited, what effect this should have had on playing the flop and turn.
"If he is bluffing and you raise then he will muck and you lose out on extra bets."
True. I lose out on extra bets. But even if he's bluffing, my hand is very vulnerable. Wouldn't you agree? And if he is a player who would raise a draw, then it costs me the same 3 bets anyway if I call him down. In addition, I may get him to lay down a better hand. A major drawback to this however, is that if he would now bet a busted draw on the river, it could be disasterous for me if I incorrectly fold.
Rarely do I play a hand in this fashion and I'm thinking I misplayed here. I was just curious if and/or when it would ever be correct to put more thought into the player/situation than possibly your own hand. Thanks Xavior, or responding.
"I did not call the flop. I bet, and he called."
I wasn't clear here. My question was why did you call his raise on the turn(rather than re-raise) and then bet out on the turn. If there is a no flush draw I would do what you did. I would call the raise and bet out on the turn, mucking when he raises. Otherwise check-call or check-fold on the turn. If he is on a draw(if there is a flush draw)it is ok to give a free card on the turn, given the uncertainty that you have the best hand
"If the flop contained 2 suited cards, probably. I don't mean to be coy, but I'm just curious (if) the flop was 2 suited, what effect this should have had on playing the flop and turn."
Well, I would be much more inclined to fold to a raise on the flop or turn if the board is rainbow. There is a K on the flop, so there is no way the other player can be raising for a free card on either overcards or a flush draw, meaning he is either on a pure bluff, overpair to your pair, or underpair to your pair. Unless he is a total maniac, it is unlikely he is 3 betting you before the flop with a pair lower than 8's or something like 65s, which would give him open ended. Again, if you want to play this hand to the end then check-call, otherwise muck if he raises.
"True. I lose out on extra bets. But even if he's bluffing, my hand is very vulnerable. Wouldn't you agree? And if he is a player who would raise a draw, then it costs me the same 3 bets anyway if I call him down. In addition, I may get him to lay down a better hand. A major drawback to this however, is that if he would now bet a busted draw on the river, it could be disasterous for me if I incorrectly fold."
I don't think your hand is particularily vulnurable. You are already beaten or your opponent has a big draw(flush draw). The draw is going nowhere no matter how many times you raise him(although you would get value). Obviously if you are beaten(in this case very badly) raising is also a bad idea. You are vulnurable to hands like QJ, JT, but do you really think your opponent was 3 betting you pre-flop and raising you on the flop with hands like that? Don't forget you capped it before the flop, showing great strength. When he raises you on the turn after you bet out again, he is telling you that he can beat top pair. You are playing like you have AK or AA. He is unlikely to raise you on a flush draw because it is likely that you will call. Now this only pertains if the player is decent. If he is a maniac then you are better off check-calling to the river. Save the raising wars for when you have a bigger hand.
It's a bit late so here are my thoughts...I am not reading this over so I hope this made sense.
>>In a previous hand, I slipped in before his button in a multi-way pot with A4s, he raised with what I'm now sure was a big pair. I had flopped 644. I bet the flop, he raised and I called. I led again on the turn, he raised, I re-raised, he called and paid me off on the river. Please keep this hand in mind when deciding whether I lost my mind on this hand.<<
You won't be running over this player.
>>The flop came K43. I bet and he called. The turn was a K. I bet and he raised. I was now either severely behind or slightly ahead. I thought he would make this raise with just about any pocket pair or possibly even be making an outright play with nothing. I also thought if I re-raised and he did not have a K, he may now fold quite a few hands that beat me.<<
But you tried to anyway. Your opponent seems pretty aggressive and it seems that if this player has any doubts he'd just call you down (like he did in the previous hand). I imagine that what you were trying to get your opponent to think was that every time you played very agreessively with a pair on board you had at least a set. IMO the trouble with this is that your opponent knows that you won't actually have at least a set all that often. I don't think it would have made a bit of difference if the flop was rainbow or not.
Interesting. So my psychology needs work.. Then when is the time you're more likely to run over a player? I would have thought it's when you've been playing aggressively and coming out on top. More so, than those times when you're getting edged.
You're right that since he called me down in the last hand, I could've reasoned that he'd call me down here as well. I thought about that. But then I considered that maybe the result of that hand would make him less likely to pay off a 2nd time. I also wanted to represent AA (or a K) in case he had QQ,JJ, or TT which were all hands he would have raised the turn with. I normaly don't make plays like this, but I thought in this one case it may have been worth a shot. Like I said, I guess my psychology needs a lot of work. Thanks Tom.
Kevin
Never try to represent a hand which your opponent won't put you on.
.
You made it four bets pre-flop, bet the flop and bet the turn. Now your opponent raises. He must figure you for a pretty strong hand. Yet he raises. Put him on a big hand and fold.
.
Kevin - weather you played the hand right is not the issue - since poker is an art and not a science it is the logic and thought process that goes into a hand and the analysis afterward. You certainly know why you played it the way you did and that is the key point in this - I am sure you would have played the hand differently against a different opponent - so you were playing the man and situation the way a good player does.
Cheers Mike
Well, it looks like he got his money back from the hand when your ace-rag snapped off his AA-KK-QQ whatever. :)
If you know that he is going to reraise you with a wider variety of hands, then why not settle back a little bit and be more selective in your raising? That way you can be sure that he will reraise you with what will likely be an inferior hand.
-SmoothB-
.
No names or positions here OK all the Aurora guys know the players to well.
10-20 game I have QJs in late mid position I call it's raised by a loose aggressive behind me one other caller so I'm in the hand for $20.
Flop KQx I am 1st to act I bet and am called by lose aggressive other player folds - no info here it seems these guys like to slow play big hands. Turn a blank I bet get raised by aggressive player I noticed he threw the chips in my direction - he usually just placed the chips out in front - I picked up on this and reraised him he called. I bet the blank turn he raised I re-riased and he mucked.
Normally I might have folded the 2nd pair med kicker but his action of throwing the chips in my direction prompted me to believe he was bluffing I was right this time.
Next time it might cost me some money.
Rounder,
I don't think that your river play is too correct. You have QJ on a board of KQxxx. Even if your read on the turn was correct, you stand to gain nothing by betting the river...if he really had nothing, he can't call your river bet. Maybe you know this guy well enough that you know he will bluff raise you on the river. But if that is the case, you can only call him down - you can't reraise. The reraise on the river makes even less sense than the bet on the river.
I like the way you picked up on the tell and like the way you acted on the turn as a result. But I don't like your river play at all.
Tell me what I am missing.
I thought his only play was to raise me - I thought he probably thought it was his only chance to win the pot so I bet thinking he would fold or raise when he raised I knew I had him I could have just called his reraise but I really didn't want to show this hand to the table since I out played this guy so badly. I just wanted to get it in the muck and scoop up the pot.
how much is not showing the table the hand worth?
because if you look at this hand in isolation skp is right that bet calling is better. but it is not that much better because your read will usually (say 19 out of 20 times) be right. so much does hiding your hand help you over the rest of the session? i don't know where to begin to look for an answer. can you quantify it at all? it definitely matters how early it is in your session. and if you are playing against strangers or people well known to you.
scott
quantify??? I was obeserving this guy a lot and his method of betting changed in the middle of our hand.
I put him on a bluff and played him as so - he may have had top pair bad kicker or middle pair and thought I was on top pair - although he said after the hand he had nothing - I picked up what I thought was a significant tell and acted on it.
Can't quantify that - that is a part of poker you can't put in a equasion.
not the tell part. the advertising part. or rather avoiding advertising. do you understand how certain factors make this more or less valuable? if you can't get a grasp on how much hiding your hand helps you then how can decide if it is worth playing slightly incorrect now for future benifits? i say this because if this was your last hand of poker ever your river reraise cost you money.
i don't need an equation. just a ballpark figure. do you think you expectation for the next hour increased by $5? $10? the reraise only cost you 1 or 2 bucks. can you argue that you can make that up over the next hour?
scott
Since this game we love is an art and not a science it is not necessary to quantify every decision in terms of precise EV - ball park was I expected +EV out of this hand and a bit less if I ahd to show it down.
During the hand the only thing I worried about was winning the hand. I knew he was bluffing and played it acordingly. Not having to show the hand down was a secondary problem but I just didn' want to have to show it if I didn't have to.
do you not agree that if this was the last hand you ever played that skp's argument for calling his river raise is correct?
poker is not an art and it is not a science. it is a game.
i know the way you played the hand was +ev relative to mucking preflop. but it was -ev relative to doing everything else the same and the calling instead of the last raise.
that is unless one of two things is true. one, your reads are never wrong. he absolutely had to have a worse hand than yours. two, showing this hand hurts your future ev more than just calling helps your current ev.
i am asking you to clarify this because this is something i rarely think about when i am playing. i almost never do anything knowingly suboptimal for advertsing.
scott
That would be true of live poker. However, the logic of web poker is different. If you were playing against software opponents, there would be no visual tells. The software will quantify all temporal tells.
Just another reason I don't play poker on-line.
Hey I dont see a dam thing wrong with deceptive aggressive play. I feel it will be the new age of player that replaces the tight aggressive player...Its bull to think you have to play by the book or odds... I feel all the great future players will all be masters at deceptive play and all the left brainers will be left in the wings in frustration saying to themselves ,"hey you cant do that is not in the book.. Good creative play Rounder.. jg
Tight/agressive play is useful as a common point of reference to experiment with alternative strategies. It's a good way to play when you first buy-in, and when you're playing from behind.
True, if he really is bluffing he won't call that reraise. If he wasn't bluffing you cost yourself at least one, maybe 2 more BB.
I have seen this tell but I have never seen anyone RAISE with it. I have seen people do this when they are calling, as if to say 'I know I can't win, take my donation.'
I have also seen this tell used in reverse a couple of times, but never from raisers, only callers.
Is it possible that you misinterpreted his 'tell'? I am wondering if he might have folded a better hand than you had.
-SmoothB-
would he have mucked when you reraised on the turn if he had top pair or middle pair? possibly. so it may not have been a tell that you picked up...it may be that you just bluffed him out.
I agree with you, actually my experience has been that the player doing this (betting at me as Rounder describes) has a good hand.
He told the guy next to him he had nothing - whatever that means.
you have AQo and raise utg. next player calls, all else fold. flop QT3 rainbow. u bet , he raise, u reraise. he calls. turn 8, no flush. u bet, he raises. how do you play now ?
personally, i wouldn't fold heads up with top pair unless there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Period.
would it change your mind if he was an solid player that figures he can outplay you ? wouldn't he have to respect your flop reraise and is now saying that he can even beat a pair of Aces or perhaps a set ? but at the same time you can't put him on anything specific.
i agree with what u r saying, absolutely; maybe it qualifies as overwhelming evidence. i play a lot of short handed against strong aggressive types. they will bulldoze someone that drops top pair heads up. but in this case u r proabably right.
if he were a strong player who thinks he can outplay me, I'd be more likely to put him on a weaker hand QJ for example. he raised on the flop with top pair, and got raised back. now, when the ten hits, it gives him a likely four more outs, so he semibluffs. I'd give more respect to a weaker player's raise in this spot.
I havnt read the others but hindsight is 20/20.A check on the turn can be the play here for many reasons.Now youve got to determine,and should have before you bet what you'd do if you got ck popped against this particular opponent.Typically your beat .Ask yourself if this player had a hand that could not beat AQ would he play it this way?.How well does he know your play.What would he call your preflop raise with?Is he prone to taking a shot at you because you lay alot of big hands down?Knowing your opponent and your take on what he thinks of you are important.In middle limits you can eliminate alot of tough decisions here by cking the turn and if he bets the river call and if he cks. the river bet,and if he ck raises the river call.Against a typical player I lay it down on the turn unless of course I pick up a flush draw.
He has QT or possibly a set if he is a good player if not he may have KQ I think you have to see the river now check call - if I were to NOT continue in this hand has a lot to do with what I think of this player I'd muck on the reraise on the flop to a tight passive player and not think one thing of it. But if I continue I am check calling all the way.
This player showed J9s. I'm not sure why he would call my raise with this hand, but I still insist he was a top player in this game. Better than I anyway.
He should have pocket 10 .....or maybe 9-J ....but if calls a raise with 9-J , he's playing dangerously ...
He probably sewing seeds of doubt in your mind and every one else at your table to ensure future action on his good hands.
Without looking at the previous posts or results, when I am heads-up I am not going to lay down top pair, top kicker period. They are simply going to have to show me a better hand. I don't care how well or bad they play. Against a very aggressive opponent in this situation when he has position I would be more inclined to play my hand passively, ie. check and call, and let him bluff his money.
Bruce
I check call the rest of the way but this is one of my leaks. He would bet the hand this way if he had j-9 but you said he was a good player and I'm not sure a good player would cold call 2 bets from an utg raiser when he, also, was in early position. I wouldn't do it suited unless I was the BB. John
I usually muck here, since your three bet on the flop looks like an overpair and still your opponent doesn't seem daunted. It's rare to find your hand good in a spot like this, although I'll be the first to admit it does happen-- particularly against solid players, who are capable of bettting the hell out of an inferior holding. But against most passive players you will be up against at least top two, which means you've 8 outs IF that's what they have. If it's a set your drawing dead. If the pot is large-- say, over 10 BB's-- you're probably stuck calling and at least looking at the river. But in a heads up pot against 'most' bad players you're not losing anything by mucking here.
Note that while most solid players would have three bet TT or QQ and mucked 33, you can be fairly sure that a solid player doesn't have a set-- he probably has QT, which is still a marginal holding but probably the only thing you can put him on. But, against bad players who stubbornly refuse to three bet anything but AA or KK pre-flop you could be shown down damn near anything-- from QQ or TT to, say, 33 or Q3s.
I was wondering when someone would post the best response.
d
Most people correctly consider slowplaying taboo. I'm curious how many of you will find serious fault with this particular slowplay.
After 4 limpers the BB (a very good player), checked his option with 92o. The flop came 622r. It was checked around. The turn was an off 9. Again it was checked around. The river was a Q and the BB checked again! There was a bet and a very solid player raised. After some deliberation the BB called 2 cold and the first bettor called. The first bettor had QJ, the raiser had KQ. Comments?
Brilliant, no. Probably the best way to play it against fairly tight players, yes.
Well, I guess brilliant is a relative term. What seems brilliant to me, is probably routine thought for you.
I just really liked the 5th street check in particular. In my experience, most players would not have the discipline to check again here. Of course, going for the overcall rather than making it 3 bets seems pretty routine, since both players would now likely fold. In fact, I thought the 1st bettor made a terrible overcall. There was almost no chance he could've had the best hand.
Kevin there are times to slow play and this is one of them - the flop was the kind that looks like it is taylor made for an unraised small blind. As a matter of fact I hit almost an identical hand in the bb last week. I didn't fill up but I had trip 2's on the flop I checked the flop and called the bet bet and called the raise on the turn and bet and raised the river.
Turned out I beat some guy slow playing AA for the get go. Now that IS a mistake slow playing AA as i would have certainly folded these rags to a raise.
Who considers slowplaying taboo? That is nonsense. Slowplaying is one of the most powerful weapons at your disposal! I think the problem is that some people don't do it properly.
I use slowplaying all the time. The reason is this:
1) If I am in a hand, I am almost always doing one of a few things. They are:
a) Taking control of the hand when I have top pair-good kicker or over pair type hands - or raiswing good draws for value
b) Checking and calling with draws if I think rasing or betting out will knock players out, because they are afraid of my reputation as outlined in A
c) Slowplaying
d) Checking and calling the turn because I have a hand that warrants taking one card off cheaply on the turn, usually because the pot is too large to fold for one small bet.
Now, C is an incredibly powerful weapon, because if you are known to do it, people will become afraid of your calls and you'll get more free cards when situation D arises.
There is another observation I have had. I should come up with a name for this principle - we'll call it Smooth B's Leveling Effect for now. Put simply, it goes like this:
On the flop, the number of bets required to see the turn card will often be the same regardless of who gets the first bet in. In other words, if you flop top top pair top kicker (say with AQ) in early position, it is going to get bet by someone else if not by you. The more important concern is HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL CALL THE BET AND/OR RAISES. That is dictated by WHO put that bet in.
If a loose/aggressive player puts a bet in, people will not respect that bet much and will be more inclined to call. If a stone killer bets, people are more inclined to fold. So you use the OTHER PLAYERS and the betting to either thin the field or keep people in. The amount of money going into the pot takes care of itself!
Ok, so if you flop top pair top kicker in early position, and you have a tight solid image, bet. Your bet will be respected and people will fold.
If you have a bigger hand - let's say you have JT suited and the flop comes TT5 rainbow - let the loose aggressive guy bet. This will keep overcards around. The betting is the same, but by using him, you keep people in the pot and make more money from just calling than from raising or betting.
Now look at what you have set up for yourself. People notice that you slowplay a lot, and when they see you check and call it will terrify them. You will get more free cards this way.
Now, the important thing is to know WHEN to use a slowplay effectively. Many people that slowplay don't do it right. It is NEVER correct to slowplay AA in a multiway pot, and it is practically suicide to try to do so.
Flopping top pair top kicker is only good enough to slowplay if you are headsup or 3 handed. More than that, no way.
Flopping a good hand - set - 2 pair - with a connected board (2 flush or connecting cards) is not only not good enough to slowplay, but it is very wrong to do so. You will get callers if anyone has a draw or top pair, and you can't afford to let anyone draw for free. Also, a set is well hidden. Furthermore, people might assume that YOU are betting your flush or straight draws, and you might well get raised by top pair top kicker.
In summary, I would like to stress the fact that the number of bets/raises is usually going to be about the same, regardless of who did the betting/raising. The more important concern is how many people will call the bets and raises, and that is dictated by who is doing the betting and raising and what their reputations are.
If you want to thin the field, do the betting/raising yourself. Or if you want to take control of the hand, same. But if you want to keep callers in and build a bigger pot, let someone with a looser reputation do the betting for you.
Here is an example of an Omaha - 8 or better hand I was in.
I had AA2x in early position. I just called because I knew that a loose player would raise preflop and I wanted to play this hand multiway.
Lots of callers. Flop comes AA 5. Great - 2 low cards, so someone will call. I check, loose player bets out, all but 2 call.
Turn comes an 8. Low is there. Now I bet out - I am representing a made low now, so potential high hands will still call. Now loose player raises, a few callers (there was a 2 flush on board) and a reraise from late position. Looks like a cap wont chase anyone away, and I just seem low, so I go ahead and cap it.
Same thing happens on the river, I bet, it gets capped, I split the pot with the late position player who had nut low.
The point:
1) You must sometimes play tricky so that your opponents won't be able to read you too well
2) The number of bets-raises on the flop is usually going to be the same no matter who gets that first bet in, so don't worry about getting money in the pot. It's the number of competitors left when the betting's done that's important. In fact, you might get one more raise in when you have a huge hand if you let a loose player bet, and let a late position player raise him.
3) Slowplaying lets you get more free cards when you need them.
4) If you add deception to your game by going the other way, being too aggressive, it will have the following consequences:
a) You won't be able to thin the field as effectively when you need to
b) It is costly
c) You won't get as many free cards
Let's face it, in poker you are far more often in situations where you need to thin the field, than when you want to keep people in, right? So if you have a reputation for having your bets and raises be well respected, you can thin the field when you want to. And if you don't bet, someone else will do it anyway.
-SmoothB-
So what do you think of the BB's play?
I think both the BB's play and the late position player's play were both pretty bad.
Checking the flop is fine if the board was rainbow. Checking the turn was a mistake.
It reminds me of a hand I saw once - a player in the BB had TT. Flop came JTT with 2 of one suit. He checked, it got checked around.
On the turn, he checked again. Checked around.
On the RIVER he checked again! Checked all the way around. A couple of people in the hand had made pairs along the way and probably would have called a bet somewhere down the line.
He did not make one penny in the hand, and the tragic thing is that there were some passive calling stations in the hand that would likely have called with overcards, ace high, any pair, etc.
Slowplaying is one thing, but there's a limit on how far to go with it! It's better to bet the river and try to get at least a LITTLE money for a big hand than to get zip!
Here is one hand that I 'slowplayed' - and I think I played this hand brilliantly. Ok, that sounds conceited - sorry. Don't take it the wrong way.
I was playing short handed. I got QQ in the BB. 2 limpers, i raised, both called.
Flop came Q x x. Now, When I raise from early position with AK, I will vary my play. Sometimes I will bet out. Other times I will check, but then again I often check AA when a ragged flop comes looking for a checkraise. So when I bet out I could have AA, AK, KK, or QQ, etc. But if I check sometimes, I could have AK or AA. I do this so people won't know where to put me all the time.
So I bet this Q hi flop. I got one caller, and 1 folded. I considered slowplaying top set, but realized by betting I might get put on AK.
On the turn another Q came! Now I had quads. Huzzzah! I checked. I wanted my opponent to think I just had AK so that if another blank came I could bet, representing nut no pair as a bluff, and get called by any pair.
My opponent also checked.
River came a blank, I bet, he called. I turned over quads and took down a pot that I never could possibly have made a single extra dollar on.
In your example, I think the late position player made a huge misplay by raising. The bettor could have had AQ, and he must have considered that the BB might be slowplaying a deuce. Or the mid position player could have had a deuce, who knows?
I don't understand why the BB didn't make it 3 bets. It seems very unlikely that either of the other 2 would have a better hand. Also, with a raiser and a caller the mid position bettor should have folded his hand. And if he'd call one more bet he might call 2.
A call from the late postion raiser was pretty mandatory.
So I don't see how the BB could have made less money by raising, but he could have made more.
In general, going for an overcall is dumb if there is only one other player besides the initial bettor/raiser. The person left to act may or may not call 1 bet, but the initial bettor almost certainly will.
-SmoothB-
"I think the late position player made a huge misplay by raising."
I don't understand why you think this. Isn't it likely that he beats the first bettor's Q (in an unraised pot) and figures his raise to be called?
"He did not make one penny in the hand, and the tragic thing is that there were some passive calling stations in the hand that would likely have called with overcards, ace high, any pair, etc."
The key here is passive calling stations. I agree it's almost never correct to check through against these players. But there was no such animal in this hand. Had the BB bet the flop OR turn, he would not have made a dime. If he bets the river he (might) be lucky enough to collect 2 bets intead of the 4 that he did get by checking.
"The bettor could have had AQ, and he must have considered that the BB might be slowplaying a deuce."
But by your own reasoning, how can you consider that someone who has checked the flop, turn, AND river is slowplaying a deuce?
"I don't understand why the BB didn't make it 3 bets. It seems very unlikely that either of the other 2 would have a better hand."
Exactly. Which is why if he 3 bets, they either both fold or he will somehow find himself beat and be looking at 4 bets.
"Also, with a raiser and a caller the mid position bettor should have folded his hand. And if he'd call one more bet he might call 2."
I agree it was bad enough that he overcalled. No way does he call a re-raise.
"In general, going for an overcall is dumb if there is only one other player besides the initial bettor/raiser. The person left to act may or may not call 1 bet, but the initial bettor almost certainly will."
If the BB makes it $120, they both fold. Period. QJ is hopeless and KQ knows he's beat. There was no way for him to make any more $$$ from these players on this hand. btw- What did the other player have in your quad queen hand?
You make some interesting points. Your play of letting a loose/aggressive bet your hand so that a later player will raise him is very astute under the right circumstance.
However, to be concerned only with the (number) of players, rather than the (number) of outs and/or types of hands against you, is a mistake. I think it often does matter a great deal who does the betting and raising.
I also have to question your blanket assumption that people will become terrified of your check/calls on the flop. While this may be true of a weaker player, rarely will a top player incorrectly check because he is overly consumed with a fear of being check/raised or slowplayed. I think you might be confusing this with checking good hands on the turn, which is often correct after betting the flop. But the KEY is betting the flop (notice it DOES matter who bets). Now your semi-bluffs are slightly more apt to get a free card if you are known to check/raise the turn more than occasionally.
You've obviously put much thought into this and I'm sure the amount of thinking you've done can only serve to make you a much better player than the majority of your opponents. Good luck to you.
Kevin
Thanks for the response.
I should point out that this is a play that doesn not come up very often - I don't want to make it sound like I do this kind of thing every fourth hand I'm in, for example.
Usually I do it when I flop a big hand and I'm not afraid of anyone sucking out.
A good example is when I flop trips.
If there is a player in the game that will almost ALWAYS bet a flop that contains a pair if he's checked to, I will check if he remains to act after me.
Let's say the flop is K JJ rainbow and I have QJ suited in early position.
Now I check , because I know that that player will almost certainly bet if he's checked to. Now a late position player with KQ may very well raise him, knowing that the chances are slim that he has trips. I call both bets cold.
Now I can checkraise the turn, depending on how many people this might knock out, etc.
No, this play does not come up often, because I rarely flop anything better than one pair if I flop anything at all. My stats for flopping 2 pair, sets, and trips are below the statistical norm (I've been keeping track) for the last few months.
I should also point out that sometimes I WILL bet out with trips even if I think it would get bet anyway. Again, because of the leveling effect, roughly the same amount of money will go into the pot - I just like to change up my play and not play the same hand the same way all the time.
-SmoothB-
"Now I can checkraise the turn, depending on how many people this might knock out, etc."
Going for a checkraise in this situation is very risky. With the flop KJJ rainbow if the flop raiser is a good player he will not bet again unless he has you beat. with no flush draw, your cold-call on the flop is screaming trips. He can also pretty much eliminate QT since you probably wouldn't call pre-flop with that hand in early position and you also would't call on the flop unless the pot is huge. Q-T is drawing dead to J9, KJ, AJ among others. Most likely he has a hand like KQ and won't bet it, or will muck it if you check-raise him. What do you think about my assessment Smooth? I usually play 20-40 and most of the players do not fall for the smooth call on the flop, c-r on the turn when there is a pair on the board.
Well, I can say one thing for sure - if these players will never bet top pair on the turn when a pair is on board, because they are afraid of my smooth call, I want to get in that game.
If I had QT (very unlikely in early position :) ) in that game, IE I flopped an open ender, and I smooth called, his check on the turn will allow me to draw at my straight for free. That wold be great!
You must acknowledge the fact that, if a pair hits the board, it is that much more unlikely that someone is holding one of those cards - especially if it is a tight game and the pair isn't A's K's or Q's.
If you are ALWAYS afraid of someone having trips when they smooth call you are playing too timidly.
I more often than not assume that NO ONE has one of that pair (unless it's A K or Q) and proceed accordingly, albeit somewhat more cautiously than normal. But most of the time no one will have one that that rank.
So if I flop an open ender with a pair on board, and I smooth call, it doesn't ALWAYS mean that I am slowplaying trips. But sometimes I am. But if you just check through the turn every time you'll let me draw for free.
-SmoothB-
"Well, I can say one thing for sure - if these players will never bet top pair on the turn when a pair is on board, because they are afraid of my smooth call, I want to get in that game."
Well it depends on the pair. You called preflop in early position. Many of the hands you would limp with contain a J. If the board was 322 I dont think they would be worried about you having trips.
"If I had QT (very unlikely in early position :) ) in that game, IE I flopped an open ender, and I smooth called, his check on the turn will allow me to draw at my straight for free. That wold be great!"
Yes it would. The chance that you would call pre-flop and on the flop with QT are pretty slim. It is ok to check the turn when you are very likely to be beat.
"You must acknowledge the fact that, if a pair hits the board, it is that much more unlikely that someone is holding one of those cards - especially if it is a tight game and the pair isn't A's K's or Q's."
You can add J's to the mix. Many people limp in early position with hands like KJ, QJ, AJ, JTs, etc.
"If you are ALWAYS afraid of someone having trips when they smooth call you are playing too timidly."
If the board was A44 with 2 diamonds I would not be afraid of trips. With the flop of KJJ rainbow I am afraid of trips. Assuming that you are a good player, it is unlikely for you to have called preflop with QT and also unlikely for you to call a raise cold with a flop of KJJ. Are you saying that your opponents should bet the turn in case you are playing poorly and hold exactly QT in your hand? That is the only hand you could hold that they could beat.
"So if I flop an open ender with a pair on board, and I smooth call, it doesn't ALWAYS mean that I am slowplaying trips. But sometimes I am. But if you just check through the turn every time you'll let me draw for free."
Given my hand analysis it is very unprobably that you have an open-ender. So yes, I would check the turn and let you draw for free that tiny % of the time you are open-ended and do not have trips.
'You can add J's to the mix. Many people limp in early position with hands like KJ, QJ, AJ, JTs, etc.'
I would love to get into a game where many people do this. In the types of games I've been in lately I won't play a single one of these hands UTG - except perhaps JT suited if the game has become a bit loose and passive. But the games I play in have been so aggressive preflop lately, and fairly tight, so I won't touch a single one of these hands UTG. I wish other people would though!
-SmoothB-
I agree, in a tight, agressive game, those hands are big losers UTG. However, even at the 20-40 level many players will play those hands regardless of position. If everyone played the way the people on this forum do then who the hell would we make money off of?
Great post SmoothB...I was wondering if keeping track of your sets trips and two pairs helps explain performance flucuations.You said you were flopping below the statistical norm.Question do you win less money in this cycle.thanks ...jerry....
Yes I have been winning a bit less than usual despite my cold streak. I only have about 2/3 winning sessions for the last few weeks. I was averaging over 1 BB per hour for a few months, so I suspected that my diminished winnings were a result of coming off of a hot streak. But I have been flopping at a lower rate than normal - IE AK should flop at least a pair 1 time in 3 - it's more like 25%.
I just keep my game focused and tight. When I get KJ offsuit and there are 4 limpers I don't give in to temptation and play this hand.
-SmoothB-
I agree that decisions to slowplay are best when based on what your perceived tendencies are. Sounds like you've got it worked out well for your game. The biggest thing you sacrifice is giving free cards to hands that would fold if there was action, but could easily beat you, or pick up a draw that makes it right for them to draw on the turn.
With my game, I think its best to not slowplay in multi-way pots (five or more), especially if there was a preflop raise. Even though I don't see many flops, they know I'll do some posturing on the flop by betting out from the blind with marginal hands if the flop is scattered or paired and the pot is worth going after. Two overcards will often take one off, so will any pair. Lots of times other marginal hands will raise me, trying to isolate against what they hope is a move, and then a draw or two might play anyway, and then I three bet, and we're off!!
Tommy
More money is to be made by stealing than slowplaying in a typical game. Be aggressive at all times, forget about slowplaying except on tiny pots and nonvulnerable (not necessarily big) hands. Slowplaying is a waste of time (the term implies slowness, doesn't it?), money, image and mind. Pound-pound-pound and avoid information leak caused by check-calling. Make them reluctant to gamble against you. Balancing your plays is most important in hold'em.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
That is the question.
If this particular play won him the biggest possible pot he could have won with that hand, then I think he played it right. Depending on the opponents though, he perhaps should have bet the flop. If the game was very tight, then checking the flop might be OK. Otherwise, he really didn't have a slowplaying hand on the flop. Turn yes, flop no.
However, once the turn gave him the full, slowplaying was definitely the correct move. He is unlikely to get beaten at this point, short of a miracle card hitting someone's pocket pair tens or higher (unlikely given the action). he is pretty much sitting pretty at that point when the nine hits the turn.
smooth calling the river was probably the best move he made, since reraising would have probably made both bettors drop. Therefore he probably made one extra BB by smooth calling the river.
dave in cali
Loose 10-20 game.
I have AQs 2 off the button. An unknown limps and a loose passive type ("LP") also limps (he had played K-8off in the previous hand), both in middle position. I raise. All fold (including blinds) to the limpers who call.
Flop is K-K-J rainbow, one of my suit. Check to me. I bet, first limper folds, LP calls. Turn is a rag, fourth suit. LP checks. Would you bet here? I checked.
Turn is a 10. LP bets. Would you raise or call?
He can't put you on a flush draw, and it's unlikely he'll put you on exactly AQ (or Q9), so he's probably just betting his two pair or trips. I'd say there is a better than 55% chance you have him beat. I believe this is what is needed for a raise on the end.
GB
I'd just call. A loose limper could easily have KJ or even KT (you've already seen him in with worse than KT). He might have AK (is he is passive enough not to raise with it pre-flop?) or KQ. Since you didn't bet on the turn (not that I think your check was wrong) we have some missing information. He may have hoped to check-raise with a king.
If you assume he has a King it's probably about 50-50 that he has you beat and if he does he will definitely raise you. If you raise then about half the time you'll get one more bet (assuming he doesn't fold) and half the time you'll have to pay two more bets (assuming you don't fold). Maybe the fact that you can fold to a raise and the chance that he bet on the end with a T (or was in with some crap like K7) make raising closer to the correct play, but it seems to me that over the long run this is a better situation to call in?
Regards,
Paul Talbot
The K-8 hand prejudiced me so I raised. He had 10-10. Oops.
I think I should have just called.
This exact hand (almost) happened to me last night. I have QJ, flop comes Q high rags, I bet, get a couple of callers. Turn comes K. Being in middle position, I check, it gets checked around. River comes a 6. The first guy bets! Always too slow to put people on sets, I call him down. He shows 66 and takes the pot.
Had I bet the turn, he wouldn't have seen the river. Had you bet the turn, there's a very good chance he wouldn't have stuck around either.
Is this too simplistic a view to take, or is it a valid method of play?
GB
Not really. The turn bet is the key. As Bob Ciaffone writes, you gotta "shake off them sand fleas". However, your situation is markedly different than his. Many people will call with a medium-large pair when the board is paired. In his case, I suspect that the 10-10 hand would've called, but in your case, a turn bet by you would've dropped the 6-6.
A better play for the A-Q would've been to give it up on the flop. Furthermore, once I've got a bunch of limpers in, I'm very much less inclined to raise with A-Q near or on the button preflop (this is also discussed in HPFAP). That flop of K-K-x didn't exactly fit his hand -- if he'd just limped, he could've easily tossed it without a fight. Limping late with A-Q also has the added bonus of disguising your hand when you flop a big one.
Earl: Good points overall. I agree that his situation is very different -- I would have bet my QJ there. I mix in the limp with AQ sometimes but even HPFAP says (if I recall) that when the players are really bad (e.g. K-8off in middle position), you probably should raise these kinds of hands just because they are likely to be so much better than your opponents'. I think this is covered in the chapter on playing in loose games. I usually regret it when I don't raise a hand like AQ with two weak limpers in. SW
If he was too afraid to reraise you then I think a raise was still the right play. If this player would 3 bet with any full house then probably just call.
You say you raised the river, and then oops, he had a full house. Did he reraise on the river? If so, did you call? That's the key in my opinion. I'd raise on the river too, but only if I was willing to fold if he three bet. You've got the best of everything that way.
