![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I have noticed lately that I am having trouble in these fairly common situations, and I need some thoughts/comments/opinions, please. I have only been able to play about once each month now, BTW.
Yesterday I am in a loose, passive 3-6 game. People play any pair to the river, regardless of the board. I am on the button. 5 callers to me and I look down and see 7-9 Spades. I do not think SB or BB will raise. SB calls, BB raps. 7 people in.
Flop 6 – 8 – 2. There is one Spade. I have a well-disguised open ended straight draw, and a gutshot flush.
SB checks, BB bets. Called to me. I raise, thinking that I may get a free card on the turn (the game is so passive, that in the 1.5 hours I have been at the table, no one has EVER bet into a raiser, except for me), and get some extra money into the pot if I hit. SB calls 2 cold, BB folds (?), all call. 6 people in, and there are 20 SB’s in the pot.
Turn is a non spade Queen. All check to me, as expected. I check. Should I have bet here? I did not think betting into 5 other opponents would be wise here, as it was highly unlikely that all would fold. If it were a Spade, should I bet?
River is a 3. Checked to Middle position player who bets, gets one caller. I fold. SB calls. MP has 8-4 or some such nonsense.
Could I have done anything differently here? These types of hands are sometimes very vexing to me.
Thank you in advance for your comments, Tim
You pose an interesting question, but I'll stick to the sceranio you described.
1. Your raise on the flop was good with the
intent of getting a free card.
2. You did get a free card, which is what you
intended. With 5 players, the chances are very
good 97 is not the best hand.
3. You fold on the river because you missed. Your
only other option would have been to bluff raise at the river. But since there was a bet, you would have been called.
I don't think there are any other options.
That being said, lets say you call instead of raise on the flop. Now you bet on the turn if checked to. What if you are raised? If you call, you now have to pay 2 bets on the turn to draw. The other variable is how many in the hand? With 1 or 2 opponents, a bet has a chance to work. With 3 or more, your better off taking the free card. In limit games, you will have to show the best hand to win, so in a passive game, bluffing is usually not a option.
4-8 game w/ half kill to 6-12. kill pot.
K2 of clubs in late position. 3 callers to me. I call, button and sb call and big blind raises (bbr). All call.
Flop is 962 with one club. bbr bets out, 3 folders. I put in a raise. Everyone folds, but the bbr calls.
Turn 8 no club. checked around.
River Q. checked around, and I took it down with 2s.
My thinking. Passive table, figured I had enough people in preflop to play. On the flop, figured the raiser to be a bit of an action guy who could have any 2 high cards. If I get reraised or bet into later, I fold to the possibility of overpair. So I raise as 1)bluffing the bluffer 2) free card play to my K, 2, and backdoor clubs 3)knock out the rest of the field to prevent any accidental catches by the rest of the field.
Turn I take my free card, and river he wont call unless I am beat.
This caused a lot of joking and talk at the table, since I was among the tightest players there, and this was out of character. After this hand I cut way down on my bluffing, and got paid off handsomely on my solid hands.
I have to admit, when bbr bet the flop I was ready to fold. But then when it got folded to me, and I saw an opportunity to get heads up with a preflop raiser on a rags flop, I jumped in without really thinking. My question is, was this impulsiveness, or should i make it a standard play?
What may have made your pre-flop play less wrong (more right?) is the comment about your image. You comment that you are one of the 'tightest players there' and seem to indicate that your opponents know this. If this is the case, an OCCASIONAL move like the one you made isn't bad. It will not win often but you can consider it an investment in keeping your opponets off balance.
How is the play different for these games. Sklansky covers this only briefly in his book.
Papio
I'm fairly new to the game so I don't know if this is correct but I've noticed that you should loosen your requirements for starting hands since the chance for a good hand out there is much reduced with the limited number of players. Also, bluff like crazy. You can't bluff out a full table but it's not as difficult to bluff a few players.
Well, Papio, I will have to disagree with the poster that says not to play in short-handed games. A 'rack' in a $4-$8 game isn't very much to lose. Bluffing more isn't exactly the right answer but the poster is correct if he's implying that, generally you play more aggressively.
The size of the blinds (and the speed that they come around) has very little to do with the desireability of a short handed game unless they are either very (large or small) when compared to the size of your bets. The expense to watch is the rake. Always ask for a reduction. I believe that Mason Malmuth wrote a couple of essays about short-handed play in Poker Essays.
I would say that short-handed poker is very much a game of feel in that many of the hands you would routinely play in a full game cease to be profitable when considering pot odds. For example, if you have king-high (no pair) and your opponent has Ace high (no-pair) you are still drawing, and you will rarely be getting correct pot-odds to continue just based on the chance that you will make a pair.
In a short handed game, I often focus on what I think my opponent doesn't hold, and what I can make him think that I do hold. It's also a great opportunity to be creative in your play.
I could have been best to check and fold on the end, but I hate doing that heads-up unless I have a total bust.
CV
Probably check and folding was the most -EV play of the three.
whatever.. it's your huge expected variance.. enjoy the ride..
get out of the kitchen.
if you play in a maniac game, you will have a large variance. if you play to WIN in a maniac game, you will have a still larger variance.