As to the turn, I'd bet there for sure. Lots of reasons. In case I have the best hand. In case he might fold an underpair. But mainly, so that I can check the river and not get bluffed out after checking the turn.
Tommy
Without looking. I probably would have bet the turn. If he has anything but a K I think he folds. He might stay with QQ or AA but I think even a LP would raise those. If he has AJ he might stay even though he might be drawing dead.
Do you think this guy had KT or TT? If that was your sense then I would just call. If not then I would raise. If he's LP as you say then he's probably got the boat, but you have to pay him off anyway.
Stephen
I will usually just call in these situations. I don't see much profit in raising.
I tend to look at betting and raising a little different than most people do anyway. As far as I'm concerned, betting is raising is mostly important as a means of 'crowd control' - ie, allowing various people to do the betting or calling, and using their personalities to control the number of callers and they types of hands callers will stay with. IE, let a LA player do the betting when I flop a big, not too vulnerable hand, and do the betting - raising myself when I flop a hand that is more vulnerable, like top pair good kicker, etc.
On the river, there is often just no point to raising whatsoever, unless you are VERY VERY sure that you have the winner. And it is often important to just check and call with the nuts if your raise would knock out potential callers.
Betting on the river is only really useful to send the message that ' you will have to pay at least 2 more BB after the flop to see my hand in a showdown'. Or if you have a hand that, if you bet, you are quite sure that your opponent has a lesser hand and will call with it. If neither of the those conditions are true, your bet does not have positive EV.
If I am in first position, and I have a big hand and I suspect that my opponent/s missed their draws, I will seldom bet. Why should I? They won't call if I'm right, and if they have a bigger hand than I gave them credit for, it will cost me the same or save me money.
And I might induce a bluff where they otherwise would not have called.
See SmoothB's Leveling Effect for more info.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB wrote:
"If I am in first position, and I have a big hand and I suspect that my opponent/s missed their draws, I will seldom bet. Why should I? They won't call if I'm right, and if they have a bigger hand than I gave them credit for, it will cost me the same or save me money.
And I might induce a bluff where they otherwise would not have called."
While this is of course correct on its face, IMO, many players misapply this principle in practice.
Yes, there are times when your opponent is on an obvious draw and you may as well check to try to induce a bluff. But these situations are rare. In particular, it is rare to induce bluffs by checking the river after having shown power on the flop and turn. After all, your opponent is not likely to put you on a "check and fold" and is therefore unlikely to bluff.
Lastly, if the board is such that you think your opponent may be on a draw, there is a good chance that your opponent (while holding something like bottom pair) will also think that *you* are bluffing with the same draw that you thought he had. He may look you up with that dinky little pair.
IMO, value betting the river is preferable to trying to induce bluffs in all but the most obvious of "bluff inducing" situations.
I should elaborate a little here.
Inducing bluffs is, as you correctly state, not the main purpose in checking the river.
But what can happen is this.
There are many players who, figuring you for aces, will wait to raise on the river if they can beat aces. I don't think this is smart, but they do it anyway. If I strongly suspect that this is the case, I will check and call the river.
This can also do the following - let's say I have aces. The flop comes king high. I bet the flop get called. I bet the turn get called. Now, on the river, i check. My opponent will bet his king here because I often play QQ or JJ the same way. He might think hard and fold a king if his kicker is not an ace.
If I have AK and someone calls my preflop raise, and then checks and calls to me all the way to the river, I will almost always bet the river even if I don't improve my aces/kings because the chances are very good that he has the same pair with a weaker kicker and will call with a worse hand.
I usually study pretty carefully and try to detect if a certain card improves their hand.
-SmoothB-
Making thin value bets or raises on the river is one of my overlays. It means that you will "consistently" with these moves but not as much as if you were 100% sure. Inducing bluffs is usually meaningless on the river. Inducing them on the turn is far more useful.
I apologize if this has been covered before. It seems to me it must have, but if so, I somehow missed it.
I'm not sure I am correctly valuing small pocket pairs in late/middle or early/late position. I tend to give them about the same value as I would AXs (is this way off?). So for instance, if there is 1 'decent' caller and I'm in the cutoff, I'll usually pass on a pocket pair up to 66 on the basis that there does not figure to be enough implied odds present to flop a set. I realize you don't necessarily need to flop a set, but that's why I specified 'decent' or 'tough' player. One who might not relinquish control even when 66 may be the best hand at the moment. This, along with the fact that you don't have the last word pre-flop, and the overwhelming chance of overcards, seem to offset much of your positional advantage (and unless you are specifically on the button, you may not even have last position). Does anyone feel I am giving up too much by folding here? If so, can you give some examples of why? Thanks.
Kevin
On the other hand, I can see where they might have some slight long term profit. You WILL have position a fair amount of the time. You also figure to have a better read on your early position opponent than visa-versa. Because of this, when you add some of the possible straights your hand can make to the mix, this should allow you to play in a much stronger manner, thereby collecting more bets than you otherwise would be able to. Is this enough to push a small pocket pair from the red into the black? I'm sure there are other (more correct) reasons. I'd be very interested to hear a few. Thanks again.
Kevin
This is a very tricky hand to play. Generally I don't think you are giving up too much by passing. It might even be the +EV play. I will frequently pass in a situation like this. Sometimes I will limp. I have a tight image so when I limp players are not as inclined to raise behind me. What I want to avoid is limping and then have someone raise behind me. Therefore a lot has to do with your assessment of the game. Raising is sometimes a good option. If you get your fair share of respect when you raise and you can buy the button and get the pot heads-up or three way with a blind then this becomes a good option. If your opponent doesn't flop and he will giveup on the flop then this becomes a really good play. To summarize playing small to medium pocket pairs is very difficult. A lot really has to do with the dynamics of your game and I don't think there really is a cookbook typed approach with these hands.
Bruce
Kevin I value a small pocket pair a lot more than a lot of other hands including AXs and depending on the game I would just about play them from anywhere - the exception to this is a really aggressive game where I might have to see a cap in order to see a flop - when you flop the set it is really hidden and your chances of winning a big pot are great. When you don't it is really easy to get away from.
Rounder:
I agree with what you say. But I was specifically talking about situations where you know you aren't going to get a lot of players and it might even be raised (or re-raised if you put in the first raise) behind you. Add to this an aggressive but good player in front of you where it might be hard to determine if your best and these pairs can put you in some very difficult situations. Also, since the pot figures to be short handed you don't get excessive action from flopping a set unless the early player happens to also flop big.
I also respectfully disagree that it's often correct to play any pair from any position depending on the game. There are some games which play passive and loose enough for this to be correct. But in my experience, most mid-limit games ($10-$20 and up) are sufficiently aggressive enough to where playing 44 from an early position will almost certainly be a losing proposition.
Kevin
Playing small pocket pairs up front is a losing play, unless the game is very passive. In most of the games I play in the pot is raised so I can't play my hand for a single bet and rarely will I get multiway action which I am looking for.
Bruce
Kevin the "depending on the game" IS a loose or tight (key word) passive - getting in for one, max 2 bets with your tiny pair is OK by me and I specially WANT a good player in front of me or for that matter behind me - the hardest hand to put someone on (at least for me) is a smallish set. I wouldn't play them early in an aggressive game where it was liable to be capped back to me
Some times you flop open ended draws with 2 of the rank you are a fav and open ended you are in danger if you hit your set but if the straight hits you usually have it all to yourself.
Of course if you miss the flop they are really easy to dump.
I guess this is a matter of different styles for different players/games. If you are a much better player than your opponents (which I'm very sure YOU are), then I guess you figure to profit from these pairs in the long run. But my situation is slightly different.
In most of the games I play in (more so in 20-40 than 10-20), there figures to be a pre-flop raise which will likely create a short handed pot. If so, why would I play a low pocket pair from early position knowing I'm not likely to get the implied odds needed to flop a set? I agree very much with Malmuth when he says that you will need MORE implied odds than your chances of actually flopping a set, for those times you flop a set and lose!
Kevin
KJ I am not playing hands like this in an aggressive game like you describe - maybe later (position) with a biggish field I'll call one raise with the baby pairs knowing if I spike one (for a set) I could be in for a monster pot with a well hidden hand.
See the thread, "More Isolation Foolishness" on the General Theory forum. See also the threads on "Small hidden sets" and "Dearth of apparent knowledge" in the "General" Texas hold-em forum.
Kevin,
In the games that you and I seem to play in, I personally like 2 or more callers in front of me with the confidence that the blinds will also play. I also like to have the comfort of having a few passive calling stations to my left to help give me the numbers the hand needs.
I know most will advocate that the loose players be on the right, but I frequently find myself in situations where I have the overly agressive players on my right and the calling stations on the left. Under these circumstances, I have a tendency to play the pocket pairs 66 and higher from late middle position with no raise in front of me ... and hoping I have a good read on the players behind me and that they are not planning on raising.
I generally only play 22, 33, 44, 55 from the button with no raise and 4 or more players. I will raise with them on the button in these situations about every 10th time or so to mix up my play.
In regards to 88, I will usually call from middle position or later. In regards to 99, I used to raise but now I find calling in early position is a great way to play the hand. In late position with 99 and 1 or less players in, I will usualy raise in these situations.
I do not think mucking the 66 hand in the situation you described is bad at all. I believe it to probably be the best play most of the time.
I will add one of the most important things to this that I believe to be true - I believe the read one has on his opponents is so important that it usually outlines which borderline hands I will play and from where. Personally, position with the hand and the read on the opponent is almost as important as the hand itself.
Just some thoughts...
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike D)
Mike,
I see no difference between a set of 2's vs a set of 6's set over set rarely happen and your chances of winning with a set of eigther (or in between) are just about as great. 6's and below rarely win on their own so I kind of put them in the same category.
As for the number of opponents I agree with your assessment of the limpers in front and calling stations behind.
BUT
I also like just one opponent (maybe this goes back to my NL HE tournament experiences) with the smallish pairs. Basically I'm a small fav to anything but an over pair (to my smallish pair) and I "feel" confident I can out play anyone from the flop, now I know I can't outplay everyone from the flop but I have to "think" I can like any combatant you can't get in the ring thinking you are not better than the guy you are against - if you feel dominated you might as well pack up and go home.
Rounder:
I think there ARE some slight differences between 66 and 22.
For one thing, you cannot flop an overpair with 22.
Another is that when both you and an opponent make a straight, there are many more ways to have the winning one with 66, while the best you can hope for is a chop (against another str8) with 22.
Lastly, even thought it's rare, set over sets do occurr. When it does, you will almost certainly find yourself on the losing end with 22.
All of these things might be minor, but at least worth some consideration.
Kevin
I totally agree with your assessment.
But I get some wierd satisfaction with a pair of 2's and the flop comes AK2 and I have a couple of solid players on the line for 2 more streets.
Last hand they ever put me on is a set of 2's - but your point is well taken - maybe it's the maniac in me tying to get out.
I tend to pass on a large variety of maginal hands but like to play the smallish pairs cuz of the power of a set and deceptive nature of them.
15-30 game I'm on the button with A-3 diamonds. folded to two in front of me who raises. cut off mucks. Normally I don't play this unless...well, you know the whole deal: big field, cheap limp, etc., but in this case the raiser was winning and on big time happy tilt. He had shown down (and won with) 6-4 type hands and could have been on 7-2 off if first in at that point. I called. I think this was my big mistake. I should have re-raised. I went through some stupid mind disfunction where I wanted the blind in. stupid, stupid, stupid. anyway, SB mucks and BB calls.
Flop comes 3-5-10 rainbow with one dimond.
BB checks, raiser bets and I raise.
As per before, he could have anything here. I figured my high card had some value against this guy, but despite the draws, I wanted to shut out the blind.
Blind calls (uh oh), raiser three bets it. I call.
Now I think he may have something.
turn is Q diamond.
he bets we call.
river will be revealed later so as not to bias anyone's thinking. My questions are: 1) should I have re-raised or mucked preflop? I've already decided that smooth calling was the last choice, but if you agree here, please say so.
2) was my flop play correct?
whoops, can't type, I guess.
Results river was a beautiful 6diamonds. raiser bet, I raised BB mucked raiser called and i got to hear the suckout king complain about being sucked out on when he turned over Q10 off. getting to hear this may have swung the EV of all my bad plays to positive!
Just like I posted. Another rag diamond is coming. Well, congrat's on taking down a nice pot, but don't confuse your good luck with good play.
How come nobody ever posts hands where they make borderline or outright bad choices and they end up losing 3 or 4 BB's just like they should. I'm just as guilty as most; I like to talk about the successes rather than the failures. Sure, this guy made a poor raise with junk. Well, LET HIM DO IT. You'll get your chances to punish him with a good hand. Why expose yourself to a big swing with a hand just about as bad as his?
Raising with QTo in the back does not qualify for a poor raise in my book with no ohter participants.
Bruce
I realize that he's first in, but he's got to knock out two players to get the button, plus there's the matter of two blinds. IMO, it's not the worst raise imaginable, but assuming he does have a better hand than the folders up to him, what are the chances of Q-To being the best hand of the four remaining players? I understand that there is going to be some psychology and one-on-one tactics possibly involved after the flop, and maybe it's just a matter of style, but I'm not sure I want to raise it up with almost half the table to act behind me with cheese like QTo.
If I'm the guy on the button with A-3s and it gets checked all the way to me, I would probably raise. But when it gets raised in front of me, maniac or not, dump this puppy and let him fight it out with the blinds. There's all kinds of situations that come up where you're getting ready to raise, and it gets raised right in front of you, and you have to fold. No big deal; it's just part of the game.
i hope that u got properly punished for that move and now trying to justify it.taters
I still think mucking pre-flop is the best play but...
what a Great river card - beautiful when suckout kings get rivered!!!
Michael D (Soccer/sucker Mike D)
If I am going to play this hand I would three bet it before the flop. Ace rag is not a good three betting hand. If an Ace comes on the flop you can be very badly dominated if your opponent plays back at you. Even the live ones find hands. So basically with your hand you need to make two pair, triplicate threes, or a flush. Calling with this hand is a weak play. A3 is not going to fare well with three way action. The best place for this hand is in the muck. As it turns out you got lucky and made a backdoor flush.
Bruce
3 bet of fold. If you have a tight aggressive image and the original raiser is someone who you can outplay post-flop then I would raise. You are likely to have the original raise beat, but the blinds are left to act and if they call then you are screwed. If you have a TA image then they will be unlikely to call with anything other than JJ-AA, AK. However, if you have a loose image then they will probably call with weaker hands that will dominate you. Just calling is a terrible play. The BB will likely call and A3 is not very good with 3-way action.
i was hoping that u got properly punished for that bonehead play. taters
Idiot. Given the right conditions, this can be a very profitable play. Given that you have a tight agressive image if you 3 bet pre-flop many players who were trying to steal before the flop will just fold unless they hit the flop hard. There are many times when Ace high will be good. Next time think before you post. If you can't add anything to the discussion then don't bother posting.
I don't like 3-betting with AX (I think that A9 or A8 may or may not be considered AX depending on the situation). But if you're going to play, it's probably not a bad choice. Get heads up with position and try to take control. But I think you really have to believe this guy's stealing or on some major tilt. Otherwise, it can't too wrong to simply muck and wait for the next hand.
On the flop it's difficult to tell what his first bet means since you only called pre-flop. So raising with bottom pair/top kicker and 2 runner-runner draws, seems to me a decent choice. When re-raised, it's probably correct to see the turn. Of course when you pick up the nut diamond draw, you'r not going anywhere. So the results don't matter except to your stack size after that particular hand.
Kevin
Key point made by Kevin here: There is a big difference between A3 and, say, A8. In fact, if 3 betting were to get me heads up with the initial raiser, I will take A8 offsuit over A3 suited.
With A3, you can only flop top pair with the Ace. With A8, you have 2 cards that could conceivably give you top pair. In heads-up situations, you will often have to pay off to the river with just 1 pair (sometimes even Ace high). Obviously, I would much rather be there at the end with a pair of 8's as opposed to a pair of 3's. With the 8, there is a much greater chance that I am going to win the pair vs. pair confrontation.
I guess what I am trying to say is that a hand like K6 (which your late position opponent could be steal-raising with) fares a lot better against A3 suited than A8 offsuit for obvious reasons.
I don't know..maybe this post of mine falls under the "well, duh" category...maybe not...I am sure someone [hello, Vince:)] will tell me if it does.
Ok to call pre flop here under the conditions you describe, you have nothing but bottom pair on the flop so just calling is OK - if you thought you could win it here maybe the raise if OK but I doubt it. On the turn you have a lot of outs so I just might be raising here a high % of the time.
Now lets see what happened.
Mike is right on again! I hate that! Who do you think you are Sklansky?
vince.
Hell if I was DS I might "really" kill myself instead of just toying with the idea. The thought of so many people "limiting" their potential winning rate because of overvaluing suited cards might drive me to it.
:-)
And at 15-30, no less. Yikes.
I have not yet look at the results, but I will offer my 2c worth anyway. I no not like calling a raise with A-3s. So the guy's on tilt. So what? Does this mean you have to get down in the muck with him? I would quietly fold, and let this guy attack? the blinds. Remember, even the maniacs get good hands once in a while.
Once you have called, I also do not like the raise on the flop. Yes, you've hit bottom pair with an overcard and runner-runner posibilities. Why do you want to shut out the BB? There is no flush or str8 draw on this raggy flop, and I want to see the turn as cheaply as possible. If the raiser is on the unlikely AA, you are drawing virtually dead, and if he's got an overpair, he's no doubt going to re-raise you, which is exactly what happened.
Now that the Qd hits the turn, you are stuck to see the river for another $30. This is about the only play to this point that makes any sense to me. If there is a God, a blank will hit the river, and you will be down the $105 that you deserve, IMO. Or worse(for you) yet, a diamond hits the river that pairs the board (Td or 5d) and the raiser will have pocket T's or Q's and you'll be out about $200 on this mess. But I have a hunch that another diamond is coming, and you will take down a big pot on a hand in which you had no business getting involved in the first place.
I will respond before I read any other posts or the results.
Pre-Flop - I muck - no reason for me to mix it up with this type of player.
However... if I was on tilt and played it - I would reraise pre-flop, play the way you did on the flop, raise when bet into on the turn and then see what the river card was.
Again, this hand hand has nothing but trouble written all over it when playing it for a raise and/or against a limited field.
Just some thoughts...
Michael D (Soccer/sucker Mike)
I am in a $20-$40 game at Oceanside where they seat nine players. The UTG player folds and I limp in with the JsTs. The game has become quite passive but is still loose. Only a middle player calls and the big blind does not raise. There is $70 in the pot and three players.
The flop is: Ad7s6s
The big blind checks. I bet $20 with my flush draw hoping to win the pot outright against only two opponents in this unraised pot but having outs if I am called. The middle player folds. The big blind now raises to $40. I call. There is $150 in the pot and two players.
The turn is: 4c
The big blind bets $40 and I call. There is $230 in the pot.
The river is: 9h
The big blind checks.
Under what conditions should I bet the river here?
Under what conditions should I check it down?
If the big blind has a better hand is he more likely to bet or is he more likely to check and call if I bet?
Results to follow.
I'm not sure what you mean by "conditions."
I'm only replying because you forced me to face a glaring flaw in my game. I always check it down in these situations. And "always" is always bad.
Tommy
I look at this situation more simplistically. You have a bust, thus your decision is based on the percentage of time you can make your opponent fold. You were check-raised on the flop with what sort of hand? You were bet into on the turn with what sort of hand? On the river, I would expect a 20-40 player to bet again if he had as much as top pair, to bet again if he has nothing, and to check with a middle pair.
I'd guess maybe he has something like K-7. So what are your percentages to make him lay it down? You're laying $40 to win $230, so you only have to win about 15% percent of the time to show a profit. Although most players will call here with middle pair, hoping you are drawing or bluffing, you have to bet if there is better than a 15% chance he would lay it down, as it is unlikely that you have no other way to win the pot (of course, he too could've been on a draw with 4-5, and all of this is irrelevant as you win in either case).
No, a 4 came on the turn. If he has 54 he paired, 85 he has a straight, 89 he has 9s.
It really depends on the likelyhood of the BB making this type of play with a draw. I have found that the majority of 20-40 players will not play a draw this way. He almost certainly has top pair, probably weak kicker and he will call if you bet on the river. it is also possible that he flopped an open ender and just paired up on the river. Either way, he will probably call you, as there are two draws on the flop.
Unless I have a good read on the player I would usually just check it and let him take the pot down. If you think that there is a better than 1 in 7 chance that was on K or Q high flush draw then you should bet it.
Here are my comments:
"I am in a $20-$40 game at Oceanside where they seat nine players. The UTG player folds and I limp in with the JsTs."
Fine so far.
"The game has become quite passive but is still loose. Only a middle player calls and the big blind does not raise. There is $70 in the pot and three players."
Fine so far.
"The flop is: Ad7s6s"
"The big blind checks. I bet $20 with my flush draw hoping to win the pot outright against only two opponents in this unraised pot but having outs if I am called. The middle player folds."
Also notice that if there is no ace out you may win by pairing a jack or ten.
"The big blind now raises to $40. I call. There is $150 in the pot and two players."
Fine so far.
"The turn is: 4c The big blind bets $40 and I call. There is $230 in the pot."
Fine so far.
"The river is: 9h The big blind checks. Under what conditions should I bet the river here?"
This is a simple accessment of how likely do you think this player is to fold given the size of the pot? Given the way that the hand has been played, it seems unlikely that he will fold very often. Therefore you should almost always check.
"Under what conditions should I check it down?"
See above.
"If the big blind has a better hand is he more likely to bet or is he more likely to check and call if I bet?"
Many players go into a check and call strategy on the river if there hand is only medium strength. Normally, this is not correct strategy. But if you feel that given the way the hand was played your (remaining) opponent may be on a draw, it can pick up some extra money as long as you always call when he bets and you are against someone who will make some aggressive bluffs on the river.
What do you mean check and call on the river with a medium strong hand is generally not correct? Should you bet? Please explain. Thank you. Bk
"Many players go into a check and call strategy on the river if there hand is only medium strength. Normally, this is not correct strategy."
What would you define as a medium strength hand here? If I were against a strong player like Jim and I had something like A-10 I might play each street as this guy did and check the river here. I don't see Jim calling me with a worse hand, so I don't think I would bet. Maybe because I am against a good player, this situation is not "normal", so checking is correct?
Scott:
I very much agree with you here. I think what Mason might be talking about is that many players have a tendency to check the end either out of fear of being raised or that they might be costing themselves money by betting a worse hand. I think this is an unrational fear more times than not, and it's usually best to bet your good/medium strength hands for value.
But this might be a rare instance where checking AT to induce a bluff might not be a bad idea. You are right that it's unlikely Jim would call with a worse hand. But we know that he would at least consider betting his busted draw because he posted this hand didn't he?
What I meant to say is that many players incorrectly assume that a bet on the end has no positive expection when in fact it often does...
I don't think you have much chance of buying this pot, Jim. I think BB's most likely hand is Ace-weak kicker (possibly A-x of spades). You can't rule out his having a 7, or having hit a 9 drawing to a straight, and I think he probably would call you down with either or those after you showed weakness by just calling his raise on the flop and calling again on the turn. Not too many 20-40 players will play K-xs or Q-xs this way oout of the BB.
I think when you raise on the flop and then just call on the turn, your opponent must consider the possibility that you have merely a draw. Unless you specifically know your opponent as a player who could lay down a medium pair or even Ace-weak to this board, I would check it down.
Another vote for never limping when you're first in.
It seems to me that if the BB is a good reader, he must put you on spades. AQ,AJs,ATs,77 are all hands you might have limped with. But your post-flop play with that board screams draw! From the way the hand was played, I think it's just a matter of what you feel the chances are he is bluffing with a draw of his own.
I know many will disagree with me, but against the right player, I think throwing in a re-raise on the flop can have it's advantages. If not for the chance of getting a cheaper card on the turn, then to disguise your hand a little more. Just some of my thoughts.
Kevin
Of course another way to disguise this hand would have been to raise first in pre-flop.
I would likely reraise on the flop too. Usually I have it cocked and ready. When he check-raises, I reraise simultaneously. At that split second, he is often caught off guard, and I can tell if he has shifted from strongman to "I must improve to continue" mode.
Besides the usual ones, another reason for this reraise is to be able to gauge the strength of second pair if a jack or ten hits.
Tommy
This time I read all the replies before posting. I like Kevin and Tommy’s idea of reraising on the flop. You have position over the blind, your opponent’s hand is probably only medium strong and he will most likely just call and check the turn. If he doesn’t, you know you have to make your flush to win.
This reraise gives you a lot of information and makes the rest of the hand much easier to play. Comments?
Regards,
Rick
Agree completly but it MUST be followed up on turn with continued strong play or the work on the flop is lost. If done correctly with the "right" opponent a bet on the river will often win the pot without a show down.
I'm gonna try and straddle the fence here. I agree that a re-raise can have it's advantages for all of the reasons stated by myself, Tom and Rick. In fact, the 'old' Kevin might have re-raised so fast here the chips would've hit the dealer's nose. But nowadays you'll find the 'new' (and hopefully) improved Kevin calling a little more often for the following reasons:
1). Sometimes losing the least amount of money is the most desirable outcome. Especially in a short handed pot which is now heads up with a BB and implied odds figure to be little. If you re-raise the flop, you will often have to bet the turn and sometimes the river as well, lest you allow your opponent to win with a bet on the river more often than he should be allowed to.
2). You are more likely to get paid off if a J or T hits. Had Jim re-raised the flop, bet the turn (which he sometimes has to), it is harder for him to get called by a worse hand if a J hits on the river. In fact, when called, he will often find himself beat. Probably by a weak ace.
3). It is not unthinkable for Jim to play a set of 7's in the same manner. i.e- calling the flop in this short handed unraised pot, planning to pop the turn. This play provides some cover for a different time and place when he has a good read on this same opponent, and decides to semi-bluff raise the turn with the same flush draw.
All in all, Jim truly lost the least amount on this hand. Since he suspects his opponent has him on spades, the BB's check on the end should indicate a hand he feels can win a showdown even if it's only a K high busted spade draw as well. Otherwise the BB would have bet a bust himself knowing Jim didn't get there. (if so, Jim now has another way to win by bluff raising the river). Of course I haven't seen the results yet and Jim may not have lost anything.
This post is more my way of finding out if my understanding of this complicated game is finaly improving, rather than to dispute Tom or Rick.
Kevin
I don't see how you can pick up this pot with a bet on the river. It seems to me that he played you for a flush draw and his only chance to pick up a bet on the end is to induce a bluff when the river misses.
Without reading the other posts your opponent has played this like someone with Ace - bad kicker, 7s, 89, or a flush draw himself. He checks with the 89 because now he has something to call with. The obvious answer is if he will fold 15% or more then you bet the river. I don't think most players will. If he had nothing he would usually carry the bluff through to the river. So I check out most of the time.
Jim,
I have a couple questions. In your hold 'em quiz, you call JTs on of the most overvalued hands in the entire hold 'em literature, and, if I recall, call it a "speculative proposition" at best. In fact, you advise dumping it UTG. Since you are in poor position, did you call with this hand because the game is nine-handed or because of the nature of the game?
John
I called because the game had become loose and passive so I was confident the pot would not get raised. Normally, I would fold this hand in early position in medium sized and large games because many pots get raised. However, a few of the aggressive players had left the game earlier and were replaced by LOLs (Little Old Lady) and TOMs (Tight Old Man) who hardly ever raise pre-flop. But normally I would fold Jack-Ten suited in early position.
How can you call any table with Bob Morgan in it Loose and Passive?
I like your bet on the flop, and I might take one off if checkraised. However I think on the turn you either have to raise to try and get him off his hand, or just pitch yours into the muck. I think the checkraise indicates at least an ace, even if its a weak one. I doubt the check on the river by the BB indicates he has given up on a bluff, I believe if he was on a bluff, he would keep on betting.
The big blind won the hand having the Ks8d. Had I bet the river the big blind would have folded. Afterwards, a friend of mine told me that betting on the end was clear and he would do it 100% of the time since it was my only way of winning the pot.
I think the right answer is that you should bet the river if you think the chances of your opponent folding are around 15% or whatever the pot odds calculation indicates.
Jim,
If this opponent plays this bad why worry about odds. He gave up on the pot after putting 2 big bets in on a pure bluff. O.K.
Vince.
Jim I had the Ks 8s if I'm not mistaken and I would have folded had you bet on the river!
Why?
(1) Because you had shown strenth by raising early,
(2) After I 3 bet - you called
(3) After I lead on the turn you called again
(4) You were in perfect position to (rope-a-dope with the best hand) allow me to continue betting while you appear to be weak by just calling.
(5) If you had a set or pocket aces, you may have played it the same way through the turn and then bet the river if I checked.
(6) This time a bet from you would have won the pot; but since I had just check raised on the river twice with the winning hand, that may have slowed you down.
Foiled again by the Phantom! However, I do not believe you were suited since we both did not have a Spade flush draw. I remember because when I saw your hand the first card I saw was the King of Spades and I was thinking that I was lucky I didn't hit my Spade flush draw. But then I saw your second card which was the Eight of Diamonds I thought at least I was not drawing dead.
P.S: I am still recovering from the hand where you had pocket Sevens in the small blind with three opponents and won a $600+ pot after I folded pocket Tens on the turn based on the betting action. God will get you for that!!
Bob wrote:
"Jim I had the Ks 8s if I'm not mistaken and I would have folded had you bet on the river!"
Bob, I would have thought that with Ks8 (it doesn't matter if it was the 8s or the 8d), you may want to consider either:
(a) Betting if you think Jim will lay down a pair; or
(b) check-calling if you think Jim is on a draw and may bluff the river. You can do this since you hold the King of Spades, there is no drawing hand that Jim could hold which beats yours.
Of course, it is possible that Jim was on a draw and went on to pair the 9 on the river, in that case checkcalling costs you a bet *BUT* Jim will be unlikely to bet a 9 here as he may put you on a checkcall with Ace nothing.
Bottom line: I think a check at the end was correct but only if you did so with the inetntion of calling a bet. An outright bet would be better than check-folding (IMO).
Jim,
I made the mistake of reading Mason's response before posting mine. Mason, I believe, is only partially correct in his analysis. In a loose agressive game given this situation I play as Mason suggested. Also, much credence has to be given to the playing style of the blind regardless of the type of game. That said I beleive that if the BB is one of the passive guys in this loose passive game then you must reraise the flop, then play the hand from there depending on how he responds.
Vince.
I don't view this as a good spot to bluff. I would not put BB on a "check and fold" at this point.
Yes, by checking, you are essentially giving up the pot but hey, you can't win 'em all.
I would expect the BB to bluff himself if he was on a busted draw. I am surprised that he did not (I know from having read below that he held K8 or something). I wonder if the bb would have called your bet on the river with his King high because if he held the King of Spades, he would know that he beats any busted draw you may be betting.
Hi Izmet,
I have found lots of your posts interesting. It is obvious to me that we have very very different styles of play, you preferring to be extremely aggressive, while I prefer my own style, stealing infrequently, betting and raising for value, etc.
I have tried to play more aggressively at some points and it rarely seems to work for me at all. If I raise with overcards to drive people out behind me I never get there and lose money. Etc etc.
I do think that it is extremely important to raise with good draws and other speculative holdings, like second pair ace kicker when the flop comes K J x rainbow with no raise preflop. One must do this from time to time to change up ones game and get more action on big hands.
Heck I'll even raise with gutshot draws, primaraly for the free card.
But I'm not sure that it is wise to do these things the MAJORITY of the time. I think more often than not it is better to just fold and wait for the next hand than to try to jam in a pot where you are behind.
How do you make this style work? I would like to see you in action when you play to get an idea of just how aggressive you are.
Anyway, can you comment on some situations you typically raise in? IE do you continue to raise/reraise nut flush draws on the turn, etc even if you only have 2 callers?
-SmoothB-
It is impossible to describe my game without giving a nod to Abdul Jalib M'hall whose ideas and personal tutoring shaped my play. It is probably best to leave it to him to explain the basics of Abdulian pound-pound-pound hold'em. Here is an article of his from rec.gambling.poker which unfortunately cannot be found in DejaNews archives:
Subject: Pound-Pound-Pound
From: AbdulJ@PosEV.com (Abdul Jalib)
Date: 18 Feb 2000 14:19:06 -0800
My theory/intuition says the following... Play tight preflop by mucking some marginally profitable hands, and then you can homogenize your postflop strategy and make yourself harder to read, despite playing fewer hands; you thereby raise your overall expected value despite mucking some profitable hands. Open-raise or raise after limpers preflop, pound-pound-pound after the flop, and generally go to the showdown (or to a bluff bet or raise on the river) unless you decide to bail early. Be tight-aggressive-tenacious, not tight-aggressive-easy-to-push-off-a-hand. I think "pound-pound-pound" should be self explanatory, but I get asked about that when I say it, so what I mean is bet/raise when any of the following hold:
The discussion in the thread that followed can still be found at DejaNews. I will only add a few words here. When I enter a pot, I expect to have the best hand or very good implied odds preflop. Mistakes here cost dearly later in the hand. Because of the tight play, I should win a high percentage of pots I enter (not in loose games, of course). Therefore I will be going to the showdown A LOT and it is better to do it betting/raising than check-calling. This approach requires a lot of finesse postflop, it is NOT an excuse for maniacal play, as Mason Malmuth believes.
There is also another aspect of Abdulian play, the play balancing, not nearly addressed satisfactory in HPfAP. The idea is to avoid leaking information by uniforming the play in various situations. For example, if you always bet out (and never check-call or check raise) your aces AND your pairs AND your draws headsup, it is f*cking difficult to read you.
---
Izmet Fekali (Forgive me, Allah, I need to get their attention!)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Oops, I was using my sister's computer and this site is using cookies for remebering the poster's name. Sorry.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I don't think Angelina really exists.
I doubt it too sometimes. How about: Cogito, ergo sum!
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
This really fascinates me. I want to learn more. I would love to see you or Abdul in action and study how this can be done.
You can really play this way profitably?
I would like to know how to do this more because I want to learn to change gears a little better, not necessarily because I would do it ALL the time. But I would definitely like to be able to slip into 'pound pound pound' mode for a couple of rounds and then settle back into tight mode.
Can you tell me a little more about your strategy on the flop? I think i know a little about your preflop strategy if it is similar to Abdul's.
Thanks again for the great post.
-SmoothB-
You should set up an account on Paradise Poker. You don't even have to play or pay. Watch the 20-40 games and look for Angelina from Albania. You can observe from the rail. And avoid playing in those games, she/he practices what she preaches.
You can watch Abdul playing a variety of limits at Bellagio. Izmet Fekali is probably out of reach, he often writes about his games in Europe. Angelina Fekali is a regular on high-limit Paradise.