I will not play like a little girl despite a high variance. if you cannot take the swings, you are either playing too high for your bankroll or you do not have the stomach to play against maniacs.
if you do not follow the correct strategies against maniacs, you will:
1. not win in those games in the long run. 2. keep your variance low and feel good about your cleverness despite the fact that you are not playing a winning game. 3. simply remain in the 99.5+% of the population who are in the category "lifetime loser" in all forms of gambling that they engage in.
It seems I offended you with my post, thus your harsh response. however, you provided no supporting arguement for your statement. you simply stated that the variance would be high and sarcastically wished me to "enjoy the ride". I made no claims about winning strategies in maniac games being low variance. However, I did supply arguements to support my point. you can feel free to disagree all you want, that is what the forum is all about. but if you do not provide supporting arguements for your statements, they will not get any respect from me or many of the best posters on this forum. perhaps you would like to try again and refute my statements, but if you provide no supporting arguement then it is just trash talk and should be treated as such.
dave in cali
here's my argument against poor boy betting into the maniac on the turn with top pair, the specific hand that started this thread, a play both you and brier like:
you know the maniac is going to bet if you check on the turn and raise if you bet on the turn. he will not take a free card. maniacs are on a constant bluff when they dont have a hand. so his play will not vary, no matter what. (the maniac's style of play is not so bad against weak-tight players by the way, and will work for about 15 minutes at a time till people get wise to him) brier mentions that betting on the turn will keep him from gettting a free card. let me repear: he will NOT check behind you. ever. he's not shopping for a free card.
with just top pair, poor boy's hand is not strong enough for a check raise on the turn. and that will not get the maniac off his hand anyways. just because someone is a maniac does not mean they can not have a legitimately better hand sometimes. with two pair poor boy has the odds to bet into the maniac and reraise. with just top pair a check-call mode is wiser. it protects him from losing too much when the maniac does have a winning hand (or draws to one) but it allows him to stay in the hand with no fear of being raised. it is a case where being first to act is an advantage.
the catch to all of this: it has been my observation that low limit players at paradise are nowhere as bad as low limit players in live games. their starting hands are sometimes very bad but they play much smarter and much more aggresively after the flop. this makes it hard to put them on a hand. even when you think you have them pegged as maniacs who will raise with anything, you will be consistently surprised when they show you a better hand. 2-4 at paradise is a very stop and go game; you will find yourself check-calling or limp-reraising depending on the board, the outs, the players, table mood, players on tilt, pot odds, etc, etc. it varies greatly from hand to hand. but people at paradise, even maniacs, rarely raise on the turn with nothing. they are, at the very least, on a semibluff with a lot of outs. the reason even the low limit players at paradise are decent is because if they werent they would tear through their bankroll so so quickly that they would not be able to play anymore. so many people learn (or already know) the basics that many at live low limits lack making it a much tougher game than one would initially think. so reading something like lee jones and then trying to apply it to 2-4 paradise just doesnt work so well.
i see what youre saying about making maniacs pay dave, and i do know how to do that (a recent stint at the 5-10 paradise showed me the virtues of reraising maniacs), but in the case of poor boys post it was only after the hand in question that he got a clear read on the player as a true lunatic maniac. as for controlling variance, im assuming most players playing low limits at paradise have a truly limited bankroll like me so blowing extra big bets on top pair is scary stuff. if you have a stronger bankroll and are as aggressive as you seem than something like 10-20 would be much more worth your while.
good job dsf. Although I do not necessarily agree with everything you have said here, you have provided arguements supporting your position, therefore this post has my respect.
You made the point that there is a difference between a complete lunatic maniac and a player who is just overly aggressive but has some idea of how to play. Good of you to point this out. They should be played differently. Against the total maniac, make them pay and don't be too concerned about variance. If you are in a maniac game, you are going to have a high variance and there's nothing you can do about it. Against the better player who is just overly aggressive, often times you have to simply call them down when you have a decent hand like top pair, good kicker.
By the way, good thread to all...
dave in cali
Everyone else has made good points on your play of the hand. I disagree with your pre-flop call. In a live game I'll make this call most the time. Or in a game where I know the players. But when I'm new to a game I want to sit back and see how people play. I know this is more difficult online with players jumping in and out, but try to avoid marginal plays until you have a read on your opposition. It will make those tough plays done the line easier.
Anything strange when I sit down I go conservative until I get a read on players.
I've just finished a 26 hour session at my local casino, and truthfully I'm more irritated than tired. For most of this time I was grinding it out at the 3-6 table. Now I don't have a lot of experience yet, but I think I'm doing well gaining knowledge through books, fellow poker players, and actual game play at the casino. My problem is (and I hope I'm not the only one) that I think a lot of these people at the poker table have no respect for someone's raise (or the cards). Let me clarify...... I'm a tight/aggressive player and usually play premium hands. I see way to many people at the table playing every single hand. I know what you may be thinking....that's a greeat oppurtunity for me to make some money....and your're probably right. But on 3 different occassions I had AA,KK,AA, raised pre-flop, turn, and the river only to be beat by someone holding 2-6 UNSUITED (they picked up a 2 on the flop and six at the river!!!!) I know in the long run they will lose, but this is so irritating!!! I don't show it at the table, because I refuse to show anyone my true feelings, so they can use it against me later.... I'm thinking of moving to 5-10 tables to try to get away from this, but am I dumb to think anything is going to change?? Sorry for bitchin so much, but I'm hoping I can get some kind of positive feedback. Hold'em is a true passion for me and I will continue to work on bettering my play, so any guidance will be greatly appreciated.