Izmelina--
I don't know much about your style of play-- since, after all, we've never played together-- but it seems to me that your reasoning for constantly fly betting is skewed.
Now I understand that Abdul's synopsis of his playing strategy was written a bit tounge-in-cheek, but nevertheless--- a problem remains. And that problem is that your strategy is based on the assumption that at any given time there's actually someone else at the table who's paying attention to the way you play.
Opinions on this surely vary, but IMO any playing strategy that pays any more than lip service to 'table image', or mixing up one's play to avoid being read, is fundamentally flawed. The fact is, nobody ever really cares about what you have in games smaller than 30-60. Or, I should say, nobody really cares enough to alter their own playing style based on their perception of your play.
So, they may 'know' that you're tight, but that's not going to get them to lay down an open ender. Or, for that matter, top pair with a weird kicker. While some-- and I stress some-- players may have drawn some kind of bead on your style, that rarely plays a role in how the hand unfolds.
In short, we are left not with the validity or the verity of the belief, but with the utility of the belief. Even if it's true that mixing up your play will throw your opponents off, that belief has to have some kind of pragmatic value for it to be of any worth at the card table. In other words, how does this particular belief enhance one's profits? Does throwing off your opponents have the effect of getting them to do something they wouldn't do ordinarily that you want them to do?
GD,
This is an excellent post. I also think you pulled a bit of a Sklansky (as I have twice lately) by putting it in the wrong place.
In general, Abdul and Izmet tend to advocate playing somewhat different hands the same way using game theoretical considerations for balance. Others tend to advocate playing the same hand different ways in order to achieve some of the same goals. Both approaches have merits and perhaps some flaws.
You make some valid points. I would suggest you think this through again (with both approaches factored in) and make it a lead post where it should get the attention it deserves.
Regards,
Rick
You note that this doesn't work in loose games and it leads me to a hypothesis.
It seems that this style of play might fare best in a game where people are, at least to some extent, playing a bit scared.
People will know that if you are in the hand that it will cost them more to see your hand in a showdown than is typical. Therefore, perhaps this causes people who know you to be somewhat more inclined to fold earlier in the hand than they might against other players.
You are playing tight preflop, so you probably have a great starting hand, and great starting hands tend to develop into big hands at the finish line more often than not.
So people see you show down a lot of big hands. Then, when you DON'T have a big hand, people will fear that you do have one and be inclined to fold more marginal hands - even winners sometimes.
Or maybe I am way offbase.
-SmoothB-
I'm impressed, you nailed it pretty good. Look around this forum a bit. Do you notice all the "laydown" threads? This is how a good chunk of your opponents play. If you push at the right spots, there's money to be made on those laydowns.
Loose games play differently, of course.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
This isn't going to be well detailed as far as players and positions go so I apologize ahead of time. I'm on the button with 6c6h. UTG folds and ALL limp to me. I call, as do bot blinds. 9 way action for a flop of 2h 3c 4h. SB bets, all call to me, and I call as well. (would anyone muck or raise here? If so what are the reasons?) The turn card is the 2c. SB bets again, and only the cuttoff folds, I call as well. (my thought process is that a 5 could very well make me the best hand and a 6 should definately be good, would anyone raise or muck here?) River is the 3s. Sb bets, BB calls, and the rest fold to me. The pot is huge, but I can't put the SB on a hand that he could bet into 8 ppl expecting not to get called with that I can beat, not to mention the BB calling ahead of me. Should I call or muck? Results will be posted after I get some responses.
i dont know how a 12-20 hand goes as far as bets but i can envision its close to a 10-20 hand i will make this brief on every street someone other than you bet, did you think they held another pair or had two over cards like many players do when the pot is unraised. if this is the case, you need to raise on both the turn and river i can only envision hand resembling AK through AJ looking to pick up this pot. other than that i would have raised on the turn and found out where the SB stood. this would have put the pressure on anyone else in the pot to pay up or get out
so what did he hold, 34 suited?
With no pre flop raise you have no idea what the blinds are playing - they can have anything and from the action one or both have the 6's beat - I probably would have mucked it on the turn for sure on the river these 6's have cost you eneough.
BTW I am assuming the game is 10-20.
Tough hand. I'd raise on the flop if the initial bettor is the reraising type, just to get the overcards out. But calling is certainly reasonable.
On the turn, I'd call for sure. I might have the best hand, and if not, I like my outs considering the pot size.
On the river, wow, that's a close one. From here at home, without being able to feel the situation, I'd call.
1) The bettor got no resistence and the field thinned. He might have thrown out a bet on the flop with as little as a five or a four, and with momentum working, bet the river as a bluff (with a five) or a value bet (with a four, thinking an ace might pay him off).
2)The second player might be calling with a hand I can beat: any ace, or any four.
Tommy
The most probably hands that the SB could have are a straight, overpair, or A4. The BB probably does not have a full house because if he would have raised either on the turn or river. With you calling the whole way and then raising on the river the weakest hand they can put you on is 3's full, which neither of them has beat. I would raise, but it really depends on the type of players involved. If they are decent players who can read hands then I would raise, If the BB is loose-passive then I would call. Keep in mind there are 19 BB in the pot when it gets to you on the river. You have a better than 1-20 chance of having the best hand so you must call or raise!
As it turns out the SB had Ah 4c, and the BB had Ac Jh. I called and took down a huge pot, much to the dismay of the SB who criticized me for my call of the turn and river.
Really a poorley played hand by most concerned. The entire hand was played in a "calling station" mode. What would have happened if sb decided not to lead the betting - would everyone have just checked to the river???
I would have played it differently, but concerning the river bet it's not even close. A definite call. The pot is close to $400 and it costs you $20.
you had an overpair the whole way. Who's folding without more indication than one bet? I agree that you can't raise the flop after everyone calls, but I might have raised the turn and checked down the river. I would definitely call down, the pot is pretty big just from all the preflop and flop calls.
I don't know why you didn't raise the flop. You are just sitting there waiting for overcards to beat you. If SB has A4 or K4 there's a good chance he will reraise and the field will thin considerably.
I had a similar situation to wose nose, with one key difference (in the situation as well as the play). My opponent was not only playing the very marginal hands but consistently raising them. He was raising hands like J6 off and Q8 off. Also let me say that he would bet and raise constantly with nothing, not even a pair! I'm telling you this so you can get a feel for this player. As a rule, the hand you are about to hear would be mucked, but I felt that it was right in this circumstance to play.
From early middle position this player raised , he was the only one in and I was 1 off the button. It was folded to me and I 3 bet him with A4d. The button folded, the LB folded and the BB called.
The flop came 3d, 4h, 6d. He bet, I raised, the BB called and he re-raised me. I capped it and the BB folded, he called. The turn came the 9d giving me the nuts. He bet, I raised, he re-raised, I capped. A great card came on the river, the 2d, putting the fourth diamond on the board. Well, by now you know the scenario. He bet, I raised, he re-raised, and I capped. I won a very nice pot.
I would appreciate any thoughts on this hand. I have no question as to how I played it, my only question is, should I have played it or mucked pre flop? Let me know.
Fidster
Well, I can't see any other way to play the nuts vs. a player who exhibits this kind of behavior. RE preflop play:
I think you probably did the right thing by reraising him preflop. You probably had a better hand than he did considering he was raising with offsuit trash. When the BB called both bets cold preflop AND on the flop I would have been worried.
This is one thing that I admit that I do not try often enough - isolating an extremely loose preflop raiser with hands like AT offsuit, etc. I'll post more on this in a seperate thread.
Nice hand.
-SmoothB-
If your reraise is perceived as an isolation play, then its kinda risky to do it from early-middle, since it sounds like this was the type of game that three bets before the flop was common, meaning that players behind you with ace-big and pocket pairs might come in anyway.
But if your image at the time was that you were not getting out of line, that you were picking your spots carefully and rarely, then sure, take advantage of that image and make a stab at buying the buying, even from up front.
Tommy
Tommy,
Thanks for your response, but maybe you misunderstood a little. I think that I neclected to mention a couple of things adding to my decision to play the hand. The game itself was not that aggressive, just the one player was. Also, I was not in early middle position, if I was then I would have surely laid it down. I was one off the button with a solid player on the button who was cappable of laying down a marginal A (AJ, A10) or for that matter, many other hands.
All of these circumstances together is why I decided to play the hand. I am well aware that it is a very marginal hand at best and as a rule would be mucked. Also, I did agree that I didn't like the BB calling 2 cold, but he was a very marginal player at best and could be outplayed post flop.
Thanks again,
Fidster
You played it EXACTLY how I would have played it. You flopped a monster hand with middle pair/overcard kicker + nutflush draw. You are getting great value with 3 way action, one of them being a maniac. The BB probably had 2 overcards and you forced him to fold whe n you capped the flop. It's even possible that your 4's could have been the best hand. I was expecting a twist at the end when you said the 2d came on the river. I was expecting you to say you raised him 6 times before finally getting shown 45d, but then I remembered that you had the 4d in your hand. Well I'm glad this didn't turn out to be a bad beat story. Congratulations on a well played, aggressively played hand.
Oops. I goofed. The phrase "early middle" position was in your post, but that was the wild player's seat, not yours.
From the cutoff I'd a popped it too, no question.
Tommy
Thanks Tommy
.
A typical 15-30 line-up without any real strong or overly aggressive players, and no real maniacs. I've only been playing for about 45 minutes and haven't really been involved when the following hand came up.
I'm on the button with pocket 3s. I call after a pretty solid guy limps in early position, one guy calls from middle position, and a woman calls in the cut-off seat. The blinds both call and we take a 6-handed flop of:
QdQc9s
It is checked around to me, and I elect to take the free card.
The turn is the 3 of diamonds.
It is checked to the woman to my right, who bets. She seems like an average player, not too aggressive. I raise. The blinds fold and the early limper reraises. This guy is pretty solid.
The middle guy folds, and the woman CAPS IT at four bets. I am all of a sudden not so in love with my "ignorant" filly. Fearing a 99, Q9, or even a slow-played QQ, and possibly facing the prospect of calling at least 3 more bets on the end, I muck it. These two players obviously both think they have the best hand, and even AQ or KQ might put a bet or raise in on the river. Hell, this pot just didn't worth investing another 5 or 6 big bets. Bad laydown?
The river is a King. He bets, she raises, he reraises, and she just calls. Now I feel pretty good about my laydown until the guy shows a KQ that I was beating on the turn. She mucks without showing.
Comments?
Looks like the only way you had the best hand on the turn is if they both went wild with one queen each and no full house. Even in that peculiar scenerio, there are still six outs to beat you, and you're gonna have to pay heavy, like you said.
If you had never faced two cold bets, I think you'd have to go to a showdown. But as the hand went, I think you made a bigtime fold on the turn.
That she raised again on the river, after all that heat, makes me think that the other guy sucked out, and that you did the right thing.
Tommy
These guys play terribly. I am really cuious what the woman had. She must have had at least a queen, maybe 99.
If she did have 99 I think she made a big mistake not betting the flop. If I have a set and I flop a full house, and the pair is higher in rank than my set, you can be sure I'm playing it fast ESPECIALLY if the pair is JJ-AA.
God my games are just too tough. No wonder I can't make 1BB per hour these days! :)
-SmoothB-
I don't know Michael, I don't think I would have laid the hand down here. If these players are reasonable, the only hand they could have which beats yours is 99. Q9 is a longshot.
Most likely, both players are holding Quuens which leaves 9 bad cards for you on the river. You can probably rule out an Ace as their kicker (as they would have raised preflop). Thus, I would call and hope that a King, Jack, Ten or 9 does not come down on the river. Obviously, I would fold on the river if a 9 came down. I would also fold if one of the other cards came down and it was 2 bets to me on the river. Don't forget if you call the turn cap bet, it will be difficult for someone to raise without a full house. Thus, although the lady here raised on the river (and we are not sure if she did so with less than a full bota), she would be less likely to raise on the river if you were still in there with a hand worse than yours.
If it turns out that one has a Queen and the other 99, well them's the breaks, you pay dearly on this one.
Great response!
I would have folded. It is very likely you are beat by the woman who capped it on the turn. She is certain to have at least 99, possibly Q9. You have exactly one out if you are beaten. Even if you are ahead, there are 9 cards that kill you. 3 nines, and also 3 cards for each of their kickers, unless they share it. You are looking at calling a minimum of 3 BB in order to get to a showdown. Given the chances that you are beat, I don't think the pot odds justify calling.
Why do you think that Q9 is a long shot. In unraised pots many players will alway ply Q9 suited or unsuited from a late position, and many players will call with Q9s up front.
A also didn't think it was a longshot, particularly with all the action on the turn, where the early guys 3-bet seemed to be screaming at least AQ.
Really? I am not so sure. While I agree that Q9s is (and should) be played in late position in a multiway unraised pot, I don't think that it is generally played up front (nor should it be) at least at the 15-30 level. As for Q9 off, I don't consider it playable even in late position in a MULTIWAY field. I may come in raising with it from late position if I can get headsup with a weak playing opponent etc but I am highly unlikely to call with it after 2 or more limpers.
You are playing correctly and assume that your opponents are doing the same. That is often not the case.
I agree with Mason...most people don't have the standards that 2+2 would recommend. In this case, I would say the woman has a much higher chance of having Q9 than the early limper, since Michael described him as solid. So, I would focus more on her than the early limper (who I would put on KQ, QJ.
Would you limp in with Q9 suited after 2 limpers in an unraised pot? I had always heard that you are a tight player - maybe I'm TOO tight!
On that note, RE the 15% rule. In general, what are the best 15% of hands? Let's ignore position and number of callers for the moment. I just wonder where the cutoff is.
-SmoothB-
Every situation is unique, but most of the time I would limp in with Q9s after two other players limped. There are exceptions.
As for the 15 percent rule, you are making a mistake if you are looking for a magic "cut off hand." In some situations, such as when a tight highly skilled player raises early and you are next where playing 2% of your hands may be too much. There are other spots where it may be correct to play at a much higher frequency than 15 percent.
I agree that playing Q9 suited depends largely on the players you are up against and the position in which you have the hand. I personally do not like the hand unless I am in the cutoff or on the button. However in the 10-20, 15-30, and 20-40 games that I usually am in, this hand is played from any position by at least 50% of the players and is played for 2 bets cold by 25-30% of these players. I think you made a solid laydown on the turn. In the games I am in, I would not have to think very long about it to lay it down because I know that I am probably beat a large majority of the time.
Just some thoughts...
Michael D (Soccer/sucker Mike D)
Thanks for the response. Of course I was being too general with 15%. There is one player in a limit game that I actually folded KK to after she raised preflop! She NEVER - EVER raises with anything except AA, and she'll never even reraise with them!
Sure enough she had AA that hand. Someone that didn't know here stayed in the hand with her.
I had never considered Q9 suited a playable hand. I guess I really am too tight. This might actually be the one thing that I most need to work on - LOOSENING UP!
I always thought the advice you give in HPFAP was too loose. I rarely even consider playing hands that are lower than group 4 in any position even for no raise. Depending on the preflop raiser I will seldom enter the pot with anything but group 1&2 hands even if there are several other callers. And I won't even play some of the group 2's.
Seems that when I HAVE tried to loosen up my earnings have gone down, but that might just be because of a relatively small number of hours played that way.
Any other advice is welcome, and thanks again.
-SmoothB-
PS I am THE TIGHTEST young person I have EVER run across - period.
yes that's because you are a "PROTEGE" Smooth B... in your own words.
Heh heh I think I remember saying that. LOL
Heck you can't argue with the facts - I've been a winning player since day 1, although maybe I would stand to win a bit more if I limped in a little more often in late position with a few more hands - like Q9 suited.
I will limp in with J9 suited sometimes - don't get me wrong. I actually prefer J9 suited to Q9 suited
1) You can make 1 more straight
2) You are less likely to get into a situation where you are dominated. If a Q flops and someone else has one chances are you will have to hit your kicker to win. With J9 if there is a bet on the flop I'll dump it.
3) Part of my image is that AJ is my favorite hand (it isn't - AA is). So if I'm last in and a J flops, I can bet it and most people will assume I have an ace kicker and I'll usually pick up the pot right there.
For whatever bizzarre reason, when I think about it, I will play K9 and J9 suited after limpers but not Q9. I wonder why? Probably some irrational bias.
Of course, if I'm first in in late position I'll RAISE with Q9 suited but that is an entirely different matter.
-SmoothB-
Playing too tight is no fun and yu will never learn to become a great player. That's why I play mostly pot limit.
Oh, I am not so sure I can agree with this one, although I do admire your fondness for the Pixies. :)
I will play hands like this shorthanded, no doubt. And I do fancy myself to be a pretty good short handed player. So I DO know how to play marginal hands, don't get me wrong.
But I do not and probably never will know how to play marginal hands in loose, full games because there is absolutely no need to do so. And I think that most people who think they make money from marginal hands in full loose games would probably reconsider if they kept careful notes about such hands.
I admit that I might profit a bit more by mixing a few more hands into my play. But I can't afford to do that in the games I've been in lately because they have been pretty tight and aggressive. With 4 people max seeing a flop and preflop raises over 2/3 of the time you can be sure I'm not going to be playing Q9 suited anytime soon.
-SmoothB-
Smooth B,
I haven't written a truly nitty post in a while so here goes. You wrote: "for whatever bizzarre reason, when I think about it, I will play K9 and J9 suited after limpers but not Q9. I wonder why? Probably some irrational bias."
I don't like absolutes, but I also would rank J9s and K9s a little ahead of Q9 suited after several limpers. But Q9 suited would still be playable in most of these spots. I like the J9s over Q9s because it makes more and better straights. I like the K9 suited because it makes a better flush and the king will sometimes make top pair in cases where your kicker doesn't matter much and if you play well you will know when.
But I also thing you are too tight;-).
Regards,
Rick
Dumping top pair-- no matter what your kicker-- for one bet on the flop is usually a mistake, unless the bettor is early and you're next to act or the better is early, the flop is coordinated and there are many callers.
"I always thought the advice you give in HPFAP was too loose. I rarely even consider playing hands that are lower than group 4 in any position even for no raise. Depending on the preflop raiser I will seldom enter the pot with anything but group 1&2 hands even if there are several other callers. And I won't even play some of the group 2's."
Interesting. When we originally wrote HPFAP many of the regular players told us it was too loose. Today, most of the regulars will probably tell you it is too tight.
Sorry, but this was actually an on-line hand at Paradise Poker. The on-line part wasn't really relevant, except that I was able to request a hand history and see what she had, since she called on the river:
Pocket Nines for a flopped full.
The free card cost me $60 and could have cost me alot more.
My favorite local card-room has started spreading a 15-25 game. Not sure how long it will last, but my sense is that the implications for it are that drawing hands go up in value somewhat because it is cheaper to draw to a straight or flush. The converse argument might be that these hands go down in value because if you flop big you will make less on the turn and river if you hit your hand. I'm not really sure which won is right. Or perhaps they offset. Any input?
Thanks, NW Card Hack
Drawing hands will go down in value because you stand to make less on the rounds when you typically make these hands - the turn or river - and it costs a larger investment to get in with these hands.
On the other hand, flopping top pair/top kicker type hands will go up in value because people are getting charged more to draw and are making less on their draws when they get there.
However, the difference should not be very great and your play should be really no different than it would be in a 15-30 game.
The REAL difference is when you play in spread limit games where the betting is the same on every round. Here, draws go way down in value and, since these pots are usually much smaller because of the low blind structure, you are often not even getting the right price to draw to open enders or 4-flushes.
-SmoothB-
Thanks (n/t)
All fold to Bruce and he opens on the button with a raise, LB folds. I'm expecting a steal from this player (at the time I had no idea who he was and John Feeney introduced us later)
I'm in the BB with Jc Js and 3 bet. Bruce calls (headsup)
Flop: 9s 6s 4d
I bet, button calls.
Turn: 2s
I bet, button calls.
Time out: I may easily have the best hand now and I don't want to give a free card in case Bruce raised on any two high cards that included ace, king, or queen and especially if one is a spade. A spade may give him a flush and any overcard A K Q beats my pocket pair, therefore I bet.
After he calls the turn - I start wondering: (a) does he already have a flush and is either just slowplaying or has a small flush and is afraid it may be second best.
(b) He may have a small flush and is waiting to see if another spade comes on the river that could give me a bigger flush (I did have the Js).
(c) Does he have a small set? What does he have...I don't know for sure.
(c) He may be waiting until the river to bet if I check or to raise if I bet.
River: Jd (Now the board is 9s 6s 4d - 2s Jd)
Now I hesitate thinking I can beat any set, two pair, pocket pair, or busted flush.
Should I bet for value with top set?
Should I induce a bluff and check raise?
Should I check and call thereby avoiding a checkraise with a possible flush.
If he had a flush on the turn would he be likely to raise then or rope-a-dope and hope I keep betting so he can raise on the river. If I check on the river, he can still bet.
What do you guys think! Comments appreciated.
I bet. I think and aggressive player would have probably raised on the flop with a 4-flush. I figure him more for a big ace, possibly with the Ace of spades. He may even have to call your river bet if he has AK, since it will look like a pretty odd value bet given the board.
If he raises, I might even reraise, but would be leaning toward a call since it is more likely a bluff-raise or a flush than a value raise that you can beat.
Check-call seems pretty wimpy heads up, and might make it more difficult to follow through on a river bluff on the end in the future. Again, I don't think he'll bet here if he has an Ace, but might call since you could have been pusing something like KsKs or KsTs.
I like betting my top set here. He is unlikely to have a flush, especially since he did not pop you on the turn. This is another situation where he will call with more hands than he will bet with due to the pot size.
Of course, if you don't think he will call, it is pointless to bet. Then you can check and call - maybe it will induce a bluff and you'll get an extra bet out of him, or maybe he'll think his pocket eights are worth a bet.
But if you think he will call with a worse hand (and I STRONGLY suspect that he can beat your hand!) then go ahead and bet it! Who knows maybe he will even call you with AK or AQ if he thinks his ace high can beat you.
I would bet out here.
If I were him and I made a flush on the turn, I would definitely raise with it there and then. Why not? I can't count on you to bet again on the river even if you have a big hand, albeit one that can't beat a flush, but I know you will probably check and call to the river if you have a reasonable hand. So I'll go for the turn raise and make 1 extra BB out of you.
What happened? I don't doubt that you won, but I am curious about what he had.
-SmoothB-
Bet.
He will probably call if he has a pair, and he probably won't bet a small pair. He might have a flush, but it's worth the risk to get an extra bet. The chances are a little bit less than normal that he has a flush, because he might have raised on the flop if he had a flush draw.
If he raises, then I think you should call since there are a number of hands that he could raise with that you beat.
I'd bet in the same way that a bird flies, that a fish swims: with no thought.
At no point could I ever escape...Bruce played his hand like a world champion in order to suck every possible bet out of me that he could - I salute him!
He raised on the button with K3s and the board was 9s 6s 4 2s J.
If he had raised on the turn instead of the river I would have lost the same amout; if I had called his turn raise.
However this could have allowed me an escape hatch by folding on the turn. He closed the escape hatch by not raising until the river.
Well played my friend!
Not really. I don't think you bet the river unless you snag that Jack. And if another spades falls, you may check and fold. If he raises the turn, do you really lay it down?
Yeah, he done good. But that doesn't mean you done bad. Sometimes we lose the max on a hand without ever doing anything remotely "wrong" (whatever that word means). Sometime its because the cards dictate and sometimes its because we get out played for a bet or two. So it goes. I'd pay off the river-raise on auto, say 'nice hand,' and on we go.
Tommy
John Feeney had introduced me to Bob about an hour or so before we began playing. Just by reading Bob's posts I knew he was a very knoweledgable player and that he could be very aggressive. Also about 10 minutes before this hand played out Bob and I were involved in a fairly large pot with one other player, which I had won where I probably did not play the hand as aggressively as I should have, failing not to raise on the turn. So anyway I am heads-up against an aggressive player. He makes it three bets before the flop. On the flop there is no reason for me to raise because Bob will probably reraise and all I have is a flush draw with an over card. On the turn in my eyes I have the nuts. I really do think Bob is drawing pretty close to dead. Sure, he can have the Ace of spades, but it is unlikely. Why do I want to raise a skillful opponent when I think he is drawing dead. It doesn't make sense. Against a weak opponent I would probably raise or if I had a small flush also. I may even raise on the turn with the Ace of spades in my hand trying to get him off of his hand. It just doesn't make sense for me to raise an intelligent player when I think he is drawing dead and he is going to bet for me. Also, since I have never really played before with Bob, I don't what his three betting requirements are from the blind. Does he have a real hand or is he on a resteal? As it turns out if I raised on the turn and the Jack comes on the river and I bet, Bob may have check-raised me, thus I may have cost myself more action.
Bruce
By the way if I was Bob I would have played the hand exactly the same way. I would definetely bet the turn and river. If my opponent has a flush well then God bless him. Sometimes about all you can do is say nice hand sir and on to the next hand.
Bruce
http://hometown.aol.com/hosh115
You raised UTG with with AK. Four players called including the blinds. The flop is xxx with no flush draw, but two cards to a straight. The blinds check to you. Do you bet or check?
If one of the blinds flops a small pair in this situation, are they correct to check raise you if they know you will raise with AK as often as AA, KK, QQ, JJ?
Thanks y'all
This is one of those common situations that makes a huge difference in the long run. It's diceyness stems from the subtlety and fluidity of the information that needs processed before the best choice can be made. I couldn't even pretend to even have a course of action at the table until the moment of truth arrived, let alone spell one out in text. Plus, the precise cards on the flop weigh in to the decision, even within the seemingly specific flop characteristics you mentioned.
How that for a non-answer? I should run for office!
Tommy
Tommy's answer is superb.
On the flop, it is extremely hard (dang near impossible ) to tell where you stand.
So toss in a small bet and find out. I like to bet in that situation and then pay attention to how players react.
Thanks, Dan.
But . . .
If tossing a probing bet out on the flop was a routine choice, then that means you DO have a course of action in mind, which goes against my earlier wishy-washiness.
It depends on so many things. I can picture checking and folding, and I can picture betting and REraising if check-raised. Too many variables. Like everyone else said, it depends on the flop, the players, your current playing speed, lots of stuff.
Tommy
Tommy,
I agree completely and I would not toss a bet in this case every time.
A small bet like this against players I know nothing about, even if I plan to always fold to a raise, helps me get some info on their game.
I think you gave a very good answer.
Check. Maybe bet a flop like 2-2-7. With fewer opponents you can bet a lot more. Trying to run out AK when you whiff on the flop against 4 opponents is usually a bad idea, IMO.
The other question is also very fact specific. There aren't many small card hands I would play in the blinds if UTG raised. I would check a small pair and see what develops behind me most times. Totally different sitaution here vs. heads up.
Betting, checkraising or check folding would really depend on the field you have behind you. A flop that gives AK a gutshot has two high cards in it, so it may have hit a hand behind you pretty hard. depends what they would cold call you with. you could have up to ten outs, or as few as four, so this is really opponent dependant. I would hope that BB bets out so i can raise and blow out the field. especially if I have backdoor flush possibilities.
The obvious answer to this question is 'It depends'.
The key is that you must not always play this the same way every time. If you always bet AK on the flop when you have raised preflop and no A or K comes, people will start checkraising you with a pair of deuces in the hole. More than half the time they will have the best hand so it will be worth it for them to do so.
Conversely, if you NEVER bet AK on the flop when no A or K comes, you can be in trouble because you will be screaming 'Big cards no pair!' to the rest of the table, and they will react accordingly.
So, to counter this, you must bet sometimes with AA or KK on the flop when rags come. And you must check them sometimes too, trying for a checkraise hopefully.
You have to play this in early position differently from time to time. Not always the same way.
Here is another thing - I don't normally recommend this.
If you have only 1 or 2, maybe 3 opponents, you can actually check call the flop when you have AA/KK and the flop is really ragged. Then lead bet the turn if another rag comes, or checkraise, whatever.
Just change up your play now and then and everything will be ok.
If the flop is even moderately scary with lots of people in the pot I will check/fold AK on the flop a lot of the time, too.
-SmoothB-
With four other players in the pot I will usually check and then fold if it is bet. It is very unlikely that the flop has not hit someone, unless the flop was all very low cards in which case I would bet representing a pair. However, if this is not the case, I think your best long-term play is to check-fold.
I'm not so sure that checking and folding AK every time the flop misses you is a great idea.
Astute players will notice that you dump big cards when you raise preflop and the flop misses you. Since you will probably be unpaired more often than you are paired, that player can make a bet for value EVERY TIME the flop comes relatively small cards, because he knows that you will fold every time you don't have a big pair.
Here is one interesting thing that happens in my game.
There are a couple of other regulars. One of them will ALWAYS check and fold big cards if he raises preflop and the flop misses him. Generally the only unpaired hands he'll ever raise with preflop in a full game are AK and AQ suited or unsuited.
Now, you are going to get AK or AQ a lot more often than AA KK or QQ. So if this guy raises, a second player will ALWAYS call if it looks like they will be heads up in the hand.
If the flop comes J high, the other player will ALWAYS bet if checked to. He makes a ton of money from the other player this way.
Note that some of the times when the preflop raiser has AA KK or QQ, the flop will hit the other guy even if he has trash.
The great thing is that this guy will sometimes end up winning with T4 offsuit hands against this raisers AA, so people think he's a maniac. But he is actually very smart and he knows an opportinity to make a buck when he sees it.
-SmoothB-
x
They are probably correct to check raise you if there are no cold callers in between and they know you will three bet an overpair but just call with overcards.
The decision on whether or not to bet is based largely on just what two straight cards are present, as well as the cold-calling standards of the players yet to act. If they're both tight, and not too imaginative, then a bet's a good idea. If they're loose and a bit wild then you may want to hold off.. In short, it depends on whether or not they'd be willing to raise with anything other than top pair or better. If not, then they'll have defined their hand(s) on the flop after you bet and you can continue accordingly.
I REALLY LIKE WHAT SMOOTH B HAD TO SAY THAT IS A MONEY MAKER.LATER
I'm leaving out seat numbers as they are unimportant for this hand as there are only 2 players involved. I'm on the button with 3c 3s. Its folded to me, so I raise going for the blinds (the SB is a pretty tight player, and I haven't seen the BB play a hand in an hour) The SB folds, and the BB 3bets! I don't like this one bit, but I take the flop and it comes off 3h 5d 5h. He bets out, I raise, and he 3 bets. I decide to let him bet it, so I call planning to hit it again on the river. The turn card is the Jc, he bets and I call. The river is the 5s, and I'm thinking disaster as he bets into me again. What should I do now, and did I make any mistakes on previous streets? Results to follow later.
I think you played the hand fine. I would call the river bet but of course that 5 is a terrible card.
I think you played fine before the flop and after the flop. You could raise on the turn, however, I don't have a problem with waiting for the river to raise. If the BB does have a pocket pair I doubt he would have folded on the turn so the results would not have changed.
This is why my preference is to pull the trigger on the turn. You never know what card will come off at the river or what your opponent will do. I would raise the turn and call the river.
no question!
vince
Jim, of course, is (as usual) correct. I cheated and checked the results down below, but Jim's point is still valid. He would have played an overpair the same way and, by just calling on the turn, you could have cost yourself the pot. He's showed agression both pre-flop and on the flop; now that he's bet the turn, it's time to administer the Fekali enema.
I made the crying call, but didn't end up crying as he shows down Ah Kh, for a busted flush draw.
Big laydowns on the river in limit poker are for l00sers. Automatic call here.
Bad river bet by the other guy as he can beat any hand that doesn't call here.
Doug,
I slipped up and checked the results before posting but was going to say what follows anyway.
You shouldn't be crying that much when you make the call. You are getting 9 to 1 and you have taken your foot off the gas pedal since his reraise on the flop. Ace high overcards will often play this board and hand strongly.
That being said, I agree with the others that the turn was the time to raise.
Regards,
Rick
It's better to raise the turn because the chances of being 3 bet by a worse hand are always much greater on the turn as compared ro the river. As well, if a heart were to come on the river, you may not get a chance to raise if your opponent puts you on a flush and checks.
Why did you feel like you were making a crying call on the river? You described the BB as not having played a hand in an hr. What starting hand with 5 in it did you put him on to 3-bet pre-flop? Note that it becomes very unlikely that he was playing 55 once the second five hits the board, leaving only perhaps A5s as a likely holding, but even that does not seem a hand he would be inclined to 3-bet out of position with. An overpair (or even overcards) seems a FAR more likely holding than a A5s, K5s, or 56s.
I think you missed the point. His set of threes was counterfeited by the 3rd five. He now has a pair of 3s and loses to any pocket pair except 22.
Whoops! I misread the thread. Now it makes much more sense. Thanks.
I am not a big fan of huge laydowns particularly on the river in limit HE. Generally, the pot is big enough to make the last call even though chances are good that you are beat.
That said, I definitely think that my game could improve by folding strong hands on the river in certain situations where it's a near cinch that I am beat.
Here's an example from Planet Poker last night. It's a 20-40 game.
I am in the bb with AsQd. Everyone folds to the cut-off who just calls(?). Sb folds and it is heads up. I choose not to raise and intend on betting out no matter what comes.
Flop: KsTc6h
I bet and get called by my opponent.
Turn: Jc
I bet. He raises. I 3 bet it and he calls.
River: 5c
I bet and he raises. I call and he shows the nuts with Ac4c.
Now, I am thinking that I generally should bet and fold here if raised as the chances of my opponent not having a flush are almost nil.
Now be honest: Is this a routine fold for you guys out there. If it is, then I have just found another leak in my game.
Anyway, what do you guys think?
BTW, if you were to suggest a check and call strategy on the end, I would not agree with that at all.
I could not fold here unless I am against the most predictable opponent in the world. Especially online, where I don't have any physical clues to confirm my read. Over the long term, I think that any bets lost making stubborn calls on the river are offset by the reduced frequency of guys taking shots at you.
I'm amazed how many times some opponents will let me show down a winning ace for free after I have taken the lead in the action, we both missed draws, and they have position. It is usually coupled with mumbling like "he would have called me anyway.
Your opponent could easily have played pocket kings or jacks exactly the same way. A fold on the end is wrong in this spot.
I should add that I never even considered folding when the hand came down. He raised, I murmured "doh"...ok something more colorful:)... and hit the call button.
But later on, it struck me that this just maybe a situation where players better than me may laydown...glad to see from the responses that almost no one favors a laydown.
Still, I wonder if it's just a small percentage of the time when someone may put in a raise on the end with KK/JJ. Generally, they must think that there is no way I am laying down anything given my 3 bet on the turn.
I suppose the answer lies in something said by Michael (or maybe Rick, I can't remember): Paying off a bet here will ensure that you don't have a pot robbed from you the next time this happens and he does not hold a flush.
Anyways, thanks to you and all the others.
I don't think paying off will insure that at all--- it's a rare player, after all, who will think "well, I got him to lay down a hand (he doesn't know it was this strong) before, so maybe I'll bluff raise and see if I can get him to laydown again". You pay off here, I think, because the pot odds dictate it. Most players won't remember this hand two rounds later, even if they were involved in it.
I believe that being able to make big laydowns is a very important part of a players progress. I used to have a big problem with laying hands down. I have gotten better.
Once in a while you WILL lay down the best hand - that is inevitable. But hopefully it will be in a small pot.
I remember recently folding the best hand on the turn when the pot was small. We were heads up, there was a 4-flush on the board, and I had none of that suit.
The player had been very aggressive on the flop. I had flopped top pair with a good kicker.
When the 4th of that suit came, I reasoned that he couldn't possibly be betting into me without a big card of that suit for fear that I had one. Or definitely something better than top pair - he would have to have outs in case I had a flush. SO I put him on :
flush - 80%
set - 15%
2 pair - 5%
I reasoned that I was beat, probably with no outs. I folded.
He showed me second pair, 3 kicker - none of that suit.
I congratulated myself! The pot was not large - maybe 4 BB before his bet, tops. And it would cost me 2BB to see his hand in a showdown. So i figured that the odds were better than 2:1 that he had the better hand and threw mine in.
If I do this every time I will make money because my opponent WILL have the better hand over 2/3 of the time.
As for your situation, a fold is out of the question. This is one of those hands where you have to evaluate: does my hand stand to be better than his more than 55% of the times that he calls? I would say that your opponent would call with a worse hand more than 45% of the time by far. So I would bet it.
It just so happens that he DID have you beaten this time. But more often than not you will show down the best hand in this situation.
The only way I am folding a nut straight like this one is
1) When there's a 5 flush on the board and the pot is small - we'd both be playing the board if he doesn't have one of that suit so I'd only be getting my money back + 1/2 of that small pot, and risking 1 BB to get it.
2) There is something really scary out there, like TJQQQ and he's been pushing hard the whole way.
3) If the board was QJT9 and I just had an 8, and there was a 4 flush on the board.
There are other times I've folded straights.
One time I was in no limit overs with a guy. He bet the turn and the only no limit overs guy folded.
The board was AKQJ with 3 clubs and I had AT none of that suit.
If I called I knew this guy was going to make a VERY large bet on the river. I could see that he was itching to get it heads up in overs.
I didn't even call that bet to see the river card.
He flashed 2 clubs before dragging the pot.
There, I just KNEW he either tied or beat me. And I was not prepared to risk a lot of money when I'd just be getting it back, at best.
-SmoothB-
Skp,
I think this was a bad example. I agree with "NJ Fred" that both KK and JJ could be played the same among some of the top two pair type hands. I bet if you posted this without the results it would be twenty to one in favor of making a crying call on the river.
Regards,
Rick
...so I pulled a Sklansky (second time this week) ;-).
This isn't a routine fold for me, but then, it isn't a routine hand.
Obviously, if the guy with A4s had cold called two on the turn, or raised the flop and then checked the turn, you could give some thought to folding. But heads up? There's a chance you're tied, and a fair chance that you have him beat.
I don't think I've been in this particular jam (i.e., monster vs. monster in a small, heads up pot) in a long time; If I had to guess, I'd say situations like this only come up once every 70 or so hrs. on average. So, to invoke a common (and, yes, I know, infuriating) refrain,"What you do in this situation doesn't really matter".
I also agree that you can't check and call. But, you never know. I've been shown sets of 3's in this situation before (or whatever lame card that river card was), so you probably had to see it.
No way can you lay it down to a potential runner-runner flush here. He would play any set the same way. I know you had your reasons but I would have raised him pre-flop and then bet the flop like you did. In this sequence he may decide to fold his Ace-Little suited with no pair and only a backdoor flush draw.
I'd have a remote chance of saving that last bet on the river when playing a face-to-face player that I consistently read well. Online, no chance. I'd pay off for sure.
Tommy
I would have played the same most times. A check on the river is unthinkable in my mind unless I know I am against a very agressive bluffer who would represent the flush. I would then probably checkraise the river.
Crying call after the river raise.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Other possible hands - AQ, Q9, trip 5s or 6s, or even slowplayed trip Ks. For me, I call, the pot is big enough, plus, you are in the big blind, and sometimes people simply put you on nothing and a bluff.
I'm sorry, you can't make this laydown at all unless you have a good read on your opponent. I could easily see someone playing a set this way, or even top two pair. You are gtting 11-1 that he is overplaying something less than a flush.
Easy call.
- Andrew
I am not trying to be a smartass here. I was wondering why everyone thinks its a terrible play in this situation.
I didn't like skp's laydown in the preceding post that much. We rarely disagree so I'll post one that I think was a bit easier from a hand I played last week.
I raise UTG with Ac Ad in a fairly tough eight handed 15/30 holdem game. The small blind, a player who appeared to be somewhat careful and tight but otherwise competent called, along with the loose and aggressive big blind.
Flop comes As 9d 5s. The SB checks, the BB bets, I raise, the SB cold calls, the BB three bets it and I just call with the intention of popping it on the turn.
The turn comes a 3c. The big blind bets, I raise and the SB cold calls again. The big blind now just calls. The river is the ten of spades. The small blind comes to life with a bet. The big blind calls. After a short deliberation, I throw top set in the muck. The small blind takes the pot with Ks Js and the big blind shows his AK offsuit as he mucks. Of course I keep my mouth shut concerning the fact that I threw away top set.
It was easier because the pot was protected by two players who had aggressively contested the pot on previous betting rounds, and the SB came to life only after the only draw possible came down on the river.
Regards,
Rick
I agree that this is a much easier laydown. I would have capped it on the flop. At this point your opponents must put you on a big hand since you raised under the gun and followed that up with another raise on the flop so there is no point in slow playing now. Who knows but maybe the "careful and tight" small blind may decide to play very "carefully" and "tightly" by folding rather than call another two bets cold with his flush draw. Your opponents don't always play correctly when a lot of heat is put on.
Jim,
With all due respect, I don't know any players tight enough to throw away the nut flush draw in a multiway pot without a pair on board. I don't care what the action is on the flop, no "careful" player would make this mistake.
Agreed. This laydown is much easier since the lead bettor on the river cold called the turn.
I agree..a much easier laydown to be sure.
I disagree. I have seen too many players bet a hand like AK or two pair in this spot when that third flush card comes off. The caller in the middle just makes things better for you since you are virtually certain he has you beat. Of course, if you are extremely sure about the player who bets your fold may be correct. But based on what you have said I would call every time.
If the small blind had slick I would think he would find a bet on the flop or the turn and not just check and call two bets cold back to him each time. Similarly, if he flopped or turned two pair he would find a bet or raise somewhere before the river. If he is worried that his hand might not be good then I would think he would just check it down on the river not suddenly find a bet when a flush card comes.
"The caller in the middle just makes things better for you since you are virtually certain he has you beat."
I would not believe that the caller in the middle has me beat at all. Rather I am sure I have him beat. Therefore, I do agree that the presence of the caller makes things better for you although this is normally not the case in these situations where you are the overcaller.
Mason and Jim,
In Jim's response to Mason, in the first paragraph I would have written about the same thing.
Later Mason wrote "The caller in the middle just makes things better for you since you are virtually certain he has you beat."
I assume there is a typo here and you meant that you are certain I have the BB (the caller in the middle) beat. If this is so, you are right. But our two-way protection of the pot sealed it for me. Remember, in my original post I described the small blind as "a player who appeared to be somewhat careful and tight but otherwise competent". In other words, he wasn't the type to make big moves on the pot into two hard charging opponents without having something big to show down.
Regards,
Rick
You are right. I apparently wrote it backwards. I meant to say that the caller in the middle who you obviously have beat makes things better for you. Also, when we talk about the idea of a protected pot, we almost always mean more than three players. It is not uncommon for someone to try to bluff through two players on the end. Three or more is very different.
Bluffing into a "protected" pot of only two players is a powerful weapon employed by pot limit players. Especially if the flop and 4th street better is between the other two players. If you are first to act, miss your draw (or have a marginal hand), and suspect that the last guy to act missed his draw, you can bluff right through the other guy.
It is very difficult for him to call, because he fears a bbig raise behind him. And an average or novice player with last action will also incorrectly assume you have the goods since the pot was "protected."
Mason,
I probably should have been more thorough when I described the big blind in my lead post. He was not only loose and aggressive, but he was a bit foolish also. He would not lay down any pair in this spot. I think he should count as two players making this a “protected pot” according to HPFAP and the TOP ;-).
If you have time, check out my response to John Cole in this thread. I do think the small blind can make a move on me with the right hand in this spot.
Regards,
Rick
Rick:
There is a point that you may be missing. If I remember your original post, I think that you are describing a player that is capable of a little thinking. Isn't this just the type that might reason out (whether he is correct or not) that if he bets you will absolutely put him on a flush and thus might go ahead and fold a big hand like a set? If that's the case, I believe that you must call.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 22 September 2000, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 September 2000, at 4:09 a.m.
I agree with Mason here. I have won a lot of pots by calling on the river after a surprise bet when a flush card comes in. Maybe against this particular opponent, the laydown is correct. But in general (especially after the pots get as big as this one has), I think you should usually call.
Regards, Puggy
Puggy,
In general I agree. This time the play of the hand and my read on the opponent indicated otherwise.
Regards,
Rick
"But based on what you have said I would call every time"
Could this be that tight poker author Mason Malmuth talking. I think not. Must be that PokerVetran guy that impersonates him or is it the other way around. He must know something though cause I agree with him. Shame on that weak tight Rick Nebiolo for tossing his hand.
Vince
Vince,
I think your mind might be slipping after writing all that bad poetry on the Exchange. Well actually, the "Ode to Lady Gambler" was pretty good. However, I don't think poetry and Oz go together. I would like to see Oz on "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire". That would be a good match.
Despite your slipping mind (and waistline if "M" is right about you), look at my replies to Tom Haley and John Cole. I'll forgive you for returning to the "Woods" without dropping by Los Angeles to say hi if you do.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I've read your respnses to Tom and John (wouldn't it be great if his name was Jerry, Tom and Jerry. Get it. Wait a minute Tommy John that's... Nah) Anyway, I have been playing poker for quite a while now and I believe I am in agreement with Bob Ciaffone. I believe he wrote once that in all the years he has been playing poker he has never been able to put anyone on a hand. I think this is especially true of blind hands. What if the loose BB had the 9d,5d and the SB had A,To. I believe the hand may have been played the same way. Of course your read was correct and probably is the correct read in the majority of cases but you only have to be wrong once in 5 or 6 (I forget the pot size) times to lose money by not calling. there are two very costly poker mistakes. 1) Calling when you should fold 2)Folding when you should call. Does this hand sound like the classic decision based on these two mistakes.
Vince.
But Vince this is a middle limit game with a small blind who plays "carefully" and "tightly". You really think he would call two bets cold on both the flop and the turn with just Ace-Ten offsuit (top pair/weak kicker)especially when the UTG pre-flop raiser has been doing all the raising? I agree that saving bets on the end is not the way to make money at limit poker but I don't know of any half-decent player that would play this way. I think Rick's fold will be correct almost every time.
Jim,
Maybe A,T is stretching it a bit. But when a loose player is involved things have a way of going haywire. Let's give the sb A,9 or A,Q or something reasonable. Remember that one player is loose and that always complicates a solid players thinking and hand reading. I am going to call a bet on the river in this situation every time with a set of Aces when one of the players is loose and the better is a solid player. BTW you never answered me when I said you should bet reraise the flop with your fkush draw in your Oceans's 11 thread. What did you think of that?
Vince.
Yes, I think the re-raise has merit if you a)don't get 4 bet on the flop, AND b) can get a free card on the turn by discouraging a turn bet from your opponent. Since you have position over your opponent this could happen. But when it works you are only saving the difference between a big bet on the turn versus an extra small bet on the flop or a net saving of one small bet. If it doesn't work it can cost you two small bets when you get 4 bet on the flop.
I have always thought that raising to get a free card is somewhat picayune and that the real benefit is that your opponent might fold a significant percentage of the time. But a semi-bluff re-raise doesn't normally have this going for it. The other problem is that if a blank comes on the turn and your opponent checks to you, when you check it down he knows where you are at. In some cases you will be tempted to bet the turn to try to get him out of the hand. If he calls here then he will usually call a river bet as well. The problem with the whole semi-bluff raise or re-raise scenario is that you are frequently drawn in to betting the turn and the river when blanks come hoping your opponent will fold but if he is loose, passive these guys will usually check-call all the way and make you show them a better hand. Bottom line is that you are always losing more money than you should in these situations against most opponents.
Jim,
You missed my point. I don't reraise here to get a free card. In fact I don't like a 3 bet free card play. I reraise here as a semi-bluff and semi-bluff the the turn and bet the river. A check on the turn and bet the river play is still an option but I lean towards betting the turn. I do this mainly because I have a very strong table image. If I get caught or have been caught doing this then I may not make the play.
Vince.
I now see your point. Maybe that is the answer. Bet this strongly all the way and if you get caught "with your pants down" then don't do it again for awhile. The other thing is that if you catch a card on the river, your opponent will note that you frequently pound the pot on come hands and will probably stay with you next time so you may want to switch gears when this happens as well. Good post.
I agree this is easier but not by much. Incidentally if we forgot the flop and turn plays I would prefer "skp's laydown"(I still wouldn't do it). I am very wary about people coming out betting scary cards. The backdoor flush is far less scary and a raise announces the flush. However the way the -hopefully weak- SB played it on the flop and on the turn probably makes your laydown correct.
Rick,
Do you still lay this hand down if the BB doesn't call? Your read on the SB hasn't changed, of course. Although S&M maintain it's foolhardy to make a straight bluff against two opponents, it seems that, at times, better players will recognize this and bluff here because the opponents also know this.
I'm assuming that if the BB folds, you go ahead and make the call anyway, despite your read.
John
Rick,
I'm taking into consideration that this would not be the time to bluff given your description of the BB. Let the BB resemble the SB.
John,
I won’t answer your addendum because your original question makes sense as it stands. Besides, do you think I know what an addendum is? ;-). In addition, your addendum has me confused. What the heck are you talking about? Would you please amend the addendum?
Anyway, there is a lot that is tough to communicate in a post. After the small blind made his bet and the big blind called, the small blind seemed to be completely at ease. I could almost sense he was hoping for the overcall.
If the big blind did not call, the pot would be a little smaller and as you point out, I would have the same information (about the strength of the small blinds hand). This would seem to indicate that a fold is still the best play. But the fact is that I probably would call.
First, I would not want to be seen as someone who would lay down so easy after putting in that much action. Although I did in the actual case, I don’t think it is as noticeable to your opponents when you don’t overcall as opposed to folding after someone else calls. When you make a lot of laydowns or big laydowns, they start taking more shots at you and apply more pressure (at the middle limits and above). This takes away from future earnings.
Next, I really would wonder if I made a mistake and it might hurt my play over the next hour or two. We all endeavor to be psychologically strong, but it the real world we are human and these things do burden us.
Lastly, it is worth a little bit to see your opponents hand and when you have a big hand and played it strongly, to have the table see yours!. I want my opponents to think I will raise then smooth call the reraise on the flop with aces because I will often play a worse hand the same way. When I make a follow up power move on the turn, I often want an opponent to slow down or throw a better hand (or one that is drawing correctly relative to my hand) away.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Sorry to confuse you. I guess I was thinking about the advisability or the possibility of the SB betting into both of you as a pure bluff when the scare card comes on the river.
John
John,
If I am in the small blind that is a possibility. The problem is how would I get to the river? The only draw is the flush draw. Any playable made hand other than a set is toast (assuming I thought my Rick rival clone UTG had something like AK). The one hand SB could have that I might both be in with and make this play with (and could be consistent with my post flop play) is a pair of nines. Then the play could be a bingo if the UTG rival Rick would lay it down. But my read on this guy was that he wasn’t that smart.
Regards,
Rick
Definitely have to have a good read to lay it down. Also remember about overcalling the clueless being profitable.
Tom,
I was certain I had the BB beat (unless he was gambling it up on a flush draw himself!). The thing was, the SB had to figure he would get at least one call when he bet. Both his opponents put in a lot of action. Based on his style (tight but not tricky), I thought he was almost certain to have the flush, as there was no other draw out there.
If he was a trickier player, I might worry that he was playing a set softly and was letting us bet it for him. But I didn't have that impression during the hand or any of the previous hands he played.
In fact, the more I think about it, if I was in the SB and flopped a set, it would be a great way to play the hand against these opponents (an aggressive big blind and a clone of me putting in the final raises). In other words, the bet on the end would be a great move if you thought the Rick clone holding AA may lay down. Lucky for me I got to see the hand.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Your post makes me wonder if looking like you never make “tricky moves” but actually be capable of making one now and then is a key to moving up.
I don't know if I would call this laydown easy. Though there are certain things that may make the laydown borderline correct, despite the size of the pot.
a. If the BB is a calling station who would call with a decent pair, thus protecting the pot.
b. If the SB is not the type to make moves, especially on the river.
c. The lack of any cards that might make the SB come to life. This is a weak board, with the only possible value betting hand on the end being A-10. It is doubtful any reasonable player would have stayed in for 3 bets on the flop and the turn with A-10. So it is crystal clear, he either has the flush or he is bluffing.
There are 18.5 bets in the pot. I probably wouldn't fold here, unless I felt I knew the player VERY well. But this is a play where it might be easy to get a read on a player who you play frequently with. You may see a certain opponent you play frequently with ALWAYS betting out with ONLY a monster after acting like a calling station earlier in a multiway pot. I don't play with anyone that often so I couldn't say.
General question:
Suppose you wind up in early position with 2nd pair on the flop. For example, you're in the big blind or you limp in early with something like JTs. Now the flop comes giving you 2nd pair. Also assume that you have aggressive players behind you. This situation has been giving me fits lately.
Example: You are in the big blind with 98. The flop comes Q92 with a flush draw. Suppose there are only 2 limpers and the SB checks so you decide to take a shot at the pot. The first limper folds, and the 2nd limper raises. The SB folds. You could be up against a Q, a flush draw, a straight draw, overcards, or a better 9.
Usually I would call the raise and then dump it to a bet on the turn. (1) Comments?
Now suppose the pot is raised preflop and you call out of the big blind with 98s. The same flop comes. (2) Do you bet out here?
(3) If you answered yes to 2, suppose you get raised making the pot heads up. Are you now likely or unlikely to see the river with this hand?
Thanks all! Puggy
This is classic: trying to play suited connectors out of a bad position. All the questions you ask derive from the fundamental problem of playing a draw up-front. If you get raised after taking your shot at glory with 9-8s, you are usually either a small favorite or a big dog. This of course depends upon the game. But if I raised the pot before the flop in a late position, and you bet into me out of the blinds when this flop comes, you are nearly 100% likely to be raised again. If you didn't raise before the flop, I'm going to put you on either a 9 or a Queen, with a bad kicker. You are now in the "I caught a piece of the flop" trap.
Puggy,
You want an answer - I change the question! (As spoken by ancient wrestler Rowdy Rodney McDowell years ago when I was into that a little bit).
Anyway you wrote: "Example: You are in the big blind with 98. The flop comes Q92 with a flush draw. Suppose there are only 2 limpers and the SB checks so you decide to take a shot at the pot. The first limper folds, and the 2nd limper raises. The SB folds. You could be up against a Q, a flush draw, a straight draw, overcards, or a better 9.
"Usually I would call the raise and then dump it to a bet on the turn. (1) Comments?"
I don't like the bet in the first place. But change a few things and it is a good bet. First make the flop K92. In an unraised pot this reduces the chances that a king is out. As an alternative, leave the flop alone and give yourself a T9 so you can pick up a straight draw. Next, take away the flush draw. If at least two of these conditions are met, I agree with the bet.
"Now suppose the pot is raised preflop and you call out of the big blind with 98s. The same flop comes. (2) Do you bet out here?"
I assume you still have three opponents but for two bets rather than one. Most of the time I do. The pot is twice as big and the raiser is more likely to have overcards to the queen (If he raised early). With a bigger pot, you need to take more chances.
"(3) If you answered yes to 2, suppose you get raised making the pot heads up. Are you now likely or unlikely to see the river with this hand?"
There are five big bets in when the turn comes. If you go to the river it may cost you two big bets to win seven. In this case your effective odds are 3.5 to 1 against. The odds against you improving are in the range of 4.5 to 1 against.
However, you may be in the lead. Your opponent may check the turn or the river. So I think you should call against most tricky and aggressive opponents. Lay it down to a little old lady.
Regards,
Rick
Rick wrote:
"I don't like the bet in the first place. But change a few things and it is a good bet. First make the flop K92. In an unraised pot this reduces the chances that a king is out. As an alternative, leave the flop alone and give yourself a T9 so you can pick up a straight draw. Next, take away the flush draw. If at least two of these conditions are met, I agree with the bet."
OK, change the question if you like, I'll just ask another question! :)
Rick, if you check, and your opponent bets and everyone folds to you leaving it heads up, do you call? You're getting 5-1 and you're about 8-1 to improve to 2 pair or trips, but you easily could have the best hand.
OK, now same situation but you have another flop caller (or even players to act after you). I would now fold. Arguments, comments, criticisms?
Puggy
Havnt read the others and I could be wrong because these situations are tougher in mid limit but #1 in this case I muck ,8 makes me two pair but if I was beat with a bigger pair on the flop he'd still have a re draw and if he was playing tricky an 8 gives him a straight.#2 yes i actually like my hand better here as cold callers hands pre flop have been narrowed.#3Thats a toughie ,it depends on the board and the actual player,I always factor his move on the river and the likliehood he will check.
It was brutal battle at Hollywood Casino in aurora, IL. the Suburban Poker Man opted to play in the 5-10 hold'em game and not to inter the 10-20 feeder game. Why play in a short handed game with 7 rocks, when I could play with a full line up in the 5-10 game. Like the man said if you can't find the sucker in the first 30 minutes of the game, then your the sucker.
I played solid cards and was up a $100, I let the rocks go on a feeding friendzee in the 10-20 feeder game, and just like I figured their game ended as fast as it started. After the dinner break I got caught in some hands and now I was up only $10, well that's how it goes sometimes.
It was 7:00 pm and a 20-40 hold'em game was getting started and most of the rocks were heading for the bigger action. Now the 10-20 game started to look like a game I could play. So I took a seat in the 10-20 hold'em game and settled in for what looked like a good game.
Seat five had chips but the player was gone. Then it happened, seat five showed up, and it was Mr. Cappy, the local maniac. Raise! Raise! Raise! But I am the Sububan Poker Man, and I defend the right of any player to play any two cards for any position. And I did read Lee H. Jones article, "Dealing with Maniacs" December 24, 1999, in the Card Player Magazine. I was unafraid and felt in control. I guess you could say I was dilutional.
I got Big Slick in late position, not suited, I like to be positive so I call it double suited. When it's double suited you can make more flushes. Three players inter the pot before it gets to me, I smooth call because I know Mr. Cappy in the little blind will raise it, I wasn't disappoited. Now we have six way action on the flop. It comes A 4 5 rainbow. Mr. Cappy checks, the player to my right bets, I raise and Mr. Cappys re-raises, when it gets back to me I cap it and we still have six way action. I'm feeling strong and it looks like everything is coming my way. The turn card is nothing, Mr Cappy checks, the player to my right bets, I raise, Mr Cappy re-raises and I cap it still six way action. I got them just where I want them. We all hold our breath for the river, well I held my breath. The river is a 3, Mr. Cappy bets, the player to my right raises, and I now know that it wasn't a river card but a flash flood. I muck, Mr. Cappy raises, the better calls and Mr. Cappy shows a 9 2 double suited. The stunned bettor has the same hand I mucked, he looks at me in disbelief, I feel his pain, but I can't make it go away.
I No longer read articles by Lee H. Jones. The morale of this hold'em story is... Well I'll let you figure that out for yourself, I got financial problems right now and it's to late, I'm to tired, and I'm broke.
See you at the hold'em table, but if Mr. Cappy is with you, I'll be heading for the craps table, I think I'll have better luck there.
Respectfully, The Suburban Poker Man
SPM,
Must have been a full moon or something yesterday.
I had my very own mr cappy to contend with - he loved capping with J7 UTG - hell any 2 would do - me I'm playing my "best" poker - and getting my ass kicked all around Aruora - last hand went like this.
Mr Cappy (mine maybe yours too) raises UTG it is capped by the time it gets to me. I have KcQc flop comes Jc Th 6c I have something like 18 outs counting over cards which I think are good against these guys.
Turn is a J and turn is a big brick. I had over $120 in that pot myself and it had to be over $500 in total. But MY Mr. Cappy had played it with perfection he had a J7 and took it down.
I'm on my way home broke and dejected thinking maybe if I run into that semi head on at 60 mph I couldn't feel any worse. I feel better today but it sure would have been nice to catch one hand in the 4 hours I played yesterday.
Hey this is not a bad beat silly story forum. Put this garbage where it belongs. Please. That's where they make me put mine.
Vince.
Sorry I upset you Mr Lepore. I'm new to this posting stuff. You sound like a pretty tense guy. Your sarcasm makes be belive you must have just gotten out of your teens a few years ago, or maybe you just like being rude. You could have taken some of your poker skills for reading players and figured that out for yourself. I bet you like to use the term "What Ever".
Now here's an idea for you, why not help another poster child and explain to me in a nice way where I should post my silly garbarge.
Respectfully, The Sumburban Poker Man
The Other Topics Forum!
Listen Suburban Poker Man, I believe that you once said that you are a celebrity. You may want to preface that "celebrity" with "thin skin". I am not "rude" all the time only when it's to my advantage. I didn't just get out of my teens although I act that way. And yeas, (I was going to correct the spelling to yes but I like the way yeas looks so i'll leave it) there was a bit o' sarcasm in my pointed response to your post. If you would like to enter into a name calling contest with me please proceed to the Other Topics Forum and let's get it on. Oh, btw, I only trade barbs with those that have real names likre Badger. Not those that hide beneath a psuedonym. Oh! celebrated one. One other thing, you did not upset me and don't ever say you did again! I get pset when someone says that.
Vince.
The Other Topics Forum!
Listen Suburban Poker Man, I believe that you once said that you are a celebrity. You may want to preface that "celebrity" with "thin skin". I am not "rude" all the time only when it's to my advantage. I didn't just get out of my teens although I act that way. And yeas, (I was going to correct the spelling to yes but I like the way yeas looks so i'll leave it) there was a bit o' sarcasm in my pointed response to your post. If you would like to enter into a name calling contest with me please proceed to the Other Topics Forum and let's get it on. Oh, btw, I only trade barbs with those that have real names likre Badger. Not those that hide beneath a psuedonym. Oh! celebrated one. One other thing, you did not upset me and don't ever say you did again! I get upset when someone says that.
Vince.
Hey, SPM!
Nice to see you on this forum...
Not sure if you're venting or looking for advice. There's just not much you can do against the Mr. Cappy's of this world, except know that sooner or later (sometimes later) you WILL get their $$$!
That same night, the same Mr. Cappy you are referring to, got into the $20-$40 game and sat on my immediate left. The following is NOT an exaggeration: For 3 1/2 straight hours, I did not see a single flop! This included my blind hands as Mr. Cappy straddled EVERY one of my blinds and was gauranteed to re-raise his straddle. (no seat changes were available). Every other pot was getting capped pre-flop. For 3.5 solid hours, I just never saw 2 cards that (in my opinion) could withstand 4 bets pre-flop. I ended down -$350 for the night. No big deal. I was never more than 1 pot away from being ahead for the night. Unforunately I had to leave early. I think in games like this, patience is your best weapon.
Kevin
Hey Suburban Poker Man,
Glad to see you on this forum. Personally I think Mr. Cappy is one of my favorite people to play against - I do everything I can to isolate him and he will give you his money eventually - he may put some beats on you in the process but he is definitely great for a game. Patience is definitely the best option but when I am in a hand against him I show no fear as I usually have the best of it and I want to punish all of the other draws - he is best to have on your right side so 3-betting pre-flop is an option when he raises - if he is on your left - I would always raise so his re-raise knocks as many out as possible. He is a genuinely nice guy and I love when he is in the game, although he definitely makes things a bit more interesting.
Just some thoughts...
See you this week.
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike D)
I'm guessing you were holding off "entering" the 10-20 game so that the tight boys would not "inter" (otherwise known as bury) you. Not being a literalist, otherwise known as one who merely stops to examine the penmanship when the writing is on the wall, I'll note that maybe you should re-evalute playing with the rocks, who are often much easier to read.
But upon taking your seat in the 10-20 game, I doubt you were "dilutional". Perhaps you were delusional (visions of grandeur?) initially, but then your chips were indeed diluted as time went on. Maybe they'll post your picture in the next edition of the dictionary, right beside the word "dilutional" (wouldn't that be defined as in, "one who is capable of being diluted"?). Thinking it over, maybe you were indeed dilutional at the start ....
Great post.
x
Look up in the poker room it's a shark, it's a fish, no it's the Suburban Poker Man.
A Strange Visitor from the suburbs, who came to the poker room with powers and abilities far beyound those of mortal players.
Suburban Poker Man, faster than a speeding rush, more powerful than a pair of aces, able to leap tall odds with a single card.
Suburban Poker man, who can change the course of might trips, bend cards with his bare hands.
And who desguise, as a upwardly mobile suburbanite. Fights the never ending battle, for the right of any player to play any two cards from any postion;
Don't trip on your cape, SPM.
Hey, anonymous, this crap goes along with my crap on the other poker forum. Please.
vince
Please take your dribble someplace else. Clearly you belong in the low limit section. Try reading the terms and conditions.
You are in the small blind or on the button. A new player posts in the cut-off seat...let's assume the player is a solid/aggressive (but not too aggressive) player.
Everyone folds....the poster raises.
You are on the button - with what hands will/should you reraise with (presumably to shut out the blinds).
You are in the SB, the button has folded - with what hands will/should you reraise with (presumably to shut out the big blind).
Here's what I think.
The poster will raise with any pair, any ace, any K (with a 8 kicker or higher) or any suited K. Any Q with a 9 kicker or higher, JT, J9, T9, T8, 98, 87, 76.
So, this is roughly 20% of all possible two cards. I believe the sb and the button should have the same criteria for a reraise, becuase the position of the button = the sb half bet.
These are the hands I would reraise with : any pair any suited ace ace with 8 kicker or higher any K with J kicker or higher and KTs and K9s and QJs
This makes up for roughly the upper 50% of the hands that the poster would have raised with.
Don't forget the SB has the added advantage of only having one player left to act behind him.
Betting in the dark. I've been experimenting with it for a year, with accelerated research in the last few months. I started doing it because a certain player did it to me twice in one night, and both times he had me all mixed up.
Typically its from the small blind after the cutoff or button opens with a raise, and I three bet to take charge and blast out the BB.
Betting the flop in the dark here is a STRONG play, even if the BB stays in, especially if they know that my range of hands is AA to KQ to 88, or thereabouts. But they really think you have a big pair.
If no one raises you on the flop, and the flop has exactly one big card, bet the turn in the dark. They will often think that that means you either had a big pair to start, or that you hit the flop.
Last night I was playing against the same guy who got me started on all this. A spunky palyer. I'll call him Joe.
I open-raised on the button, which I do almost everytime I'm against only the blinds. But this time I had a hand: AJ. SB folded. Joe reraised from the BB. I called. He bet the flop in the dark.
I called the flop in the dark! Again, a weird looking play, but kinda nifty if you think about it. It takes some of the power away from the other guy. He can't bet the turn in the dark hoping to employ the above deception.
The flop came J-9-x, giving me top pair, top kicker. He bet the turn in the dark, and I raised. Then he stopped and waited for the turn card to be dealt. A king. He only called, not happy about it, and I knew for sure I had the best hand.
River came a nine.
He bet out! I put him on a straight, three nines, or a cold bluff. So I just called, and he mucked without showing. I never had to show my hand.
Now that's what I call fun!
Tommy
Hey Tommy. I play at Bellagio's, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. Wanna play in my game? I'll post your small blinds. Of course I expect you to bet in the dark.
Vince.
Are you sure about that. Posting his small blinds I mean. After all, you are bearing the entire added burden while the entire table is the beneficiary of his dark betting.
Hope to see you at Mohegan Sun this wknd. Maybe we can get a (light) bite to eat and you can tell me more about your adventures in the Land of Oz (if you care to). On the other hand perhaps Current Events might be more interesting at this point, because today is, after all, today. I am finally getting around to some l---o----n-----g procrastinated house-cleaning this afternoon. I did the organizing a few weeks ago. But it really is time for Spring Cleaning. Then I'm going walking with a sprinkle of jogging. May or not play tonight, but definitely Saturday/Sunday.
I would assume you always take the Peaceful Road when you go to the Sun. I take the back road because I live in the extended neighborhood. If I had it to do all over again (living in Massachusetts and driving to FW/MS), I would always take the Quiet Road because that's just me.
C u later and gl at MS.
Sure Vince! Thanks! :-)
Here's a question for you. Let's say an aggressive player open-raises from the button against the blinds, and you are in the SB. You three bet, and the BB folds and the button calls.
Of all the times this exact scenerio unfolds, how often do you check the flop?
More after you answer. And seriously, thanks for replying. I really want to bounce some ideas off you guys about this.
Tommy
This is one of the reasons why it may well work as long as you don't overuse it (as below). If you do overuse it, expect to run into all kinds of difficult decisions as your opponents adjust unless they are very predictable, passive, controllable. I have used it on rare occasions myself over the years, because, as you mention, you would usually be right in betting the flop anyway because of the extra odds you are receiving in this heads-up matchup, and because of your preflop aggression as reraiser. However, you really must pick your spots and opponents, and don't ever do it so much that they suspect what you might be up to. It could well be costly if the button is a tenacious player, or if the BB is loose or aggressive (unless of course you have a very strong hand).
I completely agree with everything you wrote. As this experiment continues, my focus is on finding the best frequency, and picking only the best spots. Thanks for the reminders.
Tommy
If you are looking for a frequency to bet out number that has meaning it must be qualified as M indicates. You probably are going to bet out on > 92% of all flops in which you make this play. The key making this play is knowing when to do it, raise from the SB that is. If you make a habit of it, like any other bad habit, it will have adverse affects. Go over different scenarios (in your mind) when you think that raising out of the SB is appropriate. When you find yourself in a similar situation to one you think of then try the raise and mentally record the results.