The difference between 3-6 and 5-10 is that it will cost you $10 when your Aces get beat by 6-2 on the river.
Seriously, just because you lose a pot doesn't mean that you've made a losing wager. Even a roulette wheel pays the players here and there.
Here's a hand where I lost money. Full table at Paradise Poker. Could I have played it better or lost less? Should I not have been there?
1) I'm in the BB (Seat 7) with pocket TsTd. (8) fold, (9) call, (10)(1)(2) fold, (3) call, (4) Raise, (5) fold, (6) fold, (Me) call, (9) call, (3) call.
Flop is [ 3s 4c 7c ]. It's checked around (I should have bet?).
The turn comes [ 3s 4c 7c ] [ 6d ] (7) Bet (9) Call (3) Fold (4) Fold
The river comes [ 3s 4c 7c 6d ] [ 3c ] (7) check (9) bet (7) call
I lose 3 big bets to (9). He has Ac 6c
All comments welcome.
You should definitely lead at this flop having a decent over pair. It would be horrible for this flop to get checked around and then have an Ace, a King, a Queen, or a Jack turn up. On the turn you now find a bet when a Five gives one of your 3 opponents a straight plus you could be up against two pair. So you bet the turn, which is okay, and get called. At the river a Club arrives, and you check and call with your over pair. He made the flush and there is nothing to be done. You should have lost 3.5 big bets on this hand instead of only 3 (we are both counting your big blind).
I agree with Jim you should have bet the flop, the turn , and check called the river.
Ac6c would have called you anyway and you "saved" one small bet on the flop, but I can see little reason for not betting the flop with an overpair.
BTW: You could have saved one small bet: bet flop, bet turn, check and fold on river (= 3 small bets) as opposed to: bet turn, check and call river (= 4 small bets)
I'll do a "Rick N" and respond before reading the others. Flames from JB? We'll see.
You didn't tell us anything about the level or any tendencies you had seen from the other players. That being said, it seems to me that (4)'s preflop raise froze you up terribly. I think you should reraise preflop and then, with no overcards, bet the flop. It's hard to tell if the reraise would save the hand for you by forcing out (9) holding Ac6c - he might even be one of those low-limit players who think that this is a great hand! - but I think the forum would agree that his odds and implied odds are just not there to call 2 more bets with this hand.
A preflop reraise would also make your Turn play easier, if it made it that much more difficult for anyone holding a hand including a 5 to stay in. You didn't say what your intentions were if raised, but if you planned to fold if raised, I think your plan was OK.
The pot is big enough, I agree with your call on the river.
Dick
I invite all of the players who post, or simply read here to join me in a New Year's Resolution:
"I will not whine anymore!" If someone plays bad and wins against me, that's o.k. That's what I want them to do! If they played correctly, then I made a mistake and I will learn from it!
"I will not blame dealers or others for my losses." The dealer has nothing to do with it...ever! They insure that the game I'm in is being run fair and honest. The bad players are what feed my bankroll. I want them in my game. I can not lose if I play well. Today maybe, but never in the long run.
"I will not ask for deck changes or new setups". This only slows down the games and cuts into my profit. All decks have the same 52 cards in them... nothing changes!
"I will tip all competent dealers for every hand I win". For most, this is their sole source of income. I win consistantly thanks in part to their hard work. They deserve my praise as well. If they are incompetant, I will tell the management, not berate them in front of others!
"I will not allow abusive players to ruin my game". If a player abuses a dealer, I will speak up. If a player abuses another player, I will try to pull that player aside and make him realize that a bad player is good for the game, don't send them off by abusing them. I will make it a point to make this game better for all.
"I will tell no more bad beat stories". I will greet all my fellow players with questions about their lives. After all, life is more important than poker. (But poker is a close 2nd) We've all seen it ALL before... no need to beat a dead horse!
"I will not talk about the play of a hand with anyone at the table". Why should I help educate my opponents?
"I will become that ONE player we all enjoy playing with". We all know that person. He/she is always pleasant. Fun to be around. Never has a bad thing to say about anybody.
Please join me in making this a part of your game. For that matter... make it a part of your everyday life! Happy New Year to all and Keep Playing Hard!
BRAVO!!
Does anybody have a list of POSITIVE things to do at the table which help everybody have fun and get their mind off the game?
I was thinking about learning oragami.
Go to the table with a dozen sheets of paper and make everybody a different oragami animal they can set in front of them.
You can even try to fit the persons character. Make a little oragami turtle for the really slow player in seat 6. A boat (and paddle) for the guy getting rivered all day in seat 1. A dinosaur for the rock in seat 3.
I'm not sure how many variety of fish you can make with oragami but you'll have to learn a lot of them.
Now that's funny!
Jim said "In low limit games, especially $3-$6, you will find that you will have more players in the pot on virtually every street from what it would be in a higher limit game so it will be harder to win a pot. However, when you do win, your wins will be large, sometimes 100 small bets or more."
What fantasy game is this and where is it? Surely 100 small bets in a pot is much rarer than "sometimes". This must be a typo.