Vince
Actually, I have noticed and thought that this play against a fairly tight opponent has a pretty decent chance of success if it is only used once in a blue moon. The natural assumption is that the SB has a medium/big pair or AK. Either way, it is pretty tough for the button to call with nothing, and that's what he probably has. This holds true too if the SB looks at the flop and bets automatically.
However, the SB should have a solid image and the button cannot be too loose. In addition, if you keep using this play repeatedly against the same people you should soon be in trouble even if your opponents aren't superstars.
"I open-raised on the button, which I do almost everytime I'm against only the blinds."
I think this strategy will end up costing you a LOT of money, unless the blinds are unobservant rocks. The big blind obviously knew you do this because he three bet you with something mediocre. You got lucky on this hand but I would be willing to bet you lose more than you think as a result of trying to steal with garbage....
Yeah, you might be right. Strangly, there's no way to know, since the hyper agressive button play against the blinds carries over into all other hands in terms of how my bets are perceived.
Plus, when I raise against the blinds with 'trash,' say, 10-8, I do not think of it as "stealing." If they fold, fine. If they don't, fine as well. I get good reads, free cards, payed off by ace-highs when I have bottom pair, stuff like that. All sorts of good things happen. It's a rare hand where I put in a bet on the turn or river without either having the best hand, or having good feel that the other player will fold. That has to add up over the long haul, I think ... I hope!
Tommy
Your opponents must be very weak if you can open-raise any hand and make up for it buy always outplaying them postflop. If you ALWAYS raise the blind, then they should be folding all weak hands against you and 3 betting all the strong ones. I think it would be difficult to overcome this edge, but hey, you might be one of those players that has a keen hand reading ability. What happens if they 3 bet you and rags flop. DO they have a pocket pair or big cards? Or what if high cards flop? You automatically fold if you raised with crap? Raising with anything puts you in a tough spot.
Well, I don't ALWAYS raise. Hands like 9-2,7-4, I usually muck unless the blinds are ultra tight. I always raise for value with any hand that has a Q or higher in it. J-x I'll fold sometimes, but not often. The borderline hands are ones like 10-7.
Lots of times the blinds fold even though we play often and they know I could be on rags. I think that's because my hand reading after the flop happens to be especially good against them, those certain players, and they know that, so they just decide not to bother getting all tangled up with their marginal hand against a completely unknown hand that has position and a history of bad memories.
As to the feisty players who three-bet with decent hands, well, that goes both ways. I know they do that, so it's okay. Time after time when that happens I'm either out of the hand for three bets, or going to battle with a worthy hand and flop, with position. That's a winning proposition.
The cool thing is, the situation is very rarely reversed because I lay down the blinds when they raise on the button. It's like I'm last to bet all night, all week, all year.
Tommy
20/40 he, i post to enter game behind button. no one knows me. all fold to me and i raise.(2 black aces!) only big blind calls.
i bet flop in dark(out of turn), BB says i must have a powerhouse, calls me all the way and i win.
as a bonus, BB was pissed all night that i had AA first hand.
brad
As long as we are on the subject of folding at the river what do you guys think about this laydown:
The game is $30-$60 at the Bellagio. A player open raises from middle position with the AdTh. The next player calls and the button re-raises. Only the opener and the other player call. There is $320 in the pot and three players.
The flop is: AhKh6s
The opener now bets $30. The next player calls. The button folds. There is $380 in the pot and two players.
The turn is: 8h
The opener now checks. The other player bets $60 and the opener calls. There is $500 in the pot.
The river is: 3d
The opener checks. The other player bets $60.
Who would call here with the opener's hand and why?
P.S.: The other player had pocket Sixes for a flopped set not that it makes any difference.
Crap if the guy wouldn't call the river bet then why on earth did he call the turn bet? He had no outs (unless you call the Th a good flush draw.)
-SmoothB-
In my local 10-20 game I would definitely call. Maybe your game is different, but I wouldn't be surpised in my game if I the second player in this situation showed KQ, KJ, or KT. Some players could even have K8.
Even so-called "good players" could have KQ or KJ because they believe that they can outplay everyobdy after the flop. Such players may think that they have successfully read the first player's hand when he checks the turn.
Steve
I tend to agree.
Hero's check on the turn signifies weakness or a trap. Opponent bets. No raise...therefore no trap confirming weakness and then the river bet could just be a thin value bet with a King.
I pay off here although I probably wouldn't have checked the turn in the first place with my AT.
Just so SKP. Bet the turn and then make your decision if you're raised. Checking the turn will virtually force your opponent to bet almost anything.
I doubt I would have checked either.
Also, I wouldn't get my feet wet with ATo in early position if two or three of the players behind me are capable of pulling a semi-bluff raise on the turn, which makes lead betting the turn that much easier.
Like skp, I would have kept leading. I like the heart ten in my hand.
Jim, there's not enough info. It'd help to know if this player frequently calls two bets cold, or if he is the type who mucks or three bets before the flop. If he is a reasonable player who DOES like to cold call two bets, then his possible hands that beat A-10 are: a set, two pair, exactly QJ of hearts.
As the hand went, I would tend to call because I had checked the turn. He doesn't need much to stab at this good-sized pot on the turn after I check. When I call the turn bet, I might only have a flush draw in his mind. So when the heart does not come on the river and I check, he might try a bluff here. Also, that he did not raise on the flop means its unlikely he has ace-bigger kicker. Yeah, I'd most likely call, expecting to way the best hand, or way the worst.
But's it's dang hard to evaluate these kind of hands from home. Knowing the player means so much.
Tommy
I'm one off the button in a 10-20 game. One early limper, I call with QTo, a very, very fishy player calls behind me, the SB mucks and the BB knuckles.
Flop: T65 rainbow. The BB-- who's fairly tight and unimaginative, one of those types who tries to play well-- bets out, next guy mucks, I raise, fish cold calls, BB calls.
Turn- 4, putting four of a suit on board. BB checks, I bet fish calls.
River- 6. BB checks, I bet, fish calls, BB calls.
Comments? I know this sounds like a fairly routine hand, but I actually do have a reason for posting it.
I wouldn't have limped in, and I wouldn't have bet the river, other than that, considering the lack of resistance, the raise on the flop was good as was the turn bet. IMHO
Like most delicate river bets, this one is a good choice if you can be sure you're beat if raised, and then fold.
Tommy
That really is the crux of this post. The pre-flop limp, was,-- ahem-- probably a bit marginal, but it happened and there's nothing I can do about it now. But the river bet has bugged me for a while.
My thinking, such as it was, was that the BB probably has a T with a decent kicker, otherwise he wouldn't have called on the turn. True, he could have been open ended, but I think his most likely hand was a decent T. Anyway, when the river dropped I figured I'd bet, hoping that the fish would call with-- I don't know, 33, A5, whatever-- and the BB would have to think about mucking his T-- hopefully a T with a better kicker-- instead of making an overcall.
Had the BB been a bit better player this play 'might' have worked, but as things worked out it didn't-- the BB showed KT and dragged it. Later on, as I thought about the hand, I was pretty proud of myself-- my reasoning was good, I thought, and it isn't often you get a chance to try and knock someone off a better kicker by forcing them to overcall. But the more I think about it, the less enamoured I am of this play.
One mistake that I think is common to most of us (I know I make it) is our tendancy to give our opponents credit for actually analyzing the situation. I thought the weakish BB would get nervous making an overcall here, particularly when the board paired and I kept betting into a guy who was known to chase mid pair all the way to the river. But he wasn't. I might have been, but he wasn't. And the reason he wasn't, I think, is because even our 'solid' opponents are rarely cognizant of the subtle dynamics surrounding the play of a given hand. Most small winners-- and it's small winners that I'm thinking about here, guys who just beat the rake-- are really just like fish, except their starting hands are better and they can lay down on the flop. And I think most of our 'plays' are designed to manipulate small winners, since we see them playing fairly tight and assume they have a decent understanding of the game.
Heroe's in limit hold-em who try to make big laydown's on the river when a big pot is staring them in the face are nothing more than sophisticated suckers. I learned a long time ago of course the hard way, that overcalls definitely have their time and place. In your particular hand if I were the BB I would be hardpressed to lay down top pair second best kicker in an un-raised pot.
Bruce
I think you're right-- in fact, I don't think I would have laid it down either.
At the time it seemed to me the only chance I had of taking the pot; putting the BB in a position where he had to overcall. When he called the turn I was fairly sure I was kicked, so I thought I'd try to put him in as tough of a place as I could. Had the fish not been in the pot I would have checked.
Ok here's a hand I played a while back. Was it correct? What would you do?
I have pocket aces in SB in a fairly passive game. It's 7 handed, 3 players calling way too much, even if it's raised.
So 4 players in and I raise. all call.
Flop: 8s,9c,Js
I bet out. opener 1 off BB raises! This young kid has not raised a pot in 3 hours. He calls virtually everything but has never raised preflop or postflop.
Cutoff calls. Now I quickly decide I'll raise to find outif he caps it. I will muck if he does as I'm positive he has made str8t. Sure enuf he caps it. Cutoff calls, I know him to be on flush draw in my guts. I muck.
Opinions?
Results later.
I think it's a great laydown if you're that sure he has you beat. And from what you said, he does. The best you could hope for is that he had two pair, but then you still have to hit a longshot and dodge the other guy's draws. I like your probing reraise. Well done.
Tommy
I don't think it would qualify as a great laydown if you were sure you were beat. It would be a great read if, knowing the players, their habits, and the odds that you were drawing dead of thin, you combined all these to laydown and save a bunch of money. From the look of it, I agree with you that Larry played the hand well.
"I don't think it would qualify as a great laydown if you were sure you were beat. "
Of course, you're right. We're splitting semantical hairs here, but I like doing that!
The greatness of a laydown is relative to the player's tendencies. If a player who routines pays off with AA manages to lay it down now and then, then those are 'great' laydowns, for that person. Just like when I break 90 at golf, it's a great round.
Tommy
well of course youngster had the str8t. No "great laydown" there really. But the other guy made his flush draw on the river so kid wasn't too happy. Really it was just good awareness, maybe easy read. sometimes I don't give myself enuf credit. trying to remain humble. Need to stay as observant always as I was that nite
I may have put him on a straight with the 1st raise but the cap makes it a pretty sure thing your fold was a good one.
30-60. After all pass, button raises. Small blind, a famous player who usually plays bigger stakes, calls with 4-4, as does the big blind. $180 in the pot.
Flop is 9h-8s-4s. Small blind bets, big blind raises, button calls, small blind re-raises and both opponents call. $450 in the pot.
Turn is a Js making board Js-9h-8s-4s, no flush possible. Small blind bets and big blind raises. Button folds and small blind re-raises again. Big blind calls. $810 in the pot.
River is a Qd making board Js-9h-8s-4s-Qd. Small blind checks and big blind bets. Small blind curses, exposes his cards, shakes his head at the dealer, and, finally, folds.
1) What did the big blind have?
2) Was this a good laydown by the small blind?
This hand went south for the SB pre-flop. A 3-bet is automatic for me, otherwise muck a small pair. 44 wants to play heads-up vs. Ax or similar and really loses value when the BB gets involved.
I'm not in love with the river laydown but I wasn't there either.
-Fred-
Fred is right. The sb should either reraise of fold.
To answer your other question, couldn't the winner have QJ (perhaps with the queen of spades).
But Andy said no flush possible. I think typo on suits. he does show 3 spades on board.
Yes, typo on suits, Jc, not Js. Winner had Ts-9s, a stiraight.
Sounds like one hell of a laydown on the river. As Fred said, I wasn't there, but I've got to think I'd make a crying call...
Actually, with all that action on the flop and turn, I probably would have value bet the river.
A former World Series of Poker Champion and prominent high stakes player, Berry Johnston was sitting in our $30-$60 game waiting to get in the $80-$160 game. Dave Roemer, a solid player and prominent poster on RGP, comes in under the gun with a raise to $60. Everyone folds to Berry on the button who calls $60 cold. The small blind folds. The big blind calls. There is $200 in the pot and three players in the hand.
The flop is: KsJd8h
The big blind checks. Dave bets $30. Berry raises to $60. The big blind calls $60 cold. Dave folds. There is $320 in the pot and two players.
The turn is: Jc
The big blind checks. Berry checks.
The river is: Kh
The big blind checks. Berry bets $60. The big blind calls. Berry wins with the Kc7c for trip Kings at the river. The big blind mucked.
All comments welcome.
Maybe I'm tired but doesn't Berry have a full house and not trips? Calling $60 is just a small blind for this player and he's playing like you or I might play a 4-8 game waiting for 15-30. I'm guessing Dave had pocket 10's or 9's.
Sorry, I was the one who was tired at 4:00 am. Yes, he has Kings full of Jacks. I wonder what the big blind had. He seemed really disgusted when the second King hit the river. But if he had trip Jacks on the turn, I wonder why he didn't bet the turn?
BB probably had AQ...that's an easier hand to call 2 bets cold with on the flop as opposed to say AJ.
Knowing Berry was an action player, since he is used to playing bigger stakes, he probably expected Berry to bet the turn despite the 2nd jack.
I played against Berry at Bellagio $30-60 earlier this year. I was thinking yum-yum then and I am thinking yum-yum now.
---
Izmet Fekali (he doesn't pass the AQ test)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Yum yum? Did he buy you dinner?
Izmet's hip to the latest poker poker talk. Player whose chips you expect to, well, devour = "yum-yum".
I try to walk right past a table if I here those words being murmured as I approach.
And, yep, serious AQ test failure here.
John,
My posts seem to indicate that the post times are now being based on Mountain Central Time (or whatever you call it). If this is true, you posted at 6:08 a.m PST. Are you an early riser or a stark raving late night lunatic?
Regards,
Rick
I may be a little of the latter, but somethings's goofy about that time. I posted it somewhere around 1:00am, give or take. Maybe Barbara Yoon's hacking the site again. :)
Excuse me MISTER FEENEY, I recently read a reponse of yours onRGP. In it you mention the names of 2 + 2 posters tha are capable of doing a good job at mid limit hand analysis. No where in that reply was the name of Vince Lepore. Just goes to show hoe much you know!
Vince
Ah, Vince, I was wondering when you would notice that. It was a strategic omission, along with some other names... allowing me to keep some names in reserve in case I needed them. But actually I had another reason for omitting you, involving trying not to stir the pot of the mess you'd already got yourself into on rgp! Howzzat? :)
...I should clarify: You didn't really get yourself into a mess. You just stepped into a controversy as an "outsider", which always has mess *potential on rgp.
Looked like he had a full house K's full of J's but anyway looked like a pretty routine hand. He called on the button with a suited K and hit top pair raised the flop with top pair no reraise so his K us oribabky good - checkes the turn maybe avoiding a check raise by the BB who probably has a J.
Looks like a pretty common happening - did I miss something.
Rounder, I think you missed something - focus on the pre-flop call.
"oribabky"
I never squabble over spelling or typos. Just for fun, I gotta know. Did this collection of letters get by your spell checker? lol
Tommy
probably - which was what it was supposed to say.
:-)
Rounder, you are too good a player to cold-call a solid player's early position raise with King-shit suited and no one else in the pot.
Yes,
And since most people know that, sometimes it works like a charm.
But seriously,
I think some who would make this play only remember when it works and they never take into acount how much money has dribbled from their stack when they fold on the flop, on the turn or get outkicked at showdown.
Right on the point, Sammy.
Jim,
I think this is one of your bests posts. This call before the flop was a joke.
Regards,
Rick
Rounder,
I have no idea how you managed to incorrectly type "oribabky" when trying to type "probably". You ought to get rid of those hockey gloves while at your computer:)
BTW, you of all people should be all over Berry for calling a raise preflop with Kc7c...surely, you don't think that this is a routine call.
I think Berry played it well on the flop and turn and obviously had a gimme bet on the river.
As for bb, he almost certainly has a hand with an Ace in it..I put him on AQ or AJ with the former being more likely as it's easier to call 2 bets cold on the flop with AQ than AJ.
I bet he had pocket 8's and was looking to check raise the turn. Either that or J8.
A few months ago, I started a thread about the poor play of a former WSOP champion (not the big one, but other tourneys). I decided not to name names at that time.....but now that his poor pre-flop play has already been unmasked, I guess I can say that BJ was the topic at hand in that thread.
Preflop: Even on the button - this is a HORRIBLE CALL with only one opponent in so far; especially when raised UTG by a good player. Ask yourself what do I want to flop? A king may get you in a lot of trouble against AK, KK, AA, KQs.
On the flop: Good raise
On the turn: Good check
On the river: Automatic bet with kings full; you most likely have a winning hand or a tie.
I'm not in the Vegas-LA loop, so I don't know these guys like you do. But if a fella makes a living player poker for years and years, doesn't that prove that he knows how to win?
Looking at isolated plays and concluding that a player is a bad player is hard to avoid. But if you already KNOW he is a winning player, and you see plays that look "bad," then perhaps the proper thing to do is ask, "What does he know that I don't know?"
That aside, I don't think that playing K-7 suited for two bets on the button in a shorthanded pot can EVER be a horrifically bad play. The key word here is, button. More ways to max out. More ways to get out cheap. More ways to read the situation and steal.
Tommy
Maybe this is why you're a winner - you see the big picture instead of a small negative.
Actually, it's not a good answer. If you are just looking at that particular hand calling the UTG raise with the K7s is just suicide.
This brings up an interesting point. There are a bunch of players who play pretty well from the flop on, but still do marginal at best. The reason is that they simply play too many hands and in particular call to many raises before the flop with hands that they should fold.
Exactly!
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Tommy, you're trying to ruin my game! I'm too loose already, I don't need any extra encouragement :-)
Thanks Mason - But I was really just bluffing, even I don't call with this crap!
But, Tommy when I see a play like this at showdown I have to wonder how often the guy is making these kinds of bad cold-calls and you never see it. It could be the tip of the iceberg. Think about all the times a guy doesn't get to showdown with his piece of cheese and simply has to muck his hand once the flop comes or at a later stage.
Jim, I strongly agree. The same thing runs through my mind when a wacky hand is shown down. And I'm saying that I would play the K-7 suited in that spot. I wouldn't.
But no one has addressed my sincere, legitimate question. Maybe I need some more facts. Is Barry Johnston a long-range winning pro or not? I don't know anything but what I've heard. If he IS a consistent winner, then what gives? How can all of us point to his play and say he sucks, and then he still walks away with the money? Help me understand!!
Tommy
Haven't played with him enough to have any first hand knowledge, but I think a relevant question is how much limit hold'em does he play compared to NL/PL or other forms of poker? I've seen PL players who play limit badly make calls like this.
In tournament poker, Berry Johnston is a long term money winner. In limit poker no one ever knows who is a winner and who is a loser because the only person who has the necessary data to do this is the player himself. I heard a rumor from a high limit player named "Doc" at the Bellagio that Berry lost about $300,000 in Omaha last year. In the absence of any hard data, the only information we can go on is what the player shows when there is a showdown and you get to see his cards and you can recount the betting action. I make my judgements based on these facts. I do agree that you can modify this based on an assessment of your opponent. But if Berry Johnston thinks that a player like Dave Roemer is going to raise under the gun in a full tabled limit hold-em game with anything other than a premium hand, then Berry's player reading abilities need some work.
I have heard that some of the great tournament players are not good limit players. Guys like Tom McEvoy, T.J. Cloutier, Scotty Nguyen, the late Stu Ungar, and others are/were supposedly either small winners or big losers at full tabled limit poker. Some of the best limit players don't play tournament poker. Guys like Chip Reese, Danny Robison, Lenny Martin, Mickey Coleman, etc. are totally unknown to much of the poker playing public.
That aside, I don't think that playing K-7 suited for two bets on the button in a shorthanded pot can EVER be a horrifically bad play. The key word here is, button. More ways to max out. More ways to get out cheap. More ways to read the situation and steal.
The positional advantage here is negligible compared to the HUGE probability of being dominated. This is a horrible play. This was NOT a shorthanded game, the utg opener was NOT a fish. What kind of a flop does he wish for? Does he really think he can make up for that mistake with a flush draw against a hand that won't fold (I'm certainly not folding when I open utg in a full game)? Will the king on the flop turn him into a maniacal reraising machine to make a bundle? How the hell does he expect to extract money from the utg opener with *that*? I fold K7s against a solid limper for *one* bet pronto.
If anything, a reraise is a much better play and it still sux deeply. This preflop cold call is for the fishiest of the fish.
---
Izmet Fekali (There's no big picture here.)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Again, Izmet, I agree. I was groping to find a way to justify Barry's play on this hand.
Please read my post in reply to Jim. I'm nervously confused.
Tommy
The play plain and simply sucks. I have put in about 30 minutes worth of total play against Berry so I have no expert opinion. I saw him limp in a 40-80 game with King shit suited in the cutoff seat about 10 days ago, but that's my only recent memory of him. One thing we all know is the man's reputation. He's won a bunch of tournaments and he plays a lot of live action. Does he make a lot of money? I sure the hell don't know. Go ask his accountant. We all have a tendency of labeling players as big winners when for all we know they can be living off of the family inheritence or their oil mines or whatever and can be breakeven players at best.
Bruce
bruce,
Trust Fund Pros. I think they are everywhere.
Regards,
Rick
It seems all are basically in agreement: bad play pre-flop, good play post-flop, although not a difficult hand to play. The pre-flop call is probably a case of a big stakes player playing in a game that was, to him, small potatoes, and thinking that his post-flop skill, compared to the pikers in that game, would carry the day. If you call an UTG raise with K-7s you're going to get your ass kicked, unless the board ends up with either a pair of kings plus another lower pair on it, or A-x-x of your suit.
As to big bankrolls playing in smaller games, well, I'd like to think that a serious pro would not play poorly at any time, in any game. Perhaps your right, and this is the only explanation of Barry's play. I wish I knew.
Tommy
What a lucky bastard!
Vince
There is a larger question to raise here: Is Barry Jonston unique in this respect, playing loose aggressive type of poker at higher stakes? I doubt it. Judging from all the literature I read on the subject, including multiple exchanges in this form, I believe the game has simply evolved/progressed to that sort of play. For a great poker theoretician and prolific author, read Mason's article in the last copy of the Poker Digest and draw your conclusion.
We all know that Mason should know better than raise, in a short-handed game, in an off-botton position, with Q9os. He did just that and eventually got away with it. While I am happy to see Mason winning a pot, any poker textbook would starkly discourage that type of play as (financially) very costly. The higher the stakes, the more costly it will be playing week starting hands. Just like in a $3-6 HE game, the most participating players seem to hang by a thread and go all the way to the rever in (near fantastic) expectation to hit a miracle card and win the pot. The level and the depth of the game may vastly differ from $3-6 HE, but the action seems to be very similar. The second key difference seems to be the player's financial comfort level between $3-6 and 30-60 HE.
Frankly, I do not see this trend changing. As weaker and/or average players see in showdowns what weak/marginal cards top players win with, that will further reiterated their (false) notion that 'any two cards can and in fact do win.'
I see future pots looking more and more juicer ..... luring more and more loose playing hands to win them.
raising in late position with a hand like k7s or Q9o is a million light years different than calling a UTG raise with the same hand in a full game. if you can't understand this concept, you should seriously think about it.
Doc:
Thanks for your response. Your point is well taken. I assure you I do know the conceptual difference between Kc7c/Q9os short-handed raising on one hand, and cold raise calling, on the other hand.
Still, I seriously question the playing value of these hands. On those rare ocassions when these type of weak/less-than-marginal hands do win, people tend to focus on the (hidden) brilliance of the participant's play rather than characterize the overall play for what it actually is - sheer gambiling in the face of overwhelming negative odds.
Moreover, when this tye of play is exercised by highly regarded players (i.e., standing authorities in the poker games), it should still be viewed as just less than marginal play.
These are my views.
Jim,
I can’t wait to read the other responses but it is late and I have two cents to throw in.
It seems Berry made a very loose call on the button. Perhaps he was impatient waiting for the bigger game. He flopped well and made a good raise, played it safe on the turn (I guess he was up against a jack) and got lucky on the end.
My guess is that the others will have more interesting answers.
Regards,
Rick
The 3 players to my immediate left are in a hand capped preflop. Flop comes 888 - capped again but one player a usually good player sometimes pron to maniac spurts folds left in the hand is a certified maniac and a good player. Turn is a K Good player bets maniac calls river is a 8 (4 8's on board) GP bets maniac calls. GP shows AK maniac shows guy next door an AQ and mucks - wow - big pot won A high.
Other guy said he had AJ and mucked on the turn.
As an aside I lost quite of money th the maniac this day.
The maniac didn't feel like taking down 1/2 the pot?
I remember a hand a few months ago in Vegas, 8-16 at Bellagio. I had ace-something in early position and get a full table of limpers. Flop 4-4-4. No one bets. Turn 4. I bet and get 4 callers!!! including a good player in the BB (last to act). On the river I bet player to my left calls and BB calls. I turn over my ace as does BB, other player mucks. I asked him why he didn't raise and he said he didn't see the point.
I think the AJ saw the AK and forgot there were quads on board and assuned a full house there can be no other reason.
I may not have all the details absolutely correct here and I am sure I will be set straight by the other player who was in this hand.
I am in mid position and call player to my left (Solid Player)SP also calls I think one or 2 others were in the hand - Flop comes 835r I check SP bets I call it is heads up (I think), turn is a J I bet SP raises I reriased SP reraised I put him on some sort of set of so I just call. River is a T I check and call SP's bet.
Any Idea what we both had.
SP was supposed to post this hand but hasen't so I am probably doing an injustice to the hand here but it is my best recollection of it.
It sure looks like set over set. I know we've debated pocket pairs in one of my recent posts. Hopefully this time you had the higher one...
My guess is that Rounder had pocket 5's or 3's and that SP had 8's. There is also a slight chance he had JJ.
If I'm right about Rounders hand, I would like to add that I like your play of leading on the turn knowing that it is likely that he will raise, allowing you to get another bet out of him. Of course if he has a better set then you actually lose more money...oh well.
I don't think you had AJ. If you were first in from middle position, you would have probably raised pre-flop. You probably limped in with 33 or 55, and slowplayed your small set into a small pot, rainbow uncoordinated board. You probably ran into a bigger set, likely 88. I doubt very much that you LHO had JJ, or he would have raised pre-flop.
Okay everyone put on your seatbelts. I was the other player in the hand and my hand was JTh. The flop came 853 with two hearts so i figured (incorrectly) i had 15 outs and played it very strongly. There were three people including myself in the pot.The turn was a J an rounder bet i raised with my pair of J's and heart draw trying to knock out the third player who called. Rounder then reraised and i capped and the third player called . At that point,i figured the other player was on hearts and Rounder had two pair or a set. The river was a T making me top two pair. Rounder checked i bet the other player mucked and Rounder called. I thought when Rounder checked that my hand was good and value bet the river (incorrectly) Of course Rounder had a set of 3's. The other player had the 89h and took a lot of heat.Next time Rounder is at my table i'm going to request a table change as i gave him an awful lot of money.Take Care Larry
Did you figure Rounder for J8s?
f
What did you figure Rounder had?
GD
At first i thought on the flop he had A8s but not hearts. When the J came on the turn and he reraised i thought there was a possibility of J8s or a set. What confused me was his bet on the flop since i would be very reluctant to bet a set with that ratty flop. I would have checkraised the flop to trap the flush draws for one more bet and reduce their odds even more. It was an odvious mistake in retrospect on my part since i am so accustomed for good players checkraise the flop or pop me on the turn. The way Rounder played the hand he won a lot more bets from me since i really thought he had top pair with top kicker.Moreover, i was suprised to see Rounder limp with a pair of3's in his position as i would be scared there would not be enough callers to make the hand profitable.That's why they tell you to put a player on a group of hands instead of only a couple of hands as i did.Oh well another one goes into the mistake column.Take care. Larry
Larry here is the thing about playing a dog like 33 sort of out of position and you spike a set - a good player like you would expect a slow play with a strong hand so it is my job to confuse good players like you a weak player would not see me betting or raising until the turn - so it is sometimes good to do what seems like the right thing at the time - I tend to play strong players a lot differently then the magoos we so often see at the tables.
Rounder Well played. It certaintly confused me and as i said in my post you got a lot more bets out of me by not slowplaying. If you would have slowplayed that hand i would have put you on a set and slowed waaaay down. As i said in my post i was outplayed in that hand and in the future if your at the table i'm going to have to request a table change! Take Care Larry
Rounder: 88
SP: 55 or 33
Ok, my best guess is you have 10 Js, you call his bet because you have over cards and he's a SP and you figure he has over cards also. I'll take your read and put him on pocket eights, oh I hate eights this weekend, see my post on other topics.
Who won? And if it's the SP and you put him on a set why did you call. I know why I would call, but I'm no pro.
Respectfully, The Suburban Poker Man
A full $20-$40 game. All fold to the button, who just calls. That's a common play for this player. It's unlikely a trap with a big pair. The small blind calls two chips, and I knuckle in the BB with 7-2. Flop comes 9-9-4, rainbow.
I bet out. The button thinks for a moment, and then calls. I read him for two overcards, probably Q-J, J-10, or Q-10. If he had a four, he would have raised. If he had a nine, he would have called faster. I know this player well.
SB folds.
I said, "STOP!" And then offered a deal.
"Let me have three chips back and you take the rest."
He said okay. Later he told me he had Q-10.
There was a quick round of chuckles and discussion. It didn't occur to me when I made the offer, but if we roll back time, what happened was that it cost me one chip to try to steal 12 chips. Not bad!
If he had said no deal, meaning my read was out to lunch and that he had an overpair or a nine, then I'm right where I was in the first place, a four-chip loser on the hand. A cute situation, ya think?
Tommy
...or you could've bet out on the turn if a blank fell and win the whole pot.
Hmmm. Good point! lol
I neglected to say that Abe and I had a wine-sharing non-agression thing going that night.
Tommy
Tommy,
I never make deals at the poker table in this fashion. It seems unethical and I would think the small blind would have a right to be upset since his chips are being chopped up.
I'm wondering what others think.
Regards,
Rick
Considering the situation (eg the two players weren't in cahoots) it is definitely not unethetical. However it may appear to be unethical and may promote unethical play.
In a way its too bad, as making settlements is part of gambling games and an interesting part also.
I agree with you Rick.
Another deal that often comes up is when 2 particular players will offer to check a hand through when heads up against each other, either because they are friends, married, etc. I suppose there's nothing wrong with this other than it can create hard feelings if/when someone makes me the same offer, and I refuse. I would NOT check a hand through heads up, against my own wife/mother/grandmother, etc.! It's for this reason, I feel all hands should be played out after the flop. In order to promote a quick game and saving the rake, I WILL chop blinds even when I feel it's to my advantage not to. But I am never offended if someone refuses to chop the blinds with me.
Kevin
Just discovered 2+2 and wondered if anybody that plays poker at Turning Stone visits this site.
Thanks
Alig8rJ
this is to all the poker pros.if you are in a 15/30 or 30/60 game a get ahead $700 to $1100 in the first 2 hours to you contuine to play?i know game conditions make a difference but just assume it is a standard please advise.the reason for the question is i play 25 to 30 hours a week and my last session i get ahead $750 in 15/30 in a hour and half and still wanted to play.should i set money goals or time goals?i really need a answer. anthony
I`m not a pro but I tell you this as long as i`m going positively in a game and i`m in charge and the money is steady,I might say ok better to be ahead and walk away or I might say alright i`m up $700.I`ll allow $300 of the winnings to continue playing. The whole concept of playing is to win money not press our luck....Be disciplined.... theres nothing worse then knowing you were ahead and didnt get out and now your even or broke. hell your next session would be mostly paid for and the bonus is its free money that could esculate to more winnings.. You must decide whats best for you after you weigh the options...
jg
I'm not a pro, just proactive. They the poker writers say as long as you're playing well it doesn't make any difference. Sometimes I wonder if they say that so us recreational players stay in the game long enough, so they can get some of our win.
I try to pick a figure before going to the game, then if I get lucky and find myself with more chips than I hoped for, I give myself another figure that if I lose it, I leave with a win. I call this strategy. How high is up?
Only one problem with this strategy, is the fact that I am proactive (involving modification by a factor which precedes that which is modifier, inhibition of meory) it the last three words "inhibition of meory" it gets me 90% of the time, I lose the amount set and and for get my commitment, now I'm set on winning it back at all cost. And usually I lose the lead and the days bank roll.
I say make yourself a set of rules for that situation and have the courage to leave. Then tell me how to get that same courage.
Respectfully, The Suburban Poker Man
Tha other day I was in a 10-20 and got ahead by 600+ in less than 2 hours. the game was changing and I decided to go home I could have played a few more hours but I didn't like the way the game changed so I left.
My goal is to win a specific amount of money a week.
I'd rather not say what that number is but it is how I sort keep track of how I am doing. I don't care if it is a hundred here and a hundred there so long as it adds up at the end of the week.
I know people talk about wanting to leave winners and all, but I routinely play in a game that I am beating regularly that I would never leave. Even if I had gotten up 1500 (it's a 10/20) in the first three hours and had proceeded to give back 2000+ it wouldn't matter, b/c I'd just be "logging my hours" w/ my expected win rate. Sooner or later it'll catch up. Now let one or two specific players leave the game and I'm ready to hit the sack. Regardless of how I'm doing.
10-20 hold'em Hollywood Aurora, IL
I have 10 9sh, the folp comes Q T 6 two d one h. I decided to bet second best pair in hopes of all will muck. The Rock to my immediate left raises, I call. The turn comes another 10, I bet, rock raises. I start to put in just a call, but I only have 60 left in my stacks. So I say out loud the hell with it and reraise him. He looks at the flop, looks at his cards, looks and my stack of chips and knows I have just one bet left. Then the miracle, he shows me his hand 6's full of tens and mucks the hand.
I'm sure he put me on Q 10, but is his play right? From my view point it was, because I won with the losing hand. What do you think.
Respectfully, The Suburban Poker Man
I can't imagine folding 6's full here when there are not many likely combinations that beat him (although you did not mention your position). Especially since you are short stacked and cannot extract maximum $$$ out of him even if you did have one of these holdings. I think it's a bad fold. Was this 'rock' also a good player?
"Was this 'rock' also a good player? "
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha! That's a good one. You got me with that question.
Vince.
Did I say good player? Please read the small print or in between the lines or how ever you do it...
SPM
I had to ask, because a few of the rocks in this room are also very good players. Others are well, uh... just rocks (like me). Even a good player is capable of an occasional mental error now and then. Of course in this case, it's 2 mental errors. 1). Folding and 2). Showing this fold.
WOW! SPM did you have your hat on or was it the cape that gave your local celebrity status. :-)
Seriously - there are a couple of guys who like to show BIG lay downs - lay downs I would never make considering the players involved. They are probably better players than I but judging by the expressions on the face of the winner I think they were BAD lay downs ala the 6's full of T's - but maybe that's just me.