Eric
(n/t)
So I am, predictably enough, back at the table. And while the 'Comeback Session' wasn't the stuff dreams are made of, I made a small profit in a cash game and then got to heads-up in a 6-man tourney with $200 to the winner, where things went back and forward till I finally went out with pocket 4s as the winner catched a pair of kings on the river.
Anyway, there was an interesting situation in the cash game I thought I'd share with you:
I'm holding pocket kings in late position. UTG (tight-aggressive) and next to UTG (tight-passive, having problems folding a decent hands vs a raise) have both limped. I raise, BB (loose-aggressive) call, UTG re-raise and next to UTG call. Limp-reraise??? I dare not do anything but call, which BB does as well.
Flop JJx rainbow. BB check, UTG bet, other limper fold, NOW I raise. BB cold call, UTG too. Turn card is 3 of Spades, now two spades on the board. BB check, UTG check, I bet. BB raise, UTG fold, I call.
The river is another Spade. BB bets out, I call. He shows me J-7 in spades.
There are three things which is causing me head-ache here:
1. Even though the loose BB would probably even call a cap by me, there's no doubt that unless UTG held pocket aces, I should've capped it even though BB would still call and got lucky with the flop this time. Making it more expensive for him to play these hands will pay ME of in the long run. The question here is how likely the limp-reraiser is to be playing the aces. Should I raise here with the probability of limp-reraiser not holding the pre-flop 'nut' added with the knowledge that yet, there are still two players DEFINITELY playing worse hands than me, thus giving both me and limp-reraiser good odds.
2. Should I have checked and thus making the river card free for everybody after getting one cold caller and a call from the first bettor with two jacks on the board and now a second spade? If no-one held the jack, I'd give someone a free shot at catching the flush.
3. Is folding pocket kings in a quite big pot even a mere possibility with the board J-J-x-x with no flush possibilities yet? I think this player could be semi-bluffing on a flush draw...
and last, is folding at the river when that last spade indeed falls a good move or a stupid move?
Comments?
Quitter
Pre-flop I would have capped the betting with pocket Kings despite the limp re-raiser. While AA is a distinct possibility so is AK or even KK. There is just too much uncertainity here and with these other players involved I think you should make sure the betting gets capped.
On the flop, it would be interesting if the limp re-raiser would have led at you if you had capped pre-flop. I think your flop raise is okay here but the cold-call by the big blind frequently means trips in this situation given that board. On the turn, I would have checked it down here since a check-raise on the expensive street is quite likely and you only have two outs. The big blind almost certainly has trip Jacks or better from this sequence since he would not call two bets cold on the flop with just a backdoor flush draw. I would plan on calling a river bet.
I'm UTG (Seat3) with pocket J's in this 7-handed game at paradise poker. I open raise. The betting is as follows.
(3) OpenRaise, (4) Call, (5) Call, (6) Fold, (7) Call, (1)Fold, (2) Call
*** FLOP *** : [ 5h Qh Qs ]
(2) Check, (3) Bet, (4) Call, (5) Raise, (6) Fold, (7) Fold, (2) Fold, (3) Re-Raise, (4) Call, (5) Call
I bet and re-raised. My thinking is that I need to follow through with my raise BTF. There's 4 BigBets in the pot. Since 2 Q's flopped it is unlikely that any of my opponents have a queen and if one does, they might be scared I have AQ or KQ. Also, there's a 2-flush on board and the last thing I want is to give out a free card. Once (5) raises, it's pump or dump. Both seat 4 and 5 are tricky - they know what they're doing by my best account (probably aint worth much). So I either believe that he has a Q and fold or represent KQ or better in my hand and also show that I won't be run over.
*** TURN *** : [ 5h Qh Qs ] [ 8d ]
(3) Bet, (4) Call, (5) Call (all-in for 1/2 BigBet)
Now I think someone has a Q and I'm dead to a J. Is this reasonable thinking or am I surcumbing to some kind of emotion of dispair?
*** RIVER *** : [ 5h Qh Qs 8d ] [ 7c ]
(3) Check, (4) Check, (5) already all-in.
I show my J's (4) shows T's (5) shows 7's and takes 10.75 BigBets down on the river.
I lose 2.5 BigBets as I take 1 BigBet down for beating T's.
Is this routine? Did I overplay it? All comments welcome.
Thanks,
-Michael
if your reasoning for re-raising 5 had included that he was short-stacked and you wanted to put pressure on the others, then good. but you didn't explain that and I still wonder if that was part of your thinking - I suspect it was a big part of why 4 called. your fears on the turn are un-founded. if you were facing a Q, 4 would have let you know with a turn raise. I would bet the river heads-up with 4. spitball
...for paying attention at the table!
First session of the New Year. The noon TOM 3-6 game. I even get to go heads-up with my student, one of the regulars in this game. Four hands into the new year, I get AA cracked by somebody playing 4-2 UTG. But that's not the story.
My buddy is off and running in this game, up over $100 an hour into the sit. Now his normal 'strategy' when this happens is to start nursing his stack and protecting a win, but he continues to play aggressively, a little to my surprise. I had to berate him again last week for twice making terrible folds out of the BB to a raise (he would've won both pots), and maybe it's new leaf time.
Anyway, on this hand, I've got Q-To in middle position, and there are two limpers in front of me. I'm getting ready to call, but I glance to my immediate left at my student, who has grabbed several chips off his stack and is leaning forward into his seat. If he's not going to pop this, I need to work much harder on reading tells. I quietly muck, and sure enough, he raises, which invariably indicates a quality hand. I decided that I did not want to face a raise with a marginal hand like Q-T.
Sure as God made little green apples, the flop comes down K-J-x, 9 on the turn, and my str8 would have won a very nice pot. (Hero had a set of Jack's) Doh!!
He cashes out after 4 hours up $250, his biggest win in months. Later I told him about my "read" on his tell, and the results, and we had a good laugh. I'm not really whining; I believe I made the right play given the circumstances. I did OK as well, up $175 to start the year off.
And no flames about me informing my friend about his tell. We play in the same game about once every two months, so I don't view this as a big drain on my earnings. Just one of those "operation was a success..." type of situations.
Happy New Year to everyone.
I'm the SB with AA in this 3-handed game at Paradise Poker. There's plenty of raising BTF so my open-raise shouldn't raise an eyebrow. Here goes:
(button) Fold, (SB) Raise, (BB) Call.
*** FLOP *** : [ Qh 7c Td ]
(SB) Bet, (BB) Raise, (SB) Call
*** TURN *** : [ Qh 7c Td ] [ 7d ]
(SB) Bet, (BB) Call
*** RIVER *** : [ Qh 7c Td 7d ] [ Kd ]
(SB) Bet (all-in), (BB) Call
I lose to AJ.
All comments welcome.
-Michael
I don't see how you could have played it much differently. I probably would have re-raised the flop, but who knows whether the guy would have folded? Probably not since he called on the turn.
You just got unlucky.
David
Perhaps if you had made it 3 bets on flop your opponent would have released, but I strongly doubt it.
Actually, if you KNEW what cards your opponent held, you would be rooting for him to call. There are eight big bets in the pot and only four out of the remaining 44 cards would win the pot for him. Therefore, it is 10:1 against him winning the pot, and since you are all in, the most he could hope for including implied odds is 9:1. Additionally, if he happens to catch an Ace or Jack he will most likely call on the end, losing even more money.
Why didn't you 3-bet the flop? If it was because you were shortstacked, don't play when you're that severely underbankrolled. If it's a matter of not being able to deposit money, wait until you have more money and either don't play, play Omaha/8, or play a $10 tournament. All are preferable to playing shortstacked in Hold'em.
-Sean
Playing 3-6 on Paradise the other night. I am in late position, middle position open raises. I have Ah7s.
Is a call ridiculously stupid? After the events of the hand played out, the raiser ridiculed me for calling (he had AA).
Ax offsuit - Group 9 hand. An easy fold. I can see why you got ridiculed. I would not have even called the forced bet, much less a raise.
You should check out Sklansky/Malmuth's book on hold'em.
The only time I would see the flop with Ax off, would be if I were in the BB, and there was no raise.
If I held the hand on the button and everyone else folded, then I would consider raising to steal the blinds.
Otherwise, pitch it and wait for a better hand.
This was indeed a very bad call.
I highly recommend you read Sklansky's "Hold Em Poker" or Lee Jones' "Winning Low Limit Hold Em" or Krieger's "Hold Em Excellence" before you play again.
If the raiser ridiculed you, you must have beat him. I suspect you flopped an ace and hooked a 7 on the river, which will drive people pretty nuts.
He made a huge mistake by pointing out your error - even bigger than the mistake you made by calling.
Hi, when a middle player raises, what does he have??? A better hand than your's, so fold. In middle he had to ahve at least AK AQ or big pr to raise. becasue he did not know how many more player would come in and if he might be rerasied. Have a nice year Ron
Well I did beat him (flop came 6-8-9, turn 10), you are right. I suppose its only natural for him to go a little nuts after that. It didn't really help when I told him "Hey I may have made one mistake calling your raise, but you made a bunch of other mistakes after that calling by bets and raises".
I was not sure how terrible a call this was. Apparently quite terrible! Thanks all.
David
I play live casino games (mainly 3-6) and there is a "bad beat" jackpot offered. Many players routinely play Ax, even for a raise, and I love it! Yes, occaisionally they hit a super flop with the hand, but more likely they are tied to a hand that will be dominated by an Ace with a higher kicker.
Consider, for instance, your A7. At a ten-player table, there are 18 other cards out, and at least one of those is bound to be an Ace. If an Ace flops, you will probably get significant action only from another player with an Ace, someone who has made two pair or better, or a player going for a straight or flush draw. Obviously, the two pair will beat your hand (assuming you didn't also make two pair, which doesn't happen very often. If the draws hit their hands (2:1 against), you will lose. What's more, against a player holding Ace-Anything, you will lose half the time, as his kicker will be larger than yours half the time.
Looking at each individual opponents hand, it may seem that you would be a favorite to win money on this hand. However, most of the time, especially in small stakes poker, you will be playing against four or five opponents. And when you add an opponent, your winning chances with this type of hand are EXPONENTIALLY decreased.
Of course, you may note that you called on A7 and the flop came, for example, 772. You may then assume that it is a good hand to call with. Does that make 72 an even better hand?