SPM
What the &%$#@. The guy is a solid player and mucks a full house and your going all in! I better not catch you mucking a full house in limit poker or i'm going to send the midnight marauder over to your house! Larry
Only a clueless idiot would make a play like that. Is he a good player, what kind of a question is that.
Bruce
Man- you guys need to lighten up a little! Tell your nurse to bring you a (make that 2) of whatever you drink. I'll buy.
I can't believe I'm getting pounded for asking a question. Some of these guys play back to back marathon sessions (a few even drink). I've seen some VERY good players do some pretty stupid things when tired, on tilt, etc., even if you've never made a silly mistake. (or admitted to one)
Plus, I was being polite. Many players in the room are friends of the poster (or mine). There are bad players who also happen to be nice people, and who's company I enjoy. In these cases, I try to refrain from using terms such as "clueless idiot" in describing their play.
I think we agree it was a poor play.
**I am now officially off the soapbox**
$20-$40
I'm in the #8 seat and limp UTG with Kh Qh. #10, #8, Button, sb, limp and the BB checks.
The flop = Jh,Ts,6h. Blinds check, I bet, (would checking be better? If so, why?) all fold to #8 who raises, fold to sb who now re-raises, BB folds, I cap it at 4 bets, #8 folds, sb calls.
The turn is a blank. sb checks, I check. I felt if he had a hand, I was not going to move him off it at this point. And if he he had a huge hand such as a set, I'm getting check/raised. Although I realize this may not have been such a bad thing. Another thing betting does for me is disguise my hand possibly increasing what I can collect if I hit. Comments?
The river was another blank. sb checked, and I checked for much of the same reasons I gave for checking the turn. sb had KJo. I never would have moved him, but is this the point?
Also, a friend who was watching from the rail and knew what I had, said I should NOT have capped it on the flop because my draw was so big that I didn't mind #3 in the hand. I thought that the pot was getting big enough to start doing whatever I could to win. This meant protecting my overcards. Of course I didn't know that the sb had KJo, but I wanted to put maximum pressure on #3 to fold a hand like QJ (or for what I could tell at the time KJ) which would give me 3 more outs to win. Was this correct or a bad play since as it turns out I had 18 (and for all I knew as many as 21) outs on the flop? I'd appreciate comments on all aspects of this hand. Thanks.
Kevin
.
$20-$40
I'm in the #8 seat and limp UTG with Kh Qh. #10, #8, Button, sb, limp and the BB checks.
The flop = Jh,Ts,6h. Blinds check, I bet, (would checking be better? If so, why?) all fold to #8 who raises, fold to sb who now re-raises, BB folds, I cap it at 4 bets, #8 folds, sb calls.
The turn is a blank. sb checks, I check. I felt if he had a hand, I was not going to move him off it at this point. And if he he had a huge hand such as a set, I'm getting check/raised. Although I realize this may not have been such a bad thing. Another thing betting does for me is disguise my hand possibly increasing what I can collect if I hit. Comments?
The river was another blank. sb checked, and I checked for much of the same reasons I gave for checking the turn. sb had KJo. I never would have moved him, but is this the point?
Also, a friend who was watching from the rail and knew what I had, said I should NOT have capped it on the flop because my draw was so big that I didn't mind #3 in the hand. I thought that the pot was getting big enough to start doing whatever I could to win. This meant protecting my overcards. Of course I didn't know that the sb had KJo, but I wanted to put maximum pressure on #3 to fold a hand like QJ (or for what I could tell at the time KJ) which would give me 3 more outs to win. Was this correct or a bad play since as it turns out I had 18 (and for all I knew as many as 21) outs on the flop? I'd appreciate comments on all aspects of this hand. Thanks.
Kevin
Kevin I like the way you played up to the turn. On the turn you are screaming Big draw - bet here makes them believe you have a hand NOW - now if you hit on the turn a 9 or A or h you are home and dry with the near nuts or nuts and a guy who maybe thinks you have a lot less than you are holding IF you miss and bet the river, assuming you put the other guy on a miss too a river bet will sometimes bring home the bacon BUT it is player dependent.
Kev I don't understand your friends thinking. With the flush draw alone your 2-1 with two cards to come and with three players in your making money on every dollar going in the pot. However,you actually had anywhere from 12 - 21 outs so lets be conservative and say you have 15 outs with two cards to come your better than even money and only need 2 playersin to be making money on every dollar going in so why wouldn't you try to get as much money in the pot on the flop as you can when your getting the best of it? Betting the turn is a matter of judgement based on the players but i generally favor the bet on the turn as it is so obvious to the bettr players your on a draw. I think you played it perfectly except for maybe the turn and you could make a case depending on the players. Take care Larry
I like your cap on the flop with your huge draw. You are still getting additional money in the pot from the other player which covers the loss of #8. I think you should bet the turn against one opponent who might fold and you have a ton of outs if you are called.
Kevin J.,
Checking the turn virtually announces that you are on a draw or a weak hand combined with a draw. Your hand has so many outs it is only a small loss (if any) if checkraised since you will then know you probably have to hit something more than your overcards to win on the river. Your turn check might also induce a bluff on the river, and without an ace or pair, you cannot easily snap off a bluff here.
Regards,
Rick
I'm not justifying my check, but just thinking out loud to see if it can ever correct to check in this spot.
I understand checking the turn might be giving my hand away. But let's face it. My opponent figures to have something. I mean he checked, then double raised to 3 bets on the flop. Would this be the best way for him to play a draw with only 1 overcard? (He can't have a flush draw with 2 overcards since I have the Kh and Qh. It's also unlikely he'd play a straight draw in this manner due to the hearts). I thought it is was much more likely he checked the turn either out of fear of getting raised (after I capped the flop behind him) or to check/raise himself. Since I am now slightly less than even money on the turn (unlike the flop where I was a favorite), and he is not going to fold whatever hand he has, it is no longer a bet for value. In fact, it may cost me 2 more bets if I miss. Although I do see how my betting the turn, increases my chance of collecting (if I hit) since my hand is somewhat more disguised. Again, I'm just curious if my check can ever be correct.
Kev,
Your check WAS probably the corect thing to do - since poker is an ART not a science there is never a truely right of wrong answer on a marginal situation like you had here.
Mike
Kevin,
I will generally check the turn here also. Your chances of picking up the pot with a bet are very slim. Since there are 2 draws out (flush and straight) you're still not giving your hand away entirely. If the straight draw hits, KJ will think "no he was on a flush draw" and at least call, maybe even play back at you. If the flush hits, he'll usually give you credit for it, but most players will have enough doubt to put another bet in the pot.
Think about it this way. If you had only the flush draw, but bet on the end when a 9 fell, do you think you'd get called? Most players will give you the crying call at the end. In the games I play, there seems to be alot more bluff-catching going on than big laydowns.
B$
.
Here are 2 hands that I recently played. The limits are $8-16.
(1) A loose player in mid-position limps. It's folded to me in the cutoff seat; I find KK and raise. All fold to the BB who re-raises. Faced with calling 2 bets the middle-position player folds making the pot heads-up. I make it 4 bets, the BB makes it 5, I raise to 6, the BB makes it 7 bets, and I just call.
The BB is a new player who has just played a few hands and the only thing I know is that he is not a bad player.
The flop comes J74 with 2 spades (I have K spades). The BB bets and I decide to make one final raise; the BB 3-bets and I call. The turn and river are both blanks. The BB bets both cards and I call him down. The BB shows me AA.
(2) A mid-position player limps and all fold to me in the BB; I have K8s and just call.
I had played with my opponent the previous evening and found him to be a reasonably solid player. Also, I know that he respects my play.
The flop comes 733 with two of my suit. I check, my opponent bets, and I call. At this point I'm pretty sure my opponent does not have a 3; I think that he may have top pair.
The turn is a blank. I think that there's a good chance I can pick up the pot now (and I'm going to call anyway) and so I bet out. My opponent calls.
The river comes with a third of my suit (the 33 is the only pair on the board) and I bet out. I'm surprised when my opponent raises. I don't think I'm facing a full-house and put him on a smaller flush, so I re-raise. My opponent calls and shows me an ace high flush (he had played something like A5s).
While I think that I played both hands aggressively I don't think that I'm out-of-line. But my results have recently been very bad and so I'm looking to plug any holes. Am I playing too aggressively?
Manzanita
First hand: when the BB made it 5 bets pre-flop, you've got to suspect Aces; when he made it 7 bets, you've got to be pretty sure he has Aces. I would have quite when he made it 5 bets and then just call, call call after that, especially since you didn't have the Ace of spades.
Second hand: I like how you played it. There's really nothing you can do when you get a free play in the blind with K-xs, make a flush, and your opponent has A-xs of the same suit. Opponent would (probably) have played he hand the same with Q-Js.
When you have pocket kings and an opponent has pocket Aces, you're probably going to lose a bunch of money. When you have K-xs and make a flush and your opponent makes an Ace hight flush, ditto. Keep playing solid tight (hand selection)/aggressive (when you do play) poker.
Manzinita,
On the first hand you held a great hand and ran into a greater one. But I would stop at about five bets on the flop and call him down from there. There is enough doubt that he has aces combined with the chances you can spike a king to make this the play. And it might keep QQ or AK firing into you which you should want.
On the second hand I might have bet or checkraised on the flop. Other than lot you lost what I would have lost. So once again you got unlucky. Tomorrow is another day and don't lose sleep over this hand. Stay aggressive and smart and you will eventually get the money.
Regards,
Rick
In a post below about another hand, Ivan Botic brought up Mason's article in Poker Digest where he raised two off the button with Q-9 offsuit. Ivan criticized Mason playing this hand with Q-9 in this position. I was wondering what others think. I too think that the hand should be folded, but Mason did say that for this play to be optimal, you prefer that all remaining players be weak-tight and that they perceive you as very tight.
There were other interesting decisions Mason made during the play of the hand (which is, I assume, why he wrote the article):
Flop came 9c-3c-8h. There were 3 players who saw the flop: sb, Mason, and button (who had cold-called Mason's raise). The action: sb checks; Mason bets, button raises, sb cold calls; Mason calls.
Turn is Kc making board 9c-3c-8h-Kc. All 3 players check (!)
River is 8d making board 9c-3c-8h-Kc-8d. sb checks; Mason bets, button calls. Mason bet, button called, sb folded, Mason turned over his hand and button souped.
For me, the key point is that excessive emphasis on pre-flop play is less important the better you play post-flop. So it is less wrong for Mason Malmuth to raise with Q-9 two off the button that it would be for Andy Fox, which is I think what Berry Johnston might say about cold-calling an UTG raise with K-7s.
Andy,
You wrote: "For me, the key point is that excessive emphasis on pre-flop play is less important the better you play post-flop. So it is less wrong for Mason Malmuth to raise with Q-9 two off the button that it would be for Andy Fox, which is I think what Berry Johnston might say about cold-calling an UTG raise with K-7s."
Point well taken but there are major differences between the two hands. Mason opened for a raise with his somewhat weak hand. He had a reasonable chance to steal the blinds. I believe Mason has admitted that conditions have to be almost perfect for this play and this is about the weakest hand he would try to steal with in this spot. If he is wrong he is at worse marginally wrong.
There is no set of conditions where it is correct to cold call a solid UTG raiser with king trash suited (with no one in between and a full game). All blind stealing equity is lost and the positional advantage cannot be overcome by the likelihood of being dominated (this was pointed out by Izmet). No amount of post flop talent will make up for this mistake unless you are up against an UTG player who is a super weak post flop (and then you should reraise).
Regards,
Rick
I just posted the above at 9:42 PM Pacific Standard Time (Sunday Night). A day or two ago I needled John Feeney about his posting times and he responded that his post was hours off what I thought. Has anyone else noticed this problem?
Regards,
Rick
PS This is posted at 9:45 PM PST.
x
Beats me...I will look into it.
Chuck
If this message posts at about 1:47pm then the time problem has been fixed.
Thanks for calling it to my attention Rick.
Chuck
I agree that there is a world of difference between mason's being first in with Q-9 and Berry cold-calling an UTG raiser with K-xs. I was trying to think of what Berry might say were one of us to challenge him as to why he played this hand.
I agree with all posters who said that Johnston's playing the hand was just plan flat-out wrong.
There is no way you can compare raising with Q9o in the back with cold calling a raise on the button with King shit suited from a skillful player who is UTG. Only a sucker makes the latter play. The former is a routine play in most skillful players arsenal if the game conditions dictate it.
Bruce
I agree completely with Bruce says. It doesn't matter how well you play otherwise, if you routinely call raises with these type of hands you will just lose all your money. A great player will just lose it a little more slowly.
By the way, this is the main reason I have always been so critical of Mike Caro's "Professional Hold 'em Report." He has you routinely making this type of call, and that includes the K7s.
I have an admittedly old copy of Caro's Professional Hold 'Em Report (1988) and the way I'm reading the chart, it recommends folding K-7s to a raise. It does, however, recommend cold-calling with K-Qs,K-Js, K-Ts, and K-9s (as well as Q-Js, Q-Ts, Q-9s, Q-8s, J-Ts, J-9s, J-8s, J-7s and worse hands).
You are correct. I misread the line where you are in the small blind. My mistake.
The raise with the Q9 before the flop when two off the button is only marginally correct when the situation is to your liking. This includes the right type of players behind you and in the blind, and the ability to out play them on the flop and beyond.
While I've never played against Mason I have heard his game described as quite tight pre-flop. To borrow a phrase from Abdul, Mason builds 'Rock Equity' during a session. Fold, fold, fold is all the opponents see ant then you come in for a raise, well, it gets some respect.
So Mason takes a shot with Q9s and most of the time he'll scoop the blinds, next hand. When he does get played with it'll be heads up most of the time. Now the rock equity branches out. On a flop the is Axx or Kxx Mason's opponent is going to be terrified. Bet and take it most of the time. A queen high flop is good news/bad news. Mason would prefer to win on the flop with his lame kicker.
In the actual case Mason get two callers and I'm sure he was surprised by this. It probably doesn't go that way often.
Rock equity can't be built in a game where no one is paying attention but I'm sure it's a potent force in Nevada poker.
-Fred-
Fred:
I hate to break the news to you but Nevada poker isn't much different from the kind of games that you play in. You see, even in the $30-$60 games where I currently do all my play, we still get some tourists who play way too many hands and then very poorly from the flop on.
"tourists who play way too many hands and then very poorly from the flop on."
I bet a lot of locals play that way also.
Vince
"The ability to out play them on the flop and beyond." This is what I was talking about in my original post. If player A is a better player on the flop and beyond than player B, then it is better (or less worse) for player A to, say, raise with Q-9 off-suit two off the button, or to, say, call an UTG raise cold with K-xs suited.
The difference is that raising with Q-9 off-suit can Show positive EV under the conditions Mason's specifies, whereas the Johnston play, even conceding that Johnston can out play his opponents on the flop and beyond, will still be a loser (albeit less of a loser than if done by a poorer player).
This is an important point. The ability to out play your opponent means that you can play a few more hands, not a lot of them.
$15-30 online. A new player who seems fairly tight limps UTG. I am next with Kc Qc. I decide to raise since the game is playing fairly tight and I want to knock out any AT or Axs behind me. Also, I don't mind a big family pot here if people decide to call.
Everyone folds including the blinds. UTG calls.
Flop comes As Qd Th.
UTG checks. I bet. UTG raises. I 3-bet. UTG calls.
Turn comes the 5d. UTG checks. I check.
River comes the 3s. UTG bets. What's my play and how did I play the hand so far?
Puggy
Pre-flop you raise of a tight UTG limping in under the gun with King-Queen suited is okay but I would not make it. You will find that King-Queen suited does not play nearly as well as it looks. Anyone who calls your raise probably has you dominated or at least has a better hand. If a bunch of people call your raise then you will have to rely on making a flush or a straight to win.
On the flop, when check-raised I think your 3 bet is foolhardy. The tight UTG limper has at least an Ace and you are now chasing in a heads-up situation with anywhere from 4 to 9 outs. Some of your outs could give the UTG the same hand or a better hand than you. If a King comes off, you have two pair but the UTG could have a Jack (e.g.-Ace-Jack) giving him the nuts. If a Jack comes off, then if the UTG has a King he has the same straight you have. He could even have King-Jack suited and have you drawing practically dead. You will not be able to get a tight player like this out of the hand after he check-raises you on the flop given that board. Just because a guy is tight does not mean that he will be easy to bet out of the hand in a heads-up situation like this. In general tight players who make a hand are hard to get out of the pot. I think you should just call and I am not sure folding would be all that bad unless this guy is imaginative enough to check-raise an early position pre-flop raiser with a hand that cannot beat a pair of Queens given that board.
On the turn, when you check it down you have told him you are weak and this underscores the futility of 3 betting him after he check-raises you on the flop. I am not sure that a free card is even worth much at this point since you probably have very few outs.
When a tight player bets the river in this situation he almost certainly can beat a pair of Queens. Go ahead and call if you want since at this point it becomes a fraction of a bet discussion but I suspect that 95% of the time you will be beat.
Jim,
After the hand was over (I folded the river by the way), my opponent showed me AK. Now I just took some time to do the math and I think you'll be surprised by the results.
It turns out that if I assume that my opponent will not 4-bet me or lead into me on the turn after I 3-bet him on the flop, all 3 options on this hand have almost the exact same EV which is ~ 0!
Given that I knew he had AK, I did all the math for 3 options:
Folding on the flop, calling the flop and folding the turn when a blank hits, and reraising the flop and folding the river if he bets (assuming 2 blank hits) all came out to have about 0 EV. I think AK is a very likely holding for my opponent and one of moderate strength because it gives me 2 full outs (Qs), and 4 half-outs (Js).
Of course, if he has KJ I'm in big trouble.
Anyway, if you want to see the math I can email it to you but it'll probably have to wait until next week since I'll be lying on a beach off the coast of Spain for the next week and I won't get a chance to type it up.
Thanks for the response,
Puggy
But Puggy, slick is only one possible holding. How do you like your chances when the guy has A-T for a flopped two pair? Or A-Q for the top two pair? K-J of course is another holding where you are virtually DOA. Given the absence of a pre-flop raise, I think AK is not nearly as likely as A-T,K-J, or even A-Q. It would interesting to run an ev simulation across the following spectrum of hands that the UTG could have given the betting: AK,AQ,AJ,AT,KQ, and KJ. Now assign probabilities to each hand type based on the cards you hold and what is on the board and the absence of a pre-flop raise. I think AT, AJ, and KJ should have the highest probability and the others a lower probability. I suspect that hanging around even after the check-raise on the flop is a long term money loser.
As always your posts are very instructive and I would be very interested in any analyses you could send me.
thanks!
I limp in under the gun with the KhQc in this ten handed $30-$60 game. Roy Cooke sitting right next to me also limps. One middle player limps, the cutoff limps, and the small blind limps. The big blind does not raise. There is $180 in the pot and six players.
The flop is: Jd6h3c
Everyone checks.
The turn is: 2s
Both blinds check. I check. Roy bets $60. The middle limper raises to $120. Everyone folds back to Roy who goes into a huddle. Roy calls. There is $420 in the pot and two players.
The river is: 5h
Roy bets $60. His opponent calls. Roy wins a $540 pot having the 4h4d for a gutshot straight at the river. His opponent mucks.
Comments please.
He has a very close call. It looks like he has six outs which is a little less than 7-to-1 and the pot is offering him 6-to-1. But if he hits his hand he should get another bet. In the long run he would probably come out about the same if he folded every time unless he thinks that there is some chance he has the best hand with the small pair and that his opponent will then check it down on the river.
Mason,
With the texture of the board, there is a good chance the raiser thought Roy was on a steal and holdes only overcards.
Regards.
Rick
Jim,
Just when I thought I could turn off this machine and get to sleep I check the mid limit forum one more time and find a Jim Brier post about Roy Cooke. Who needs sleep after all?
I like Roy’s turn bet. He had a good shot to take it right there.
Roy is only getting 6 to 1 pot odds on his turn call. But he probably has six outs against a better hand, which is about 6.7 to 1 against. If he makes it he probably picks up an extra bet on the river. On the other hand, he may be drawing against a bigger set (e.g., 66), which reduces his outs. But this should balance out with the river bet.
The other factor is that Roy may be up against a player who thinks Roy is putting a move on the pot when the turn blank came and decided to pop him with a no pair hand. So Roy could even be leading on the turn.
I think his play is reasonable.
Regards,
Rick
I think it is a close play either way. Roy is getting about the right price if he's behind, but he also could have the best hand.
Jim, I thought I could make a good living playing your discards, but I'll have to reassess things now. By the way, how many timeouts did Roy use? To bad poker isn't like football where you get three per half.
Bruce
My immediate reaction is what the heck are you doing limping in under the gun with KQ off ?No offense but I hate that preflop limp on your part.That being said I dont find anything wrong with Roys play here.I think he played it correctly.His preflop call makes more sense to me than KQ off too.
paul, limping in early with a baby pocket pair only makes sense in a loose, passive game. This hand wants multi-way action in an unraised pot so that it is getting the proper implied odds. In general, the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio is a tight, aggressive game with most pots getting raised and usually no more than 2 or 3 players taking a flop. However, it may be that Roy had a good feel for how the game had developed and sensed that the pot would not get raised. That was certainly the case here.
Many players have expressed concerns about coming in under the gun with King-Queen offsuit. A few years ago a panel of experts was polled in the now defunct "Poker" Magazine about how they would play King-Queen offsuit under the gun. They all saw it as a raise or fold situation with virtually no one limping. In recent years, I believe that most of the hold-em literature has gravitated towards limping in under the gun with this hand. In HPFAP, this is a Group 4 hand and the advice is to limp in with it unless the game is extremely tough. Krieger, Jones, and Ciaffone also recommend limping in with it.
However, if you simply mucked this hand under the gun in a full game you would not be giving up much. The problem is that I don't get to play very many hands and I do want to maintain some kind of presence in the game.
To answer your question Roy, yes.
Hi Jim!
Mason correctly answered most of my thoughts on the hand. I did think that there was a decent chance that the hand was good. I still like the play (plus I stacked the chips :-)!Are all of my mistakes going to be in a public forum??? LOL. I liked the huddle part LOL. Cheers Roy Cooke
Hi Roy!
Welcome to 2+2. The hand was a good one because you had to make a lot of tough decisions based on your hand, your position, your feel of the game, the pot odds, your outs, your opponent, etc. I thought it was an interesting blend of all the factors you discuss in your column. And yes, you stacked the chips as usual. Nothing succeeds like success!
Check the archives for the other 631 mistakes you made against Jim. :-)
Well, this is proof that you are lurking here. I invite you to post a bit more and share some of your wisdom with wannabes like me.
BTW, your articles (along with Ciaffone's) are easily the best in CP. Keep up the great work but quit sucking out on our Jim Brier, will ya:)
If all of your mistakes are on a public forum, it's because you're the only one with enough guts to admit, in print, when you think you've made a mistake. You tell everyone exactly what you were thinking at the time, and, if in retrospect, you feel your original thinking was wrong, you're not afraid to admit it.
I think you played the hand well. You have a reasonable chance to win the pot with your bet on the turn; there's no flush possible and probably no straight possible (other than for you); there's a chance your pocket pair is the best hand; it's unlikely raiser has a jack; plus you probably have six outs if he does.
I have the highest respect for Jim, but huddle all you want.
A flop l[ke this is likely to miss everyone. The turn helps nobody and if anyone after Roy had a hand I think they would've bet the flop. So the bet on the turn I think is automatic.
The call is borderline depending on the raiser. Roy's getting 7-1 and has to figure he has 6 outs.
30/60 loose game i am in the cutoff seat #5 limps and i raise with AJo BB calls as does limper flop is 67J no flush BB checks,5 bets,i raise,bb folds,5 reraises,i reraise.Is this correct play to cap after his reraise?turn is A, 5checks,i bet,5 calls river is a rag and 5 checks and i check and he turns over set(6) question after he 4 bets the flop should i think that top pair with top kicker is no good?
I think I agree with you. Once he three bets I would cool down and just call. Once the A comes on the turn you obviously have to call to the river.
Although, your four bet on the flop probably saved you one small bet because you were able to check the river. I don't think your opponent played his set strong enough.
You 4-bet the flop, not him. I wouldn't have thought he had a set given the way he played after the flop. When he checked the turn to the Ace, and then just called, I would have put him on 7-6 and lost a lot more than you did. I guess he was waiting for you to bet the river.
I got an idea while reading one of Jim's typically efficient accounts of a hand.
If a hand does not have any flush ramifications in it, I think it would be better to not bother mentioning the suits at all while telling the story. That way we'd know from the start that flushes and flush draws are not in play, and we wouldn't have to squint at the suit indicators looking for matching ones, only to find out later that they were never pertinent.
Example:
The flop was Q-9-2.
[betting]
The turn was a K.
[betting]
The river was a 10.
Whaddya think?
Tommy
I like the r=rainbow comment it gives me an idea of what the other players are thinking but if you are saying rainbow should equal no connotation at all OK by me.
Saying "Q-5-4 rainbow" does the job for sure. I was talking about this notation:
Qc5s4d
And then later, after some text, the turn:
2s
At this point, I have to scroll up and apply some effort to see if there are two suited cards. Whereas, in Jim's posting style, that other use as well, if suits were indicated only when they were potentially relevent to the story, it would save that effort, and when suits ARE indicated, that would give a hint as to some aspect of the story, namely, that suitedness on the board could effect decisions, thereby making the reading even smoother than it already is.
Okay, I'm outta commas.
Tommy
Tommy
I agree that the suit indications can be tricky to follow, but sometimes, the backdoor potential of a hand make a flop call warranted. This call would, at times, lead to a turn suckout where the flush was not involved (hit trips, etc.)
Tough 20-40 game. couple regular players from the 50-100 game in couple regular players from the 30-60, 1 loose aggressive and me tight aggressive (playing a little tighter than usual with this line up.) My plan is to isolate the Loose aggressive player and the weaker 30-60 guy. Loose aggressive player is on my immediate right.
first hand I am in the SB, 2 mid position limpers, raise from the cutoff (my target) to 40, I look down and find KcQc. smooth call for multiway action. BB calls as do limpers. we take the flop 5 handed $200 in the pot.
Flop comes Jd 8c 4c
I think now I should thin the field, I check intending to check raise the original raiser to knock out the rest of the players. I have only check raised at this point on strong hands and they know this. I check everyone check to the raiser who bets, I raise immediately to 40. everyone quickly drops and the original raiser calls , slowly after thinking for a moment.
turn 7d
I check again whick really throws this guy off. I want him to think I am trapping again so I begin to finger my green chips. He thinks for about 10 seconds and checks emphatically.
River 8 hearts
I bet quickly into the middle my 40. I then wait on him to make his move. He thinks for a moment and folds. After the hand I figured I should have bet the turn and ended right there. Comments please.
Second hand: Finally we get a big pot!!!! SB again, 3 limpers, cutoff raised, Button (loose aggressive guy)re-raises, i look down and find QcQd, and smooth call to disguise strength of hand, BB folds everyone calls 2 cold we see the flop 6 handed at 60 each $380.00 in pot preflop.
Flop comes Kh 6d 4c
I check. All the high limit players say uh-oh, the kid checked. they all check, button bets, now I know in my soul this guy waits until the turn to really bet his strong hands, if he has KK he will let some people catch up, if he has AK he would do the same with the K, rag, rag board to get more money. I make him for Jacks. I raise! everyone folds to him who calls. $460 in pot.
Turn 9c
I come out betting he quickly calls. I think he may have a read on me but I'm sticking to my original read on him. $540.00 pot.
River 2h
I come out firing into the aggressive player again. He thinks for about 30 seconds and calls. he turns over pocket 10's. I show the Queens and he tosses then into the muck. $620.00 pot. Was this the classic example of isolating the aggressive player or what??? Please comment and let me know honest opinion.
On the first hand I don't like your flop play. You very likely have most of the field drawing dead, so you don't want to raise them out via a check raise. Either check call on the flop or bet out. You aren't going to lose Ac or a set but a call may induce some of those drawing dead to call when they should fold.
On the turn I think you have FPS (fancy play syndrome), yeah you fooled (or confused) the other but you gave him a free card when you could win a bet w/ large probability.
On the second hand I think you missed a key opportunity preflop, when an aggressive player makes it 3 to the direct left of the raiser and you are to his left w/ Q's you should reraise. This is not a hand you want to take in a multiway pot. I think disguising it isn't worth it as much as maximizing your chances to win it. Reraise!
Good followup play though in this hand.
"On the first hand I don't like your flop play. You very likely have most of the field drawing dead, so you don't want to raise them out via a check raise."
I think you think there were 3 clubs on the flop.
There were only 2 clubs on the flop.On the river all I had was the busted 4-flush. The bet on the end was a pure King high bluff with the pair of 8's on the board. The check on the turn gave me the free card I wanted. I just used the free card raise in an opposite position from how it is designed to work in HEFAP. Confused the heck out of the guy I was playing. Not something I do frequently, but it did mix up my play. Later on the higher limt players were becoming wary when I checked some intimidating flops. Worked for me. Maybe S&M have some varying opinions on the play. It wasn't according to the "book" but I don't want to be too predictable and still like to use some of my instinctive plays and reads on people.
I don't like the check raise on the first hand at all. I don't see why you'd want to isolate one player with such a good draw as two (non-straight making) overcards and a 2nd nut flush draw. I'd bet out and try to build a big pot. If the original raiser pops it again, I'd probably smooth call to keep the middle people in the pot. I think running people out of a pot when you've got such a big hand is not the best move, although it turned out well for you on this hand since you got to put a move on the remaining player. I think your expected value of making a club flush w/ 5 players in teh hand + the times you win it w/ a pair of K's or Q's is more than you'd make by isolating and stealing if you miss.
On the second hand, given that you don't isolate pre-flop w/ a reraise with Q's which I would, I really like the check-raise with your QQ against the board of K. It surely will drive out any Kx if any are there.
I'm in the big blind with JJ. One limper, button raises to $20 (very loose aggressive), sb calls (very loose agressive), I call the extra bet as does the limper.
Flop is J,K,9 rainbow. Sb checks, I come out betting hoping the button will raise me so I can three bet. Limper calls, button raises, sb calls, I three bet, limper folds, button and sb call.
Turn is a Q. Sb comes out betting. I assunme he has a ten but I still have outs so I call. Button raises to $40 and sb makes it $60.
Call or fold? Results later.
I have a second, and more important, question though. After the hand, I have calculated what I should have done and think the odds definitely favoured one option over the other. However, in the heat of the hand I didn't think I had enough time to clearly think out the decision. I knew roughly how much money was in the pot and how many outs I had but I felt pressure to make a quick decision. Perhaps I should have called time and just thought it out more clearly. Any suggestions on what to do in these situations to ensure that you have a clear mind and make the correct decision. Thanks.
First I would reraise on preflop you pbly have the best hand and you don't want to let those other turkeys see the flop cheaply.
On the turn you are getting 16-2 on your call and you have 10 outs and assuming the other two clowns have T;s you will improve to a full house (which will be the best hand if both have T's) 10/44 of the time. This is a call even if (as I suspect ) it will get capped (if you assume it will be capped you can say you are getting 19-3).
If you aren't sure call time, there's no reason to rush a decision (i think if you lose track of what odds you are getting you can recall the action and get a good approximation in a relatively short amt of time) here especially when the others are raising and reraising...
you also have two outs to chop it
Its not impossible for someone to have AT in which the T doesn't chop. Thats why i didn't mention it, though its unlikely someone has AT at this point. However since its a call w/o considering the T as an out...
hhmmmm, this is closer than you think.You are getting the proper odds, but they are diminished slightly with 2 players raising, since one could hold a higher set . Its closer to an even money situation unless they are stupid enough to keep raising once the board pairs.
If you folded when raised and reraised on the turn against tight players it wouldn't be much of a mistake imo. seeya
I would cap the turn, just for spite.
Let's see if I've got the numbers straight.
Prior to the flop, there are 4 players in for $20 ea. for a total of $80.
On the flop, you get the $10 dead money from the limper, and $30 from the remaining 3 players for a total of $100. Now there's $180 total in the pot.
On the turn, when the action gets back to you, there is another $120 in the pot, and you have to call another $40, and presumably another $20 over and above that when the button caps it. So from an implied odds point of view, you have to call another $60 for a chance to win what will presumably be a $420 pot before any river betting. On the surface, this looks like an easy call, because if the board pairs (10 outs), your full house will win, and you are getting enough pot odds to make that call. But do you have 10 clean outs?
You say the button is loose aggressive, but even the maniacs get good hands once in a while. He raised on the button, and when you came out betting on the flop, he raised again, right? What hand that contains a Ten would fit this pattern? KT is about it, or maybe he smooth-called you with QT, and was going to raise the turn anyway.
It is certainly possible that he has KK, or possibly even QQ. If he had trip K's, he would of course raise your flop bet, but when you 3-bet he would fear you flopped a str8, and maybe not cap it. If he had KK you have 1 out, and a clear fold. Same thing with QQ, but why would he raise as last to act with trip Q's? He's got to fear the SB has a str8, so why would he raise with a set?
I think based on my read of the betting pattern, both players have a str8, and therefore if the board pairs, you are the winner. It's going to be expensive, but put in the $$, and hope the board pairs.
As far as what you should do at the table, poker is not a timed event, so when there's this much at stake, call a TO, take a minute or two if necessary to reconstruct what has gone on, and make your decision accordingly. You are not trying to 'angle' anyone, there is no deception involved, so take a few moments and make sure you are making the right call. If someone gets on your case about slowing down the game, tell them to stuff it.
Given the raise by the button and sb's 3 bet, it is likely that they both have a T i.e. if the board pairs, Clint will win thus I would say that all of Clint's outs are clean outs.
Given the nature of the board, it is likely that at least one (if not both) of Clint's opponents has a Pair in addition to a T i.e. they presumably are playing hands like JT and QT and not T2 or T3. But since there is a 3 bet, one could have AT. Anyways, I say this because Clint probably only has 8 or 9 outs instead of 10. I haven't done the math but surely a call seems to be in order even if he has only 8 outs. I also don't think that a capped bet on the turn is inevitable: Button may not necessarily reraise if he doesn't have AT because he has to fear that Sb does.
You have 10 outs and there are 16BB in the pot. You have better than 1 in 5 chance of making your full house but you have to call 2 bets. That gives you 8:1 odds - worthy of a call.
If the button hits caps it you have to pay 3 BB win 19. That's still better than 6:1 and worth a call.
The problem is you also have to consider that you might find it necessary to make a crying call on the river. Factor that in too.