(n/t)
I believe I made the right decision on the hand below but please comment with any additional thoughts.
I’m in early position with ThTd. UTG limps, I limp ( Should I raise here?) a middle position player (MPP) makes it two bets. Six players see the flop including the button and the BB.
Flop is As Ks9s
It gets checked to the MMP who bets and the button makes it two bets. I fold. Three or four players see the turn, I can’t recall for sure.
Turn is a 9c
River 10c
I think I probably would have called one bet after the flop but I could not justify two bets with three spades and AK up. Would it be good poker to call even one bet here after the flop?
MMP showed QQ and the button had the flush.
I think you made the right move. You're out of position and staring a double sized bet with two over cards and 3 spades + there was a raise BTF and a call. Someone is likely to have AA, KK, AK or an overpair to your TT. MMP could have made it 3 bets after you called the bet from the button. Then on the River you have to call even more bets when you could be completely dominated a better full house (AA or KK). In this game with raising BTF, I don't think it would be good poker to even call 1 bet after the flop. These guys could be playing stop and go with this hand. Your chances of winning even when you make a hand are too small. Good lay-down IMO
-Michael
Pre-flop I think you should raise the UTG limper with pocket Tens. You want to drive out the remaining players and not give the blinds free plays.
On the flop, a fold here is automatic. It would be horrible poker for you to try and take a card off here. You are faced with two big over cards plus the flop is all of one suit and you don't have a card in that suit. At best you have two outs which is a 23:1 shot and the Ts may give someone a Spade flush so you really have only one clean out.
Pre-flop I think you should raise the UTG limper with pocket Tens. You want to drive out the remaining players and not give the blinds free plays.
If UTG would only limp with big cards and you are in a passive game where "calling begets calling" I think an argument could be made for limping with TT.
If you raise and get it heads up, it's tricky to play if you get an overcard on the flop. And it's more likely that you'll end up with 3 or 4 way action, which , it seems to me, is not what you want with TT.
If you call and manage to get 5 or 6 way action, you have odds to flop a set and it gets very easy to play post-flop.
Or is this just a bad idea? It's sort of derived from the idea in HFAP that you should limp UTG with JJ, rather than raise, under certain game conditions.
David
In HPFAP-New Edition I believe they are discussing situations where you have several players already limping in so your raise will still leave you with 3 or 4 opponents. However, in this situation a raise under the gun gives you your best chance of limiting the field. You would be happy if just the blinds call since you have position as well as a good hand.
The passage I was thinking of (P. 25) is:
If no one has opened and you are in an early position, it is usually best to raise with JJ in a tight game and to just call with it in a loose game. With two jacks you would prefer either to have no more than one or two opponents in the hope that your hand holds up without improvement, or to have as many opponents as possible when the majority of your profits come from flopping three-of-a-kind. The worst scenario is when exactly three or four opponents see the flop with you. This most likely would occur if you called in a tight game or raised in a loose game.
My reasoning was that this concept can be stretched to TT in the case of an UTG caller in front of you because he probably has exactly two overcards to your pair, making your edge small, and the fact that two callers in front can often make for big multi-way action.
If I thought that everyone but the BB would be likely to fold to a raise, or if I thought that UTG would limp with total garbage, then I'd raise for sure. But is my reasoning way off?
David
You appear to be correct based on what is stated in HPFAP. I find from a practical standpoint that it is hard in most games I play in to anticipate how many players will take a flop. I know that when I raise in early position this tends to thin the field quite a bit but this may be an artificat of the Las Vegas games which tend to be on the tight side compared to other parts of the country.
i rasie utg w/tens.i want ace little out and all like hands.you got a flop yo cant go with.unless you lead bet,for a free turn card.which makes your draw, only to get beat.you can play right all night and still loose.you'll have those days. the nuts to you,mav
Forget the river card. Do you like your fold?
-Sean
Are these interesting to anyone? Thanks to those who are responding. Your responses are helping me a lot.
I'm the BB with 6d5d in this 8-handed game at Paradise Poker. The betting and cards are as follows:
(UTG) Fold, (3) Call, (5) Fold, (6) Fold, (Button) Fold, (SB) Call, (BB) Check
*** FLOP *** : [ Jh 7d 5s ]
(SB) Check, (BB) Check, (3) Check
*** TURN *** : [ Jh 7d 5s ] [ 2d ]
(SB) Check, (BB) Bet, (3) Call, (SB) Fold
I bet thinking that since the flop was checked around, my 5's are a good candidate for being best and I've now got a flush draw. There's only two opponents and the 2d shouldn't have helped anyone. Is this reasonable? Should I surmize that at least one of my two opponents is holding a 7 or a 5 with a better kicker?
*** RIVER *** : [ Jh 7d 5s 2d ] [ 3d ]
(BB) Bet, (3) Raise, (BB) Call
Now my flush comes in but I'm raised. Should I chuck it and wait for better opportunities? I think chucking it now might be asking to get run over later. So I call and lose to a better flush.
He had Ad9d.
All comments appreciated.
-Michael
first off what level is it? 2-4 plays differently than 5-10..
i cant really fault your play on this hand. i think i wouldve bet the turn as you did although i think it is probably a marginally advantageous play at best.
on the river you could go for a checkraise but there's no reason to think he'll bet so betting seems wise. but what is he going to call you with?? he checked the flop but (only) called on the turn. you cant put him on a straight draw really, nor two pair. you could put him on a pair of 7s, but will he call a bet with a flush board with just that? SO it's a very tricky situation where he will only call (he'll always raise actually) with a better hand. so the best move is to check-call the river. although i think i wouldve, in the heat of the moment, have done exactly what you did.
Against two players, one of whom has already checked, I would have bet the flop! Certainly, the turn and river both warrant bets, and when he raises you on the river you make a 'crying' call unless you know your opponent very well and you know he's got your flush beat.
I haven't read the other posts so I hope this is the general opinion.
I think you should have bet the flop. With only 2 opponents, and until shown otherwise, second or third pair is often the best hand. With the SB checking to you I would bet and hope to win it right here. If you get raised or called re-evaluate.
Not betting on the turn would be a sin.
You have to call a river raise. Some punk could be messing with you. Just call. Usually you'll have the best hand.
I think had you bet the flop, the Ad8d would have folded.
Royally yours,
Nicolas Fradet (The Prince)
Well, I sometimes like to bet this hand out on the flop; when stuck checking a big blind with small cards, I generally bet out and force the people who chose to stay in this hand voluntarily to consider that yes, I might have low cards in the big blind. In this case, I especially like it because I look at the hand here and think there is a good chance that I have the only pair! Can you win the pot here? Its unlikely that anyone has better than a 3 flush or 3 straight, and unlikely anyone has a pair. Id suggest its a difficult call here (and with afterknowledge, I think the Ad 9d hand would be making a very dubious call here with one overcard, no straight chances, and runner runner diamonds as his only draws). Of course, you have to worry that he might have a jack, but even if thats the case, you still have a few outs (runner diamonds, runner straight, or a 5 or a 6).
This leads to the problem with your turn bet; that you are unlikely to convince anyone to drop because the 2d is pretty unlikely to have helped you much either! So, if I am playing against you here, a 2d drops, and suddenly you fire out a bet? I just consider it an attempt to buy the pot and call anyways with whatever I have. Your check on the flop convinced them you didn't hit anything there, but you still may be able to buy the pot if the one guy doesn't pick up his diamond draw on the turn. Now he has (in his mind) probably 3 ace outs, 3 9 outs, 9 diamond outs, so 15 outs for 3-1, if he thinks he needs to improve his ace high (which I would probably in his place only think a 50-50 chance).
On the river, in your place I would probably have checked and then checkraised if given a chance, thus losing more money (duh).
Anyways, I think the time to try to buy this pot is on the flop, not on the turn after what is practically the blankest blank in the deck hits.
Any comments on my thoughts appreciated...
You should bet the flop in this shorthanded, unraised pot having a pair. Against only two opponents, one of whom has checked to you, you could win the pot outright. Furthermore, you have outs if you are called by a better hand. At least you found a bet on the turn. At the river, it is unthinkable to fold having made your flush when you get raised. Simply call and pay off. Had you bet the flop he might have folded but who knows?
I think betting the flop is OK here despite what I said in my post. I do not think that checking was a terrible mistake, but betting can probably not be too wrong either. Against opponents who will often fold, betting is probably better than checking.
dave in cali
NEVER muck in this situation. pay off and once in a blue moon you will actually lose to a better flush. no shame in the way you played it. I can't really see that you made any mistakes here.
dave in cali
Here's 4 (2/4) hands I played on Paradise Poker. Am I unlucky or am I really that bad? I'm in seat 5 all these hands.
I'm UTG with JJ. I normally don't raise in this situation. I don't like my JJ if there's a re-raise. And if it is raised, my REALLY good pocket pair is well hidden. Here's the hand:
(5) : Call ($2), (6): Call ($2), (7) : Call ($2), (8): Fold, (9) : Fold, (10): Call ($2), (1) :call ($2), (Button) : Fold, (SB) : Fold, (BB) : Check
*** FLOP *** : [ Th Js Qd ]
(BB) : Bet ($2), (5) : Raise ($4), (6): Call ($4), (7) : Raise ($6), (10): Fold, (1) : Call ($6), (BB) : Call ($4), (5) : Call ($2), (6): Call ($2)
This is routine, right?
*** TURN *** : [ Th Js Qd ] [ 7s ]
Now it's checked to seat 7 who bets and everyone calls.
*** RIVER *** : [ Th Js Qd 7s ] [ 4h ]
Checked to seat 7 again who bets. Seat 1 & 5 call.
I lost $16 on that one to 9s8h.
Should I have raised BTF? Is that a dumb question?
---------------------------------
Here I have AdKc
UTG folds. I bet and get one caller.
*** FLOP *** : [ Kd Qh Th ]
I've got top pair, ultimate kicker. I bet out and get raised. I call. Now I'm in check call mode unless I improve dramatically.
*** TURN *** : [ Kd Qh Th ] [ Tc ]
I check and call a bet.
*** RIVER *** : [ Kd Qh Th Tc ] [ 9c ]
I check and call a bet.
I lose $16 when my opponent flopped the nuts with AsJc. Should I have played it differently?
------------------------------------------
I'm on the button with Kc2c. There are 2 callers to me. I call with my group7 on the button. The SB calls and BB checks.