I think you have a clear call here. Think of it like this - if you had the nut flush draw, would you call 2 bets in the same situation? You have a better shot at winning this hand than you would with the nut flush draw.
The thing is you really hope that the button does not have KK - if he does you are drawing really slim.
-SmoothB-
"Perhaps I should have called time and just thought it out more clearly. Any suggestions on what to do in these situations to ensure that you have a clear mind and make the correct decision. Thanks."
Do not call "time". Just call, counsellor. While it's probably clear here that you are beat, it may not be so clear in other cases. Calling without any real hesitation will make it difficult for your opponent to bluff you out on the river in the event he has a hand that doesn't beat yours and you are apt to fold to a bet on the river.
I think S&M give some other resaons for just calling instead of calling time in the 21st Century book...I forget what they are now.
If it's close, fold preflop and maybe the flop but call on the turn and river.
I actually re-read this part last night. S&M say you do not want your weak opponents, who are playing just for entertainment, to realize that you are actually putting some thought into the game. You want them to think that you are just playing for entertainment as well.
I believe the S&M advice about taking time is that you should never tip your opponents off that there are actually things to think about at a poker table.
if you need to make a decision, take the time you need to think about it. if you are going to act quickly just to decieve your opponents in thinking that you are having fun like they are, then you may be making a very poor play. this particular opponent (with the T3) is most likely unconscious anyway, so if he's unconcious about the pot odds and calling for the gutshot, he may very well be unconscious to your calling "time".
S&M say not to call time bc it will encourage peopel to take shots at you, and take people out of the gambling mood.
This situation is different, because here it is pretty clear because calling time will not change the way the hand is played. Of course you announce you can't beat a straight by thinking for a moment but by just calling you do this anyway. Ideally one always knows what the size of the pot is, but in practice this isn't neccesarily true. I think here it is worth it to spenmd the time to make the correct decsision.
The real point is not to do this this often or in routine situations.
If I played the hand correct I probably wouldn't have posted it, so needless to say I folded and a K came on the river.
Both sb and button checked the river. Sb turned over 10-3 of clubs. In other words he called $15 before the flop and $20 cold on the flop. That's the way the game is often played here, skp can attest to that. The button turned over K-10o. So they ended up chopping the pot.
When I sat down to calculate the odds later that night I realized that calling was the clear choice. Next time I will have to call time or whatever and make sure I am doing the correct thing.
Thanks for all the responses.
Well, I had the button pegged just about right with KT, but what was the SB doing? I thought he probably had something like JT, or maybe even T9s, or something connected like that. Flops a pair with a gutshot, and gets centered in a raising war between you and the button. They play 10-20 like that where you live? Sheesh. Even the 3-6 players (at least most of them) here in Edmonton aren't quite THAT bad. Too bad you didn't call to punish them accordingly (at least the SB).
You ain't seen nothin' yet baby...I have held AdAc and lost to 10h4h after a flop of AsQs7c..followed by Js and King of Hearts. Heavy pressure on every round of betting as well...I remember that hand because it's by far the most puzzling beat I have ever taken in live poker (almost as bad as being called online by 8 high when the board had 5 different ranks and losing ).
Those 3-6 Edmonton games are extremely tight compared to Vancouver 10-20.
I remember you mentioning that hand about a year and a half ago. I must have really stung.. :)
Clint, not to pour salt in your wound, but I am folding my set in that situation when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers. It looks like they both have a ten, which means if the board pairs, you win a bundle. The math is relevant but it's more intuitive than anything.
clinteroo,
I can't think of a hand where I would fold a set before the river, unless I was sure I was drawing dead (and maybe that will come up sometime). Think about it. In a heads up pot, you are never confronted with calling two cold, and in a multiway pot you will always be getting the odds to draw to your boat.
In one of those poker books, it says "if you get beat with a set, and don't lose alot of chips, you didn't play it right"
When I get beat with a set, I just remember that line, take a deep breath, and move on to the next hand.
B$
20-40 game, shorthanded (5 handed). I was in mid position with 88. UTG limped, I limped, button folded, SB raised, BB folded, we both called. See the flop 3 handed.
I will often raise with 88 in this situation, but the other players were very loose, played too many hands, and called too much. I knew that they would not fold overcards on the flop and would not fold a decent pair no matter how much heat I put on it. Since I felt I needed to hit a set to win, and I didn't have many people in the hand to pay me off, I decided to just smooth call.
The preflop raiser in SB was a loose aggressive type whom I had never seen before, and he seemed to be on tilt, entering every pot, and raising about 1/2 of them.
Flop came 855. SB checked, UTG bet, I just smooth called as did the SB. I now have the nut full house in a 3 handed pot. My bets and raises were getting lots of respect and I wanted to squeeze a few more dollars out of these guys.
Also, UTG limper was quite loose and aggressive as well - he would bet at pretty much any pot if he had been checked to. And he wouldn't give up on any bluff until he met some resistance.
Turn card came another 5 making the board 8555. In a way I really liked this card because it meant that I might get action from nearly any pocket pair - when all the while I had the nut full house. I wasn't too afraid of a 5 being out there.
UTG bet, I raised, SB just smooth called, UTG folded. When SB smooth called I just KNEW he had a 5!
River came the beautiful case 8! I had 88 and the board was 88555. I bet, raised, reraised, reraised, reraised, finally he just called and said 'I can't beat quad 8's. I said yep that's what I've got'. He did have the case 5.
That is the first time I've ever been in a quads over quads confrontation! It was fun!
-SmoothB-
Absolutely incredible! Have had a double quad hand/raising war in 5-10 omaha once but never in hold'em. Sounds like the old double suck out turn/river. Only thing better than that is a high end/low end straight flush war. Guess who had the low end :(. Congrats !!!!
Wow, never seen that before. The best I had was about a month ago I was invloved in a set over set over set hand. I had 10's while my opponents had 7's and 5's. There was also an 8 on board so we were all concerned about the straight so the betting wasn't too crazy althought the pot got up to about $600.
I saw a 10-20 pot that was set over set over set. The board was J-8-2. You know what paired on the turn, the 2. Talk about action. Sadly, there was a fourth guy flush drawing.
If you had his hand how many times would you reraise? I'm not sure I would stop until my chips were gone.
You can be damn sure that I'd sell everything I own and pawn my grandmother and keep raising until one of us went broke or died of exhaustion. I can also be sure that if i were the one with the 5, after my action on the turn, I would not have 4 bet it.
Reminds me of 2 other hands:
I was in one hand with one fellow who was a terrible player. One time in Omaha he jammed his hand preflop and all the way to the river because it had 3 7's in it.
I was in one hand with him and on the turn I had the nut straight, no flush possibility, and we bet it back and forth about 4 or 5 times. Finally I gave up and just called. On the river my straight was still good so we bet it back and forth many times. Everyone said 'come on guys you both have the same hand give it a rest.' But as long as there was the tiniest bit of doubt in my mind, I was going to keep raising.
This was 4-8 game. After a few bets we just started throwing stacks of 20's out there. We kept at it until he was out of chips - about 200.
I took down the pot and never saw what he had.
-SmoothB-
Nice hand, SmoothB, and a good win for you!
When the 3rd 5 hit the board on the turn, you said you were no afraid of the trips 5 showing. While I respect your expressed bravado, you at least need to mindful of a possibility of a higher pair held by either one of your two opponents. Granted, you have read them well, but your hand suddenly became volnurable on the turn. The sunshine smiled on you the river.
Again, nice job! By the way, I enjoy reading your posts. (Thanks!)
Ivan
He did not have to be concerned about a higher pair as a higher pair would only have a full house with fives over while he had eights over. For example, someone with KK would have fives over Kings while he had eights over fives.
I was not afraid of a higher pair - if someone else had AA, they had 5's full of aces. I had 8's full of 5's. So the ONLY thing that could beat me was the case 5.
I was afraid of that 5 being there when the SB smooth called 2 bets cold on the turn. When the case 8 hit I was PRAYING he really did have it!
-SmoothB-
Stand corrected! Thanks!
I made about $6,000 on this hand, at 20-40. And it had a funny twist.
It was 30 months ago. Lucky Chances had recently opened and I had just become a regular there. They had a house-funded bad-beat jackpot that was at about $12,000. You had to get quads beat, and both cards had to play from both hands. If the board was, say, AAA55, and one player had 55, the other player had to have an ace with a kicker higher than a five.
So happens, I had 55. The flop was A-5-5. The turn was an ace. We went three bets, and the other guy was not a ding-dong. He had an ace.
River, as you guessed, another ace. Board: A-5-5-A-A.
He bet out. I called the floorman right away and asked, "If I have two fives, and he has an ace with a card higher than a five, do I have to call his bet in order to win the jackpot? Or can I fold and then turn over my hand."
The floorman confessed he had no idea. He suggested that I call, to play it safe. I didn't want to pay off! So I told the other guy, a 'buddy' of sorts, that I'm calling in case there is a jackpot, but I want my bet back.
He had A-9. Yippee! And he DID give me my $40 back. To this day I get ribbed about not wanting to pay off this hand.
Tommy
In many casinos, the act of TALKING about a potential bad beat jackpot while the hand is in play voids that hand from bad beat jackpot potential.
I am glad that you were so proud of your read, but this is a case of being very penny-wise and pound foolish.
Well, I'm not really proud of the read. This hand was on open book. But you're right, it was foolish to say anything that might risk the jackpot. With the floorman standing right there, and with two daily regulars involved, I thought it was safe. But still, given the risk, you're right.
Tommy
Aurora, IL
We have a straddle button in the game.
I'm on the button and the straddle bet comes to my immediate right The Professor, he makes it 3 bets. I have AJ double suited I make a very weak call. 5 way action, the flop comes x 7 7 everyone checks. The turn is an insignificant card x. The small blind bets, he's solid after the flop for sure, he either has the seven, or a pocket pair. The Professor calls, I muck, and now it's heads up. River K, check bet, and the Professor shows KQ double suited, and wins the pot. Now I'm sure the blind didn't have a seven.
Question, is this a good call on the turn, even with pot odds, I muck because of who the person making the bet.
No - It is a good muck to the bet of the solid sb.
Here is where the rubber meets the road. On the flop you should have bet - if you have any idea of winning this pot - for get the pot odds, play poker - bet the flop and get a bunch of information. Maybe just maybe you win it right there. If not you set things up for another bet on the turn and maybe win it right there.
Everyone knows the SPM is not gonna be there with just his dick in his hand - you are the MAN and demand the respect you're entitled to.
SPM
The turn paired the seven there were not two sevens on the flop. I thought you had AQ at least thats what i thought you said last night. I agree with Rounder you should have bet the flop being on the button and i would have mucked. But when you checked the flop along with everyone else it looks to me as my overcards are good if they hit.otherwise why would everyone check the flop? There is no way anyone is going to slowplay a good hand when the pot gets that big on the flop. Moreover, if i think my overcards are good on the turn with 6 outs its 7-1 and the pot is laying me 12-1 since i only had to call 20 with a 240 pot on the turn. It's a no brainer. Your call is much more difficult and i would have mucked on the turn in your situation.The right play for you was to bet the flop. Take Care Larry
Reraise the straddle preflop or don't play your hand. Definitely bet on the button.
Bruce
20/40 game. I believe I am known as a very good player, and people fear me because they've seen me win alot, and also they know I play much higher. That may sound a bit egotistic, but I just wanted to state that for the scope of this hand.
I am UTG with 99. I raise. All fold to SB. SB is a player that knows me and I would think has the same opinion of me as I stated above. He is known to bluff a little here and there.
He makes it 3 bets. At this point, I don't think he's bluffing, and must have a premium hand....because like most, he would not 3 bet in the SB vs a UTG raise with crap.
BB folds...I call.
Flop is AJ9 - rainbow.
he bets, I call.
Turn is a low card (3, I think, but definitely 5 or lower)
he bets, I raise, he 3 bets.
at this point, I put him on AA or JJ.
I don't see him having AJ or even AK, because I thought it highly unlikely that he'd 3bet preflop and also the turn with either hand (i.e, if he had AJ preflop, he would have just called....if he had AK he would have just called the raise on the turn).
I have caught him bluffing a few times, as well has others, but in this situation, I just found it real difficult to put him on any other cards than AA or JJ.
At that point, there were 9.5BB, and assuming he'd bet on the river too, I would be getting 5.25:1 on my call on turn and river.
What would you do?
I fold here only at gunpoint.
-Fred-
Reluctantly call. You probably are beat based on your analyses of the hand, but this is limit hold-em. I am going to be hardpressed to fold a set in a heads-up situation. Your opponent can easily be overplaying AK or AJ. You just never know what his thinking is and what his mindset is and how he views your play at the time. Save your big laydowns for pot-limit. Don't be a hero playing limit poker.
Bruce
I don't think you have eneough reason to muck the set here. Check call if you want but I wouldn't release the set to a sometimes bluffer.
I've made this fold about five or six times in ten years. The way you described yourself and this player, I'd say there is a better than 5.25-1 chance that he has you beat. I don't think there is any chance he has AK. The only hand you can beat is AJ. So the only pertinent question is, would he three-bet YOU with AJ from the blind.
If he had been in the BB, I would be more likely to fold. But from the SB, he might blast with AJ to get the BB out. So you'd need to know if he makes this play, and if he would do it with YOU as the initial raiser. From what you wrote, I don't think he would.
Even though it cannot be calculated, let's say there is exactly a 5.25-1 chance that he has you beat. Then it's an even money choice. Doesn't matter what you do. If the odds of him having a set are only 4-1, and you fold, it still isn't that big of mistake, mathwise.
It's not an impossible or unreasonable fold.
And against a player who you KNOW has a big pair, AQ or AK when they reraise YOU from the blind, it's even okay to fold for one more bet before the flop. I like this play. Yes, if you hit a nine, you get more than enough return on that final bet to justify putting it in. But the possiblity of him having ace-king makes it easy to lose plenty of bets after the flop when no big cards show up.
Tommy
You were suspicious of AA because he 3 bet it in the face of your UTG raise. You can bet that I wouldn't 3 bet AK after a tight preflop raiser raised UTG.
So you feared that he had AA or JJ. Why not go to war on the flop to find out? He bets, you raise, he reraises. Then you can just call him down to the river if you really suspect AA. This way you get to see the his hand in a showdown for 3.5BB.
By going to war on the turn, it costs you 4.5 BB.
-SmoothB-
.
He could have a wider variety of hands other than AA for him to 3 bet preflop. He could have had AA, AKs, AKo, KK, QQ, JJ.
It was given what he did preflop along with his 3 bet on the turn that made me narrow down his hands to only AA, JJ.
I believe he may very well have made the same bets (up to the turn 3 bet) with any of those hands....yes, even AKs, KK and QQ.
Still, clearly I had some doubt, otherwise I would not have posted the hand....and I was seeing what most people think of folding. It seems everyone except for Tommy thought I was nuts and playing weak/tight. To tell you the truth, I'm really not sure, I think he was a big favorite to have AA or JJ, but more than 80%, I don't know, I think its close.
Doc:
Let me add my two cents to you dilemma. From your perspective, I would probably play it out by the suggestions stated above by SmoothB.
However, from your opponent's perspecitve try to put yourself in his position figuring your hand. With your table image and winning reputation, he most likely put you on higher pair of KK, QQ, 1010, or Aface. Facing the flop AJ9, he likely became convinced that he had you beat. Perhaps, it may not have ocurred to him, or only scantily if it did, that you have a set of 9s.
With information at hand, I hereby venture speculating yet another reality that may have transpired.
I don't like laying down big hands in limit poker. Call him down and say nice hand.
Winger
What does he usually play? 80/160 and/or higher - or just 30/60?
Berry is usually a no-limit or pot limit player. Since these games don't go all the time, when he is in town he is usually playing high limit hold 'em. $30-$60 is a game that he sometimes will sit in, but only rarely. He is also one of the finest people you will ever want to meet.
9-18 game, lotsa action, many hands get 5-7 way action to the turn.
I'm in small blind.
1st out from BB raises, 5 caller to me I 3 bet it with KK, BB calls, UTG caps it all call.
32 small bets in pot
flop: A, K, 9 rainbow.
I figure to check raise. UTG bets, all call to me I check raise, BB calls, UTG raises, all call to me. I'm wonderin and believing he has pocket rockets, I call but I'm asking myself why?
56 small bets in pot
turn: 8 still rainbow.
Now I'm thinking if I bet and he raises I should muck as he has trip aces. For some reason I check instead. And I'm really questioning myself for doing this. Now I know he'll bet AK but would he have raised me with ak?
he bets, all call, but the dealer burns & turns a 3c before button called. Well we all know that 3c is goin back in the deck. But what would you do differently in this hand if anything? Why?
Results to follow later.
Could be AK or a set of 9's or the dreaded AA I think I play the hand a lot like you did. you just don't muck a set of K's with this board. You are eigther way ahead or way behind - I like your chances - besides if he had a set of A's don't you think a good player would just call and not cap the flop for deception on later more expensive streets.
I know a lot of bad players who would always just call with top set on the flop and then jam the turn. They also usually think everybody slowplays like them and will NEVER give me credit for a set if I jam the flop. So that's what I usually do. Especially with an A and K on board.
If you never slowplay with two broadway cards on the flop, I don't think you are making too much of a mistake. Its just too hard for someone to make a 2nd best hand, and too easy for the turn card to give them a better hand or kill your action.
While I would normally tend to agree with you Rounder there was wat too much action at this table and this particular player had not been doing well and never "pushed" any hands very hard. Thus made me think he in fact was on AA and had finally caught "his hand".
I suppose it depends on my perception of the UTG raiser. Does he seem very tight/solid, or does he seem to overplay hands a bit? There are some players who might push AQ or even AJ this hard. There are others that might only have AA in this spot.
I can assure you that nothing is going to make me fold this unless the board gets really scary, but with this flop it doesn't look like a flush or straight is going to win this hand. It's going to be a set or full house.
I would push this hand really hard on the flop but slow down on the turn if he still seems persistent. There are a lot of solid players I know that will cap it with top 2 pair on the turn, so all of this action does not necessarily mean that he has top set.
-SmoothB-
I don't think I would have played the hand much differently than you have. Although I don't think I would even consider folding (tough talk for me if you see my post about my set of Jacks below). Anyway, with this board you must call to the river, the only hand that can beat you is AA. Since I think you have to call to the river I probably would check the turn and just call.
I'm also curious as to what all the other players had. How could they stand this heat with AK on board there must have been some other good hands out there.
I would not lay down a set of kings on this board, especially as long as there are no flushes, straights or full house possibilities.
Yours is a tough question because the only way it can be answered is by observing how UTG has been playing or by having some knowledge of the type of player he is.
If the player is loose, I will bet into him on the river if a straight card doesn't hit. At least one of the other players in the pot is probably on TJ or QJ (maybe A9s or K9s)
If the player is the type to play AA only in this situation, or if a 7 or T hits the river, I would just check and call.
What do the others have? I think it's safe to assume there are aces elsewhere in play, thus lowering the odds of him holding 2 of them. That fact by itself gives you a good reason to call the rest of the way, considering the pot size.
Well at this game I had a "very tight/aggressive" image. More then once I noticed someone say when I came into a raised pot "Larry you called? I muck". Thus I knew my image was too tight also maybe. But it helped to get 2-3 of the better players out of hands and leave me with loose gooses for myself. Now this player was not by any means an extremely loose player. But was not having any luck connecting either. What the hell the others had I never knew.
So we got a "burn & turn" on the river. Floorman comes. Complete the action with the button calling, then me. 3c goes back into the deck.
River: K
Now I check again. UTG bets his aces full. 2 callers, I check raise, UTG 3bets, all fold to me while someone at the table says "same hand, AK". I 4 bet hoping UTG thinks I have just that. Yup we go for about 4 more bets heads up before he gives up and I show my quads to his Aces full. HUGE POT! Thats a bad beat. A true bad beat for him, but no jackpot. But to this day I still question myself for not mucking when I knew he had top set and I was drawing dead to one card in the deck. Maybe in general I credit players with having too much sometimes because I wouldnt play so many rags as fast as they do.
Wow. That really is a bad beat. Ouch.
However, there are only two ways I would lay down a set of King's here: 1) If he showed me his trip Ace's, and 2) At gunpoint.
You might slow down, and not get into a raising war with him with 2nd top set, but fold? I don't think so. I can only imagine the feelings this guy must have had towards the dealer after this one. Next tip: July/2006!
Don't be too results oriented based on one hand. Don't be a hero in limit hold-em, you'll go broke. Save your big laydowns for pot-limit and no limit.
Bruce
When I get AK i will usually raise coming unless the feild is already large, i am suited or it is raised in front of me. I have learned not to bet this hand unless i flop to it (and if i do i open up),and never do (unless i think i can steal). I deffinatelly (sp?) don't call a bet with this hand. Many people I have seen will call the flop and turn w/ AK. I believe that i therefore make more and/or loose less than others w/ this hand. But i see so much of the former play that i am wondering if i am doing something wrong . All comments will be appreciated.
Thanks, ES
PS A funny example Raised on the button W/ AQ BB only caller. Flop 245r. He Checks i check. Turn 2 He checks I check. River 3. He checks I bet He Calls turning over KK. Trying so hard to check raise me he cost himself a (small) pot. If i tried to steal i would have lost one more bet.
You might be playing AK a little too timidly. Sometimes it is ok to bet or even raise with AK on the flop when you don't flop a pair.
Let's say you have AK of spades first in and you enter for a raise. Let's say you get 2 callers and it gets folded around to the BB who calls. The BB is a loose aggressive player.
Flop comes J 8 2 with one spade. If he bets, it might be a good idea to raise some of the time. This will likely get the other 2 to fold unless they flopped big - but this will likely get another AK to fold.
The loose BB could be betting a hand like QJ (top pair), 98 (open ender) etc. If you raise and he only has top pair or the open ender, he will probably check to you again on the turn unless he improves. This gives you a free card to catch an A or K.
If he bets into you on the turn and you haven't improved I would fold - he is obviously not afraid of the possibility that you have an overpair.
You have to pick your spot to try this.
-SmoothB-
I play AK pretty much the way you do. I will usually raise pre-flop. If the flop hits you its pretty easy, I bet away. However, if the flop misses you, most players will check to me, because I was the pre-flop raiser, and I will usually check as well. It depends on a couple of things. The most important is how many players are in the hand. If there are only one or two and the flop is low cards I will definitely (correct spelling... you weren't even close) bet because there is a good chance I have the best hand. If there are six or seven people seeing the flop I will check and hope I get a free card. With this many people it is so unlikely that the flop missed all of them so I am not going to chase.
Your PS was a good example of why not to slowplay. The BB should have raised before the flop and gotten at least one more small bet out of you.
Since you asked, it's "definitely", and it's "too often" (not "to").
Most people try to run it out way too often with AK, I think, but you may be too far the other way. If you are heads up and the flop is raggedy, you can definitely bet, and I agree with the other poster about sometimes raising to clean up the field and maybe get the free card (be very selective in using this). You almost have to bet a flop like 7-2-2 if you have only one or two opponents, especially if neither is a blind. If you are multiway, there is pretty much no flop you can bet if you miss, except a four-flush w/ AKs.
Good luck.
You play too tightly just based on your example and I am sure it's carrying over to your overall play. If I am heads-up with the blind and I am the raiser I can pretty much guarantee you I will bet on the flop or the turn or both if I have Ace big with small cards on the flop.
Bruce
When 5 or more players are going to see the flop I tend to raise or reraise with AK, reasoning that if the flop hits me it only leaves 2 cards to hit someone else. Also I am trying mot to go too far with the hand when it misses. I have not been enamored with my experience with overcards.
There is a very fine line between giving up when you flop nothing and playing the hand aggressively. With five opponents and you being UTG with no draw I would check and probably fold most of the time. With fewer opponents I might bet on the flop and turn. Game conditions and your judgement really dictate your course of action. There really is no cookbook approach to playing the hand, but if you are going to check and fold everytime you are not getting full equity. You would be surprised how many pots I pick up on the flop or turn with AK when I don't flop anything. The lineup has to be right and my image and everything else has to be just right. It also helps when you have a tight image.
Bruce
It's a smidgen better to play it safer if there is a ten, jack or queen out, and play it stronger if there isn't. That's because with one of those cards out, you will sometimes hit an ace or king while someone else makes two pair.
Tommy
If we are heads up or in a three way pot there would be few hands that I would not bet if you checked. If I am behind you I will bet the flop and if the turn is not an A/face I will bet out. I think you are playing this hand way too tight.
Like any poker hand playing AK depends on the players and the texture of the flop - I have been saying this for a long time - AK is the most misplayed hand in HE poker. I have seen reasonable diciplined good players misplay slick so bad they damage their chances to continue in a tournament. It is something about how some players fall in love with this holding. Hey it is 2 cards and if you don't hit the flop and continue to play them strongly - YOU ARE RUNNING A BLUFF - pure and simple Hey it's legal and sometimes a good tactic.
I haven't kept track of my AK success or failure but I think I'd be a few bucks behind if not even if I never got Big Slick.
If you take a 3-handed flop, where nobody reraised you before the flop, what is your basis for saying "YOU ARE RUNNING A BLUFF!"
Depending on the opponents who called you and the texture of the board, you are reasonably likely to have the best hand. To always assume (and play) otherwise is weak-tight poker.
I never considered bluffing weak poker. I just like to be realistic about this hand it is often overplayed and the cause for a lot of losses which can be avoided.
if it is 3 handed, and you raised preflop and no one 3 bet, then a bet on the flop (with no A or K) is either a bluff (if one of the other guys has a pair) or a value bet. you just don't know exactly what it is at the moment.
Not really a value bet by my definition as I don't really "want" to be called. Even if my hand is currently best.
NT
Big Slick looks real good when you first see the hand, I followed the advise of the poker books for years, raise going in, then betting the flop no matter what it is, they said you can sometimes win it right there. Not in the mid-west.
Most players put you on that hand before your chips hit the felt. They want to see your commetment to the hand on the turn. So you bet the turn, with no pair, someone calls you down with a pair of duces and you check or bet on the river and loose to duces. Or some other junk. I'll bet it's happened to you to.
If the field is tough then I'll raise with big slick from any position. You get more respect form a tough field, most of the time. If the field is loose I'll limp from early to late middle position. Only raising from one off the button or on the button, then check the flop if no help comes. That way I can get out of the hand before I loose to many chips.
But, sometimes I do raise with a loose field, from any position, just to mix it up. Then I usually loose more chips.
I think we all need a crystal ball so we can play big slick correctly all the time. You can always tell when you have played it right, because you will be stacking chips at the river.
Good Luck Slick, Suburban Poker Man
I picked up TT UTG and limped in with it. Mid position player - pretty tight preflop raiser - raised.
By the time it got back to me it had been reraised twice. There were 3 others in this hand, all of whom thought their hands were worth raising with. The game had been pretty tight and not overly aggressive up to now.
Rather than call 3 bets, I mucked my hand. I really don't like playing TT against 3 opponents, especially when they all really like their hands.
I could be sure that I was facing at least one and likely 2 overpair, and a variety of overcards.
Was it a good idea to leave my 1 bet in there? Or should I have called and played the hand?
-SmoothB-
I like the muck given the situation. you don't have odds to hit your set (given that you were trailing from the outset), and, given the action after you limped, the best you can hope for is three AKs in back of you. Even if you hit your set, any overcard puts you in a tricky situation. I may have raised to open with the tens, though, given the tightness of the game. you may have been then stuck in a tough situation after the flop, but the preflop call would have been easier. Anyway, that's not the point of this question, and raising with tens early is not cut and dried. good self control, though. I may have been inclined to call just because (a leak, I know).
You're getting 11.5-3 to spike a set, since you'll probably have to do that to win. So I'd probably just fold, because you might flop a set and lose.
Your not quite getting the right price on your hand to call a double bet plus you have the worst possible position. Whether I call has a lot to do with the makeup of my opponents. If I can extract a lot of bets if I hit my set I'll probably call. You basically have to flop a set to win. I know this has nothing to do with your post, but I prefer raising with this hand UTG. Had you raised you probably wouldn't have found yourself calling a double bet.
Bruce
(n/t)
bruce,
I like your answer also but remember SmoothB now had to call three more bets, not a double bet.
Regards,
Rick
SmoothB,
Without looking at the other replies, I say you have an easy laydown. But add an opponent or two and I might call hoping to hit my set.
Regards,
Rick
Our hero in seat #2 (to the right of the cutoff), looks down to see AA, he hasn't played a hand in about forty five minutes, including the blinds which have been raised mercilessly. The game is 30-60 limit hold'em, nine handed, with the small $20.
In the last two rounds, there was an average of about 3 people seeing the flop, raised all but twice. Not a good game, but our hero knows this will get better soon.
All fold to hero in seat #2, who just calls with those aces. Hmmm.
The small blind folds, intentionally flipping his cards up with QJ off.
Big blind, playing his first hand, after waiting impatiently for his big blind, raises. Hero calls.
The flop comes two handed, $140, in the pot.
2s
4s
6d
Big Blind bets. Hero calls, one of his aces being spades.
Turn is 6h, the board now 2 4 6 6 with two spades. There is $200 in the pot.
Big Blind bets again $60, and hero now raises back and big blind reraises. Hero calls. They both put three big bets in the pot and it now stands at $560.
The river comes a Q, no spade.
Board reads: 2 4 6 6 Q no flush possible.
Big blind now checks....Hero bets and the Big blind calls.
Hero wins with his Aces. Big blind, hand trembling turns over QJ of spades and says, "you two should be in 2-4, glancing at the small who folded QJ, and glaring at the aces. Soon after he was called to his 10-20 game and the game went to eight handed.
If we assume the hero was a good player, what information did he need to make his play correct? Or is this completely wrong to play like this?
Was the small correct to fold for only a third of a bet? What knowledge would need to be correct?
Any comments at all welcomed and appreciated.
Only an idiot would raise from the big blind with the same hand that the small blind exposed. That aside, I would be very suspicious with a late limp like that and the small blind pretty much hinted to the big blind what to expect. I personally don't like limping late as a first entrant. It's a dead give away most of the time that you have a big hand. The hero was rewarded because his opponent was a moron.
Bruce
Pre-flop our hero should raise with his Aces. He does not want to give the cutoff, the button, the small blind, and the big blind a cheap flop to suck out on him. There are too many opponents still to act for him to be deceptive here. This especially true with the high blinds (almost two full bets in a $30-$60 game).
I like our hero's play on the flop. Given the big blind's pre-flop raise, it looks like our hero has his opponent badly dominated with very few outs unless the big blind just happens to have a Spade flush draw. Therefore, he should wait until the expensive street to pull the trigger against his lone opponent. The rest of the play is fine.
The big blind's 3 bet on the expensive street with just a draw was bad poker. It was also silly for him to raise out of his big blind with Queen-Jack suited when he sees that two of his cards are dead. However, the big blind should be encouraged to stay in the $30-$60 game since he thinks he plays so well. I mean why should the $10-$20 players get all his money?
P.S.: I think the small blind made a mistake by folding pre-flop with Queen-Jack offsuit for only a third of a bet. He was getting 8:1 to take a flop.
First, is the 20 & 30 blind structure standard in $30-60? I've only played that limit where the blind structure was 15 & 30; the only limit I've played with a 2/3 small blind is $15-30.
P.S.: I think the small blind made a mistake by folding pre-flop with Queen-Jack offsuit for only a third of a bet. He was getting 8:1 to take a flop.
Maybe. I think his (the SB's) point was that it was so obvious the limper had a big pair that he would muck a hand that would normally be very playable, but even knowing that the limper held AA or KK, the hand is probably still playable. QJo vs. AA and a random hand should still win about 15% of the time, and the fact that you know exactly where the late position limper is at should make it easy to play the hand correctly. But, if the BB showed a propensity to raise a lot (certainly possible since he raised a hand with 2 cards dead), I would agree with the fold because it's certainly not worth investing 1 1/3 bets in a hand you only have a 15% chance of winning.
-Sean
Am I too tight? If I KNEW someone had an over pair to me, and I was getting 8:1 on my money (assuming no raise), I would still fold.
-If I hit a monster draw I am only getting 3 way action. I believe flopping an open ended straight draw is about 9:1.
-If I flopped top 2 pair even, the over pair has many redraws against me, so I am still very vulnerable. I believe this is about 28:1.
The one reason to play the hand is it is very easy to release after the flop misses you.
All of the above comments assume you know there will not be a raise from the BB. If there is some possibility here, I don't even think there is one reason to play in this situation.
If big blind raised my smooth call of Aces, I don't know if I could hold back from check raising. Again, this is a very hypothetical situation because I have never smooth called with Aces in the above situation.
this is my 2 cents worth.
Yes Sean in most $30-$60 games the small blind is $20 not $10 or $15. This is due to using $10 chips to play the game rather than $5 chips. A $20 small blind is used in $30-$60 at the Bellagio in Las Vegas and at the Commerce in Los Angeles. I agree that if it looks like the big blind might raise, then I would fold here.
I feel it was a poor/weak preflop play not because he limped but because he didnt reraise after trapping his opponent.
But paul at that point he is heads-up with position over an opponent who he knows has a weaker hand (unlikely the big blind has the other two Aces). In this situation it is correct to slow play and so that you can trap your opponent for more bets downstream.
Jim,I respectfully disagree.Heres food for thought..you might have sacrificed major or unlimited action preflop if your opponent holds a big hand.What if he holds ak,aq,KK,qq,jj,10/10,KQs,JQs,among others?He might go to war before the flop and will not get away from his hand after the flop as the pot is now huge.Im not saying this is the play all the time but there is many benefits to a reraise preflop.
Since it is heads-up and if raises are unlimited pre-flop then you are correct if the guy is enough of an idiot to go to war without the best hand (i.e.-AA in this case). When you find someone who plays like this, get his phone number and be sure and invite him back next time.
I have witnessed many times when 2 people,especially a late position player and blind go to war preflop in the games in LA. and LV ,limp and reraise,without even close to AA's.I suspect you have fallen into the trap of assuming everyone plays and should play exactly in the way you perceive to be "correct" and read them this way.I tend to do this too. in this case I think about how many times people get out of line preflop.In fact this is where much of the live players chips come from ,putting bets and reraises preflop,taking the worst of it with an inferior hand and then being trapped all the way.If you reraise and he calls youve just made a big bet,if he repops ,youve made up for a turn bet.Plus more info about his hand is available.Obviously a mix is optimal and Ive seen many good players put multipile bets preflop with a whole lot less than AA's,limp and reraise with say QQ's or A/10s for deception.Once you do this you can play AA's faster and your observant opponents will have a tougher read.It still seems to me a trap was set and should have been exploited as the BB was live enough to raise when a red flag should have gone up with the AA's late limp.
sounds like pocket rockets (PR) was virtually certain, based on prior evidence, that one of the four players behind him would raise. had the cutoff or button raised , and one or both of the blinds called, I presume he would have reraised. heads up, PR stood to gain one small bet or more by waiting until the turn to raise ONLY if he could count on the preflop raiser a) betting out on the flop and then, b) not checking the turn and, c) calling PR's raise after having led-bet the turn OR x) the preflop raiser checking and calling any flop bet followed by y) a checkraise of PR's turn bet. as it was, his opponent doubly rewarded PR's stunt by reraising on the turn, but that was simply good luck squared, a French kiss from the poker goddess...