*** FLOP *** : [ 2d Js 8c ]
It's checked around!
*** TURN *** : [ 2d Js 8c ] [ Jc ]
Now seat 10 bets, I call with my flush draw. I'm thinking a Club or 2 or K and I'm likely the winner. SB raises. Seat 10 folds and I call.
*** RIVER *** : [ 2d Js 8c Jc ] [ 2s ]
SB bets and I call all-in.
I lose to Jd8h.
I never should have been in the hand, right?
----------------------------------------
I'm dealt AcAs. UTG folds. Next player calls. I raise. Next player calls. Button calls. SB Folds. BB Calls. Original caller calls. We see the flop 5 handed.
*** FLOP *** : [ 9s 7h Jh ]
Checked to me. I bet and get 3 callers. 2 after me and one before.
*** TURN *** : [ 9s 7h Jh ] [ 9h ]
The player on my right now bets. My stomach sinks and I'm in call to the river mode.
*** RIVER *** : [ 9s 7h Jh 9h ] [ 4s ]
Now it's checked around.
Seat 4 has Kd9d and takes it down. This is routine, right?
Now UTG is on my right. I have AcJs. I'm beginning to staem a little. UTG folds. I raise. Cutoff calls. Button folds. SB re-raises. BB calls 2 bets. Myself and the cutoff call.
*** FLOP *** : [ 9h 3h 8c ]
SB bets and we all call.
*** TURN *** : [ 9h 3h 8c ] [ 6d ]
It's checked to cutoff who bets. SB check-raises. BB and I Fold. Cutoff calls.
*** RIVER *** : [ 9h 3h 8c 6d ] [ 8h ]
Cutoff folds to a bet on the river
Did I play that right?
Thanks,
-Michael
If you are, I am; how about this hand in 5-10 no less:
Dealt to Quilksilver [ Qc 7c ]
1)fold 2)Call 3)Call 4)5) fold 6)me:Call 7)Raise 8)SB:Call 9)BB:Fold 2)Fold 3)call 6)me:Call
*** FLOP *** : [ Ac 4c 8c ] I flop second nut flush
8)Check 3)Check 6)Check 7)Bet 8)Call 3)Fold 6)Raise 7)Call 3)Call
*** TURN *** : [ Ac 4c 8c ] [ 4s ]
8) Check 6) Bet 3) Call 8) Raise 6) Raise 3) Fold 8) Call
*** RIVER *** : [ Ac 4c 8c 4s ] [ Ad ]
8)Check 6)Check
*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $147 | Rake: $3 Board: [ Ac 4c 8c 4s Ad ]
8) shows [ 4h 6h ]
He called a checkraise on the flop with a pair of 4's. Sigh.
Seat 3 notes that he folded an ace. Oh well.
you should be happy that the players with a pair of fours on a one suited board and no flush draw called a check-raise on the flop. you must have been in a GOOD game.
we are not all destined to lose. otherwise I would give up the game. however, winning is not easy and there is no magic bullet.
dave in cali
Well, there isn't much to say about most of these hands.
You are right that the Kc2c was a dubious call. I also would be thinking on the turn that clubs are your only out. Its a bit surprising it got checked around on the flop but top two pair on a rainbow board with minimal straight chances may be big enough to slowlplay it; maybe he was going for a checkraise.
The only other hand I would comment on is the last one; I have found on paradise that when you have overcards, it is best to either lead the betting or fold. Check-calling with overcards gives a weak image to the other players.
Other than that, maybe I would fold the AA after the board was at 9977 with a few callers.
Most of these hands are just you hitting your cards but the board being scary and someone else hitting. This is how it goes, sorry.
Learn to read hands after the flop, believe in the flop, know when to fold after the flop, know the odds of continuing after the flop, anything is possible after the flop in low limit, stay away from self-weighting interests after the flop, know when you are beat after the flop, know that the opponent flopped the nuts against your top pair with top kicker, life is a mother f***** , then we go on to the next hand, so is life in any poker casino USA.
On the first hand I think you should open with a raise under the gun having pocket Jacks. You probably have the best hand and you want to limit the field by forcing everyone to call two bets cold otherwise you are just inviting a table full opponents to take cheap shots at you by gettng a cheap flop. At least you want to avoid giving the blinds a free flop. When the flop comes I think you should cap the betting at $8 having a set of Jacks. No one may have a straight and with two cards to come you have a lot of outs to a full house if someone happens to have a straight. No one raised pre-flop so no one has AK. The rest of your plays are fine.
On the second hand when you say "I bet and get one caller" I am assuming that you raised with big slick and did not just limp in. You played this hand correctly. I would not fold having Kings up with the best kicker.
On the third hand I would not limp even from the button with King-shit suited with only two limpers but your limp is not a bad play in a little game like this where players go too far with their hands. With four opponents, two of whom have checked to you, you may want to bet the flop with your bottom pair, backdoor Club flush draw, and King overcard. You might win the pot outright and you have a lot of outs if you are called. The rest of your play is fine and it would be playing results to say you should have never been in. If your pre-flop call is wrong, it is not wrong by much in a game like this.
On the fourth hand, nothing to be done when your pocket rockets go down in flames.
On the fifth hand, I don't like