If we suppose that the hero knows that someone, if they come in, will almost certainly raise, that further, the big blind will call said raise with approximatley 60% of his hands and even reraise with most of the better ones, would that still make the aces wrong not to raise preflop?
What if the aces and the small blind also knew that head to head the big blind was 90% certain the bet the flop in the dark.
How much do these considerations alter the mainstream preflop strategy of raising those aces? And calling with QJ off when facing a more than likely raise (and very possible limp reraise by the aces?). Thanks all.
Let me start by saying the table is playing like a nickel, dime, quarter home game. These people obviously have more money then they need. We're playing with 50, 100 overs so this hand was played at the 50-100 level.
I'm UTG with Kh Kc, and open for a raise to 100. I get 4 callers as well as the blinds. I was expecting a reraise as both previous hands were 3 bets before the flop, and that was why i raised utg not worried about not getting any action.
The flop is K, J, 9. I can't remember suits, but don't believe there was a flush draw out there. The blinds check, I bet out as apposed to going for a checkraise, as I thought someone else would raise for me anyway. Everyone calls except the blinds, so we take the turn 5 handed.
The turn is a 4h, wich i believe now makes 2 hearts on the board. I bet out, 2 fold, the cuttoff calls and the Button raises. Both the cuttoff and the button are older gentlemen, but by no means the classic old rocks, they have thrown their money out there with the rest of the table. I'm very concerned he has the straight, because if Q, 10 was dealt it was played. I just call, as does the cutoff.
The river is a 6, and there is no possible flush. I check, cutoff checks, button bets. I call as does the cutoff.
Results will follow, I'm interested on how many people would have reraised the turn, despite being out of position. I'm also curious if anyone would have let the hand go?
I would have reraised on the turn for sure, because:
1) The guy raising doesn't sound at all like he needs QT to raise here. He may have a king or jack and just picked up a flush draw and he may be drawing dead.
2) With the 3rd guy in the pot, a raise is only a small mathematical mistake, even if you are behind to a QT. You have 10 outs to fill or quad up, and (assuming the raiser has QT) there are 44 unseen cards. That makes you a 3.4 to 1 dog and you are getting 2 to 1 on your raises. Of course, if the cutoff has a piece of the board rather than a draw, your outs are reduced.
3) Its good for the image. Guys who can't raise top set here when only one hand beats them should be easy to manipulate by more observant opponents.
On the river, there is no way I lay it down, especially if you didn't 3 bet on the turn. BTW, I hate the cutoff's overcall. Talk about a calling station- he invests 4-1/2 big bets into a pot and never gets a bet in. Gotta love the action.
I like your reasoning, after having time to think about it I would still just call on the turn but, bet out on the river and just call if raised again.
With the straight out there and that kind of action I probably check call to the river unless the board pairs.
The problem is there is this much action almost every hand. And although everyone is playing alot of hands, alot of them are also playing there semi-strong and draws very strong.
well you have three people in including yourself the bb has a straight draw for sure and that is why he never got a bet in so i would reraise and make him pay for his draw now with a three staight hand out there and Q 10 is what makes it that would be unlikly iin this limit i do not care how much money they have because you will have it soon.you are second best with outs to nut up and this is not omaha so the best hand does not have to be out there. call me aggresive but i will pump that hand unless a four straight comes or the heart just in case of the runner runner.
It looks like a close play either way. The cutoff seat is a donater unless he hits his draw and you'll likely lose him with a three bet. If the button has the nuts and you raise then you'll cost yourself 2 more bets to draw and maybe lose the cutoff seat. To me, these two just about balance.
In the heat of the moment I've been known to raise in spots like this.
-Fred-
A reraise is mandatory on the turn. Perhaps QT is out there but you still do have redraws plus the pot is big enough now for you to protect your hand against the other players. The way you need to look at it is what hands can the button be raising with? He is not a known rock and gives action so there is a wide spectrum of hands all of which you beat except for QT. I would gamble with him and reraise. If he comes back at me then it's time to slow down.
Bruce
As it turns out, the cut-off had J 9 for 2 pair, and the button had a set of jacks? I can't believe with the way this game was going he didn't 3bet that before the flop. Tough beat for him, but I guess he's lucky I played my hand so weak.
Too bad the case Jack didn't come.
Bruce
The case jack was on the board.
One guy had pocket jacks, one had J9, the 4th jack was on the board.
It's too bad a 9 didn't come!
-SmoothB-
I misread the post. I thought one player had a set of Nines.
Bruce
Not alot of posts today, so I'll add another one, although I'm satisfied with my play on this one I'll put it out for comments. I'm with the same line up as my previous post. I haven't played a hand since the one in my previous post and its been an hour or so. This hand is played at the $30-$60 limit.
I am in the cutoff with Ac As. UTG limps (this would be scary if I didn't have aces, as he is probably the only other fairly tight player at the table) another limps, folded to the player to my right(PTR) who raises. I make it $90, folded to the BB who calls as do both limpers.
We take the flop of 2h 3h 5s 5 handed. BB bets out, UTG folds, other Limper folds, PTR calls, and I raise. Both call and we take the turn 3 handed.
The turn is the 5d. BB bets out again, PTR calls, and although I put the BB on a 4 for a straight draw, I just call anyway. ( who would fold or raise here?)
The river is the Ad. BB bets out, PTR calls, I raise, BB reraises. PTR folds and I cap (now I wish I would have gotten rid of PTR on the turn to avoid the cap). BB calls and shows 4h 5h for a straight. I sure am glad that last ace wasn't a heart :) I take down another huge pot, it sure is nice to be the one sucking out for a change.
I think you played correctly. It would be too risky to raise on the expensive street when the top card pairs and with three cards in a straight zone. You could get re-raised and you could be playing 2 outs here.
Well played and a good (1 outer) suck-out..if you can call winning with Rockets a suckout.
BTW, I like the way BB played the hand on the flop and turn. I am not particularly enamoured with his reraise on the river. The board reads A2355. He bets. He must think that you may think he has a 4 or a 5 but yet you raise. He should therefore think:
"will Doug raise with just AK on the river even if I were to assume that he would have raised the flop and called the turn with AK. That seems unlikely. The son of a gun probably hit a boat with his AA. I will make the crying call."
BTW, I am not sure why you say this:
"PTR folds and I cap (now I wish I would have gotten rid of PTR on the turn to avoid the cap)."
Firstly, since PTR is outta there when bb puts in the 3rd bet, there should be no cap.
Secondly, even if there was no cap, surely you can't expect bb to put in a 5th bet with any hand that you can beat.
SKP, Though its merits are debatable, some houses enforce the cap as long as the round of betting BEGAN with 3+ people. Dan S.
Yeah the cap is enforced if the round of betting starts with 3 or more players. And yes I do think he would have put a few more bets in.
The he is a yutz.
DanS,
The merits may be debatable, but I would want the Coach (Bob Ciaffone) on my team regarding reputing the logic of capping the betting when the betting round starts with three or more players yet the third party player(s) drop out before the cap is reached.
In a Card Player article from about five years ago, he makes a convincing argument for the current rule used in Los Angeles. Too bad about half the dealers still don't understand it completely along with more floormen than I can count.
Regards,
Rick
Doug,
I haven’t peeked at the other replies yet. The pre flop and flop play seem routine.
On the turn the big blind bets out when the top card on the flop repeats. I believe it is a mistake to try to put the big blind on an exact hand when there is a range of hands he could have. Besides a straight or flush draw, I would think the most likely hands include a five (possibly in combination with either draw) or a middle size overpair. One thing the big blind knows is that you and PTR are unlikely to have the five so he thinks his bet is unlikely to be raised. So my guess is that he would bet all possible hands.
If he has a draw or a middle overpair it is much better to raise, especially considering that PTR could also have a draw or a weaker hand that you are trapping. If the BB has the five it is only slightly worse to raise. Your raise of the trip fives probably will be reraised, but by the time it gets back to you (assuming PTR calls) you will be looking at 17 big bets). There is enough in there to try to spike an ace with the extra bets you should collect on the river. (Note: The fact that the Ah kills you in this case is such a freak occurrence that you shouldn’t worry about it.) BTW, if PTR were not in the pot, I would just call and maybe snap off a river bluff by the big blind with a missed draw. Or course, folding is unthinkable due to the range of hands the big blind could have.
Nice catch on the river. Note that here in Los Angeles there would be no cap since the third party (PTR) folded before the third raise went in. This is the best capping rule IMHO and was advocated by Bob Ciaffone when the clubs went to a more or less common rulebook a few years ago.
Regards,
Rick
The no limit thread below got me thinking, especially the guys who advocate moving all-in and WAY overbetting the pot on the flop with a draw. I guess they do this so that they don't have to make tough decisions on the turn, or river. Or they want to see both cards and NOT have to call a bet as an underdog, or fear getting check-raised, etc. Or it demonstrates that they have courage, are not to be messed with, and other new age gobbleygook. The all-in move is scared poker, not strong poker.
Think about a $15-$25 blind game where you all sit down with $500. YOu are under the gun and pick up Kings. Kings are a very difficult hand to play after the flop in no limit. But its a good hand, and the chances are very high that everyone will fold to your raise.
The Sliders Play:
Move all-in!!
You pick up the $40 and don't have to fear making any post-flop mistakes. You might even pick off an idiot that calls you with AKs or QQ.
And hey, it's even ballsy because you DON'T HAVE THE NUTS!!!
If there are some loose aggressive players in late position I'll call with KK UTG hoping to reraise all-in a raiser. If he's got AA too bad for me. If no one raises (thus robbing me of the opportunity to reraise all in), it's a leisurely afternoon walk on a mine field.
I hold JTo in BB. Bad player limps in early position, a solid player raises in middle position, another bad player calls in late position, and I call.
Flop T63 two diamonds. I bet, ep calls, raiser raises, lp folds, ep and I call. Turn 8 offsuit. I bet, ep folds, raiser calls. River A offsuit. I check and fold when raiser bets.
I like my bet on the flop because it puts pressure on the ep because he might be raised by the raiser and the lp has to call two bets if the raiser raises. I don't like risking a free card in this situation, incase the raiser decides to check. I don't think a check raise gains anything. I put the raiser on a bigger pocket pair or overcards, maybe suited.
On the turn I bet out again because I am going to call if the raiser bets (I'd be getting 8-1 to make three tens or two pair), it shows strength, I can safely fold if he raises, and I don't give a free card.
On the river, I check and fold because the only hand I think he could have at this point that I can beat is a KQd if he's bluffing. He would have folded an underpair on the turn, even if he were willing to play it like he did on the flop (which I doubt).
I think I played this hand well but any critical responses would be appreciated. The reason I posted it was because a lot of the situations are very common but people might have some good reasons to play this differently.
Well played and well reasoned.
Your CW count was one and your CCW count was one. In that situation, a bet is as good as a checkraise in trying to limit the field and it has the advantages of (a) ensuring that you don't hand out free cards to everyone if the preflop raiser checks and (b) limiting your investment to 2 bets rather than 3 if the preflop raiser has an overpair.
I may well go for the checkraise if my CW count was two and my CCW count was Zero.
BTW, if you are wondering waht the hell I am talking about..."CW count" refers to the number of players between you and the preflop raiser in a clockwise direction while CCW refers to counterclockwise.
skp,
I wrote my response before reading yours. I finally incorporated "ostensible" into my everyday vocabulary and now I have to learn about CW count and CCW counts. If you have time, check out my reply.
Regards,
Rick
Before posting this hand I had talked with a friend about it for a while and he was initially in favor of check raising. I would check raise if there were more players between me and the raiser (CW) than CCW. Since that is not the case in this hand, betting out is a better play for the reasons we've already mentioned.
Perhaps one could argue that a check raise gives one better information. A reraise almost certainly is an overpair so you can simply check and call the turn and then fold the river if unimproved. Of course, an aggressive player would probably reraise with suited overcards as well...
Pre-flop, your call of the raise out of your big blind is okay with Jack-Ten offsuit. But you must realize that the raiser is a solid player who raised after another player voluntarily entered the pot. I would expect the raiser to have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK, or AQ.
On the flop, I like your lead with top pair/fair kicker and your reasoning was fine. But when the solid player, who raised pre-flop, now raises your flop bet you will usually be facing an over pair especially with other players involved in the hand. At this point you can go ahead and take a card off for another $20 and play your 5 outer with $270 in the pot. However, some of your outs may be killed if someone is on a Diamond flush draw.
Now when a blank comes on the turn, betting is a bad idea. You should check. It is costing you $40 and there is only $270 in the pot. Furthermore, some of your outs could be killed if they are Diamonds and someone makes a Diamond flush. I think you should check and fold if it is bet. You can be fairly certain at this point that the solid player who has been raising has an over pair.
You have to fold at the river because now the Ace has to give your opponent the best hand if he did not have it already.
Jim,
In California I am used to playing against friskier opponents. They will often raise with overcards after raising before the flop so on the turn you can still be leading.
I agree your outs may be reduced by a possible diamond flush. I wish we knew what the exact cards were in that Robin could hold at least one diamond and the ten on the flop could be a diamond. If so Robin could still have five outs. But even if you are afraid of the diamond flush (and you really shouldn’t be with only two opponents) the bet on the turn is better when the solid player tends to slow down with overcards.
Anyway, I had a different take in my post below and all flames are welcome.
Regards,
Rick
checking and folding to a bet on the turn, is just weak-tight. you played the hand perfectly, especially the bet on the turn.
This is not a critique of your play. Wasn't the pot big enough for you to make a call in case your opponent was bluffing?
Maybe someone can help me with this.
Robin,
Before the flop your call was marginally correct IMO. Note that if you had offsuit connectors with less high card strength you should fold (e.g. 65 offsuit). They don’t have the playability after the flop that this hand had in that it is far more difficult to win with a pair.
Your flop bet is my play. You should not routinely check to a raiser when you flop top pair. Of course it is worth calling the raise because you have outs against an overpair AND a solid player doesn’t need an overpair to raise when a somewhat unconnected flop comes against three opponents. So you could be leading.
On the turn I like your lead bet and the first part of your reasoning. However, if he raises you probably still have five outs so you must call rather than fold. BTW, if you hit your five outs on the river make a value bet since the board will be scary enough for him to check down an overpair.
On the river you have to know your opponent very well to lay it down but it is probably right against the solid player who is not too tricky. His play screams AK or AQ. But suited overcards without an ace are a possibility and you are getting ten to one on your call. In addition, if he is really good he might read the forum and know about “ostensible outs” per skp from a long ago thread. (Note: skp has posted below but I haven’t read him yet.) In other words, if he will raise preflop and on the flop with KQ, KJ and even QJ (they would have to be diamonds for the QJ) he might be making a river bet based on the “ostensible out” of you folding a single pair to the ace river card which he figures you presume he has based on the way he plays the hand. I guess what I am saying is that if skp bets here I call ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I really don't think this player would raise preflop with QJ, even suited. I also don't think he would raise with unsuited KQ or KJ. I had played with him for a few hours and while he was a little loose in the blinds his raising was never out of hand or even marginal.
Of course you are right that if he raises again on the turn I would have to call because I'm getting right odds to call. I would bet the river if I hit one of my outs, like you said.
I feel pretty comfortable with the fold on the end, but I wanted to post this hand because it incorporates a lot of fundamental poker play that people can learn from.
Robin,
The fold is probably right except against the most sophisticated and tricky opponents, and even then it may not be too bad.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, if the solid pre-flop raiser had AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AT suited, or even the remaining two Tens would he have played it any differently? Given that he raised your flop bet when the board comes Ten-high with other players in the pot I think a solid player will have a better hand a far greater percentage of the time then a hand like AK or AQ. And if you get raised on the expensive street after betting you would recommend calling the raise.
I guess it depends upon your read of the player plus the other players but it sure seems like an expensive way to play poker. Is there no way we can get away from this hand when we are beat?
But Jim we can be beat right now but still have enough value to chase and being beat is by no means certain.
Anyway, I don’t think it is wise to usually back down with a medium strength hand on the turn after being faced with a single raise on the flop and only two opponents. If he has overcards most will call your turn bet as is the case here. If he has an overpair you will usually get popped but by this time the pot will be big enough to draw to your probable five outer. The only time you are totally screwed is when he flopped a set of tens but most opponents’ slowplay on the flop so this hand is not likely.
BTW, who said poker wasn’t expensive ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Well, skp wouldn't bet against someone like you who can see through his thinking:)
Skp,
Maybe, but if I think that you think that I think that I think you may not use this play because you think I am aware than it may be best to use it anyway -- I think.
Regards,
Rick
You just reminded me why I muck J-10 from the blinds. Thanks! :-)
Tommy
Hello all. I have recently played on two ships in South Florida area. One ship spreads $5/10/15 holdem and the other spreads $1/4/8/8 structured and $10/20 holdem. Here is my issue: The games on both of these ships are typically 12 handed with approx. 4 players (30%) seeing every flop. The rake on both ships is 10% to $5 max. Should I make any adjustments with starting hand requirements for different positions? Despite the game being twelve handed, most dealers average 36 to 40 hands per hour. Comments would be appreciated.
Find another game. Seriously!
Wow this does NOT sound like a good game to me. The rake is HUGE. It might not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the game is do darned tight! 30% seeing the flop in a low limit game with such a high rake?
That sounds like a really tough game to beat. Try to avoid playing that game unless it loosens up a bit!
-SmoothB-
30/60 Bellagio,Im in the BB with Q8 off.3 limpers starting mid postion.SB calls .5 see the flop Q,4,5 rainbow,SB an older guy ,typical abc kinda player leads ,I raise and we lose everyone,SB calls,J turn,he cks I bet he calls,river 6,no 3 card flush ,he checks,now what?also does a river flush card either back door or otherwise change drasticly what I should do?Thanks
It is close but I think you should usually check it down although you could have the best hand. He will not fold a Queen and there is a good chance he has at least a better Queen. He would not have led into a crowd of players without at least top pair since there is no draw out there. A river flush card makes it more imperative to check it down since he could have two pair or some other strong holding and be afraid because of the flush card.
I definitely just check it on the river. I am not sure how a river bet could be a value bet. What can he call with that you can beat?
You'd be surprised at what they will call with on the river...just about any damn thing.
That said, this is probably a good spot to check it down.
skp, anybody please help me - I may be losing my mind,
There have been many cases where I advocate aggressive betting and raising but I would back up to the flop and fold (see my post below). Just picture this guy who bet the flop into four opponents: “kinda old”, “plays abc”, and my guess is probably a regular retired guy who holds his own but not a superstar. I can just see him sitting there with his poker cap on.
He bets the flop and you have top pair-blah kicker with three opponents left to act. The top pair is one of the four cards you will see a lot of calls with at this limit before the flop (the ten, jack and nine may lead it). All of the playable hands including a queen that players call with these days beat your kicker (KQ, QJ, QT, Q9).
I would fold on the flop and I still think it is not close. But I could be losing my mind.
Regards,
Rick
PS Just so you don’t think I am a flop wimp note that I was the only one who considers betting the flop on Doc’s “Big Pot” post on the high limit forum.
Rick:
I appreciate your sound reasoning in terms of profiling the SM player. But since Paul took his hand thus far, I would just check on the river.
Ivan,
In my original reply I also advocated checking the river. But I made the above subpost because I was pretty sure most overlooked the poor flop call.
Regards,
Rick
huh?...ya, I agree...folding the flop here is the better play.
I actually didn't even put my mind to the flop play and just commented on the river check/value bet question.
I agree. A fold on the flop is the best play. Not only are you very likely beat by the bettor, the pot is small and there are three people remaining to act.
If I happened to be in at the river I would check. Betting wouldn't even be a consideration. Actually, I'd fully expect to be beat. After all, he called a bet on the turn.
Folding may have merit and it was very astute of you to suggest it. I overlooked this aspect completely. However, the guy had to put in only one $10 chip from the small blind to take a flop with $140 in the pot. He is practically getting a free play. He might easily take a flop with a weaker Queen that was suited like Q2,Q3,Q6, or Q7. He might have also have limped in for one chip with 76 or 32 and be betting a straight draw in this unraised pot where no one has shown any strength.
Jim,
I agree he could have anything pre flop out of a 2/3 size small blind. But would he bet anything into four potential callers or raisers, especially when the top card is in the calling zone before the flop?
I was the big blind and the SB had checked, I would take a stab with a bet. I would have one player behind me (the small blind) who has already shown weakness and my bet would follow the maxim that you can bet weaker hands than you can call with, especially in early rounds with opponents yet to act.
Regards,
Rick
You can't bet. There is no hand that you can beat if he calls you, methinks.
I certainly agree with the raise on the flop - no question about it. But what was accomplished by the raise?
When I raise in this situation, my thinking is like this:
1) I want to get everyone behind me to fold
2) I want to take this hand to showdown cheaply
By raising , you knocked out everyone behind you. You also made the SB go into check and call mode so that you don't have to throw in 2 1/2 BB to see his hand - you only have to put in 2. You saved 1/2 BB, plus increased your chances of winning by knocking out the others.
I would definitely not bet the river.
-SmoothB-
It depends on how well the small blind plays poker. A check would be correct against a tight/aggressive player and a bet would be correct against a calling station.
I might be in the minority here, but I wonder about the bet on the turn, never mind betting out on the river. I certainly don't have a problem with raising with your top pair/weak kicker to drive out players behind you. It's either raise or fold.But once you accomplish that goal, I would give a lot of thought to checking behind the SB on the turn. You are not likely running into any really good Q, but you also foil any tricky check-raise attempts. I'm not one for pushing weakish hands in this situation. You might induce someone to bet 2nd pair on the river for "value".
This is the type of question where it is best not to look at what the crowd thinks before answering so I haven’t peeked yet.
The small blind, “an older guy, typical abc kinda player” led into four opponents on the flop of Q 4 5 rainbow. You are acting next. I fold right here and I don’t think it is close. His average hand just has to be much better and you haven’t even heard from the other players yet. Had he checked I might bet myself since I would have the initiative but since that is lost now is the time to bail on this small pot.
Anyway, you popped him and have been called on the flop and the turn. Your opponent may not be very brave but if he calls you on the river I would say he is about a two to one favorite to have you beat. Check it down on the river and pray you were not drawing to an eight from the flop on..
Regards,
Rick.
Value betting is out of the question. There are too many ways for him to have a better hand for you to risk losing maybe two bets. If you're not willing to call a check-raise, the case for betting is even worse unless he virtually never bluffs in this situation. You need to be up against a known sucker to bet here.
I checked behind him and he showed Q7 off and I took it down.As far as the concept of folding on the flop I didnt consider it here and went after the pot and I like the raise.Thanks for the comments.
I limp in early with KQo. I mid position caller (MP), 1 late caller(LC), BB checks. Flop is Q94. I bet, MP calls, LC raises, I re-raise, call, call. Turn is a J. I bet, MP calls, LP raises, I call, MP calls. River blanks. I check and call and lose to just what I expected. QJ. How bad did I play this? I wanted to check the turn since I had outs to a straight, but at the same time, didn't want to give out a free card. When I was raised, I put him on QJ, but felt I had a call not just because of top pair but also my straight draw. On the river, I called because I thought the pot was now too big to incorrectly fold. I must of misplayed this, I'm just not sure where. Thanks for the help.
Ima
Your play on the flop is good. I like to bet top pair into a medium-small field and I definitely reraise both for value and to try and knock out MP.
On the turn I still bet because I don't really like giving free cards. Also note that if I get raised then I can check and fold the river. But if I check and call the turn then I have to check and call the river as well. The overall cost is the same. The raiser may have QT or JT (raising on the come) but when he raises on the turn you know you are beat. Since I'm getting 21-2 to call and have 4 outs to the straight (and maybe a K will win too) I would call his raise.
On the river I check and fold. What kind of hand could LC have to have played like that? Remember, you aren't heads up and when he raised on the turn MP was in the pot as well. That would tend to exclude the possiblity of his raising on the turn as a semi-bluff with QT or something similar. BTW if a K comes on the river I would check and fold to a bet by MP (who I put on JT) but call a bet from LC (I doubt MP would go for a check raise with the board Q94JK).
Just because you lose a lot of money on a hand doesn't necessarily mean you misplayed it.
A hand came up in a recent 10-20 hold em session that left me quite unsure about the correct course of action. First person in the pot i raised with AQos in middle position. The cutoff, the button and the two blinds called my raise. The flop came down J87 the two blinds checked to me i also checked the button a loose aggressive player led and both blinds called. This player would bet in this situation often with little as a gutshot draw. At this point i am getting thirteen to one for my overcard and backdoor straight draw. And the odds of me improving my hand are under 8-1. However i could be drawing dead to 2 running straight cards against nine ten and also there is a strong chance that someone has the same kicker as me so even if i improve to a pair of aces or queens someone will make two pair. However i am getting a excess price that somewhat makes up for it. In this particular hand i chose to call. It turned out the button had 910 and i got my money in pratically dead on the flop. (folded on the turn card) I find that playing overcards in such situations are extremely difficult and it is definitely an area of my game i need to improve. I would be interested in what the forum members think of the decision to call and what thought processes posters go through when faced with similar situations.
1) You're not drawing dead to a T-9. If K-T come on the turn and river, you have an Ace high straight to T-9's Jack high straight. Of course, if either a K or T comes on the turn, you're probably not going to get a free look at the river.
2) With all those opponents, your A-Q against a flop of J-8-7 has lost most of it's value. About the only card you'd like to see on the turn is a Q. An ace could make someone two pair; even a Q could give someone Q-J. You flopped nothing and there are two players who have position on you. Fold and wait for the next hand.
3) A general consideration on whether or not to call with just overcards concerns the texture of the flop. I'd be more likely to call with just overcards if the flop was J-8-6, rather than J-8-7 because it is unlkely someone already has two pair with J-8-6, but it is more likely someone has 8-7 or T-9. Also, with the flop of J-8-7, I'd be more likely to call with K-Q than with A-Q because A) an opponent is more likely to have A-x than K-x; and B) I can turn into an open-ended nut straight draw where it is likely an opponent might have a lower straight.
Another consideration is that with a uniform flop such as T98 or whatever (and you have AK), you have to, in a sense, hit both the turn and river.
That is, you must hit a King or Ace on the turn (and hope it puts you in the lead) and then you must miss hitting a Q,7 (and less importantly, a jack, 6, T, 9, 8 etc.) on the river.
In other words, you have to hit your pair on the turn (usually) and find a blank on the river.
The situation here with AQ on that flop (which I kinda forget already) isn't as bad as the one above but it's not very good either.
I will almost never call a bet with overcards. Most times I'll fold (esp. with a flop like this). Once in a while I'll raise a bettor who jumps in front of me. Once you check the flop I think you've basically given up on the pot. When the 2 blinds call, there's now 3 hands you have to beat. Fold and wait to hit a flop.
Dear Richard:
You should have asked yourself the question "what card would I like to see on the turn?"
In your case, it's either an ace or a queen, giving you top pair. But would you really feel comfortable here if you improved your hand on the turn against three other players?
This was an easy fold for you on the flop. Two people cold-called your preflop raise and your hand completely missed the flop.
I raised in late position with A9s. A very strong player (best in these parts), called in the sb. BB folded. Flop came K93. He checked, I bet, he called. Turn was a K. He checkd, I bet, he called. River was a 4. He checked and I bet again. He called. He had KT....
I was betting for 2 reasons. 1). Value, 2). Hoping he might fold a hand like TT, etc. In hindsight, the value bet was plain stupid. What could he possibly have after calling both the flop and turn, that I could beat? What does everyone else think?
Ima
Your bet is OK . He might call you with worse. However your statement that he might throw away two tens seems absurd.
You said he was the best in these parts. Did you ask the questions when he called. What could he have? What does he think I have. His calls mean danager Will Robinson, danager.
I ask those questions all the time. But, I never answer myself and like you, just keep betting until more chips go the best in these parts.
Respectfully, The Suburban Poker Man
Checking on the end in your situation is preferable against strong players who won't likely call on the end with a weak hand. I would have bet against a weak player, however.
On the other hand, the small blind may not have given you credit for much since you raised on the button before the flop after the other players had folded.
So a case can be made either way for either checking or betting the river.
Looks like online poker to me.
I'm not a big fan of A9o out of position, but I'd play it pretty much how you did. It wouldn't be that hard to be drawing dead to AJ, a set or even a wheel. And if someone had had a jack, you have only 1 clean out to the button's A5, assuming either flush draw _could_ be bad.
I like the statement if you know what he had would you fold. If yes, then you made a good lay down if the pot was not offering you huge odds to draw.
I would have also folded. Don't lose any sleep over it.
30-60. All fold to you on the button and you raise the two weak-tight, unimaginative blinds with 9h-8h. Flop comes Qs-Qc-6c. Check, check, you bet, call, call. Turn is 6s, making board Qs-Qc-6c-6s. Check, check, you check. River is 9d. Check, check.
1) Do you bet? 2) Should you have bet the turn?
If they are unimaginative, they are certainly not checking with a full house with the intention of inducing a bluff from you.
Chances are that one of them will loook you up with Ace high.
I would bet unless they are so unimaginative that they wouldn't even entertain the idea of calling with Ace high in which case you may as well check it down.
bet the turn...if you are called on the turn, check the river no matter what.
if you checked the turn, bet the river, and hope they will call with an A ... fold to a checkraise.
I checked the turn and bet the river, and got called by one player with an Ace. I think if someone had a full house they would have bet the river hoping I would call with an Ace.
First why not muck the junk and wait for a real hand to steal the blinds. Bet the river I don't think so, they will only call if they have you beat.
Respectfully The Suburban Poker Man
Because if you have a real hand, then it's not stealing.
:-/
Tommy
If I checked the turn, I'd check the river too. I already bet twice with the worst hand, but at least it was the cheap streets with a reasonable chance of taking down the pot both times. I'm done with it.
The two suited cards on the flop would make me LESS likely to bet the turn, since I'm going to get called by a flush draw, and it smells like one is out.
Even with a rainbow flop, I think I'd check the turn like you did. After all, one of them might be calling with bottom pair of a pocket pair below 88, in which case I'd be getting a free draw. Barring some magical read that made me think they would fold, I'd take the free card, and then check it down on the river after missing.
Tommy
How loose does the game have to be for you to call with QJo UTG?
Normally, I would assume 3 fish or 2 fish + 2 players who like to see more flops than usual.
It don't believe the tightness of looseness of the game matters with QJo UTG. Muck this dog and don't think about it.
what if you know that everyone is going to call with any two cards, and would only raise with AA, KK, QQ, JJ or AKs? then would you call QJo or would you still fold? if so, where would you draw the line?
Regardless of how loose the game is, QJo UTG is a dog. It does not have a very good potential to make a nut hand. Any pair you might flop has kicker problems. I would also muck offsuit A-10, KJ, possibly even KQ. I would also be leary of playing AJ. That is one of the most trouble hands around.
Most of the middle limit games I play in are loose, with people playing QJo from all positions, without regard to the action in front or behind them. I do not play those hands. Perhaps that is why I am a winning player (no ego or bragging here - just what my records reflect).
well, if you're going to muck ATo and KQo in any game, regardless of who is playing, no matter how many blind mice there are, then we have more differences than I thought we had. thanks for your input....by the way, I guess there's also more than one way to skin a cat, since I am a winning player also :)
No game is so loose that I would play Queen-Jack offsuit under the gun unless it was very shorthanded.
QJo, only play it from early position when your on full tilt, it's a troubled hand that will help you loose even faster than all the bad beats of your poker career.
Respectfully, The Suburban Poker Man
P.S. I know this to be true because I play on full tilt most of the time.
Here's an obscure reason for mucking QJ, if the other reasons posted here aren't sufficiently compelling.
Most player are losers. If you want to be a winner, you MUST do things differently than they do. Typical players play QJ a lot. Untypical players don't.
Tommy
I agree with that statement "Most player are losers. If you want to be a winner, you MUST do things differently than they do. Typical players play QJ a lot. Untypical players don't. "
but we're not talking about a typical game, we're talking about a game with three blind mice in it
I don't know if that makes a difference with QJo UTG - maybe that hand is still a fold, but I'm sure it should make a difference with a number of hands in a number of different spots. I just don't know if QJo falls into that category of hands that can be upgraded to call with in this special game, but if it isn't, it's not far from it.
And then the next question is : what if the whole table played 90% of their hands...and only raised with the premium hands of AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AKs, AK, AQs? in that situation is QJo ok to play UTG?
Doc,
You wrote: "And then the next question is : what if the whole table played 90% of their hands...and only raised with the premium hands of AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AKs, AK, AQs? in that situation is QJo ok to play UTG?
It still isn't good enough. In this game you need hands that can make the nuts or near nuts often enough to overcome the cost of seeing the flop or have enough high card strength to play against a large field.
If I was UTG in the game you describe, I would play Ax suited, all suited connectors and suited one-gappers, and all pairs. These hands have the potential to flop something decent and play well in multi-way pots. In that same game, I would subtract AJ offsuit and KQ offsuit, both of which I would play in a typical game. QJ offsuit has little high card strength against multiple opponents and doesn't flop enough straights since it is partially blocked.
In back you can open up with the offsuit hands that make straights when you can see the flop for one bet and you have the position to maximize your value on the draws.
Regards,
Rick
yep! 1 is OK too but you have problems with the 9/10.
Rounder,
I should pay you an hourly wage for the time you save me. :-)
Tommy
what the heck did UTG have?
a tenacious and and hopeful slowplayed kings?
I agree its a fold for u, worry not.
Andy,
Those are some of my major reasons for prefering the one seat. Others are:
1)It's easy to muck fast
2)No long-arming required. I do not have to reach, or toss, or shove chips toward the dealer after betting.
3) I can look at my cards one-handed if I want to, with the lifted corners blocked from the two seat by my chips.
But mainly what you said, about not feeling surrounded and always having leg and elbow room. My second favorite is the nine seat, even without the mucking and hiding advantages.
Plus, lots of players can't stand the seats next to the dealer. So guys like you and I provide a community service by taking them!
Tommy
YOU MADE A GOOD PLAY,YOU FOLDED ALLOSER FORGET THE RIVER YOU PLAYED RIGHT THAT COUNTS NO
Medium Stakes Hold'em
September 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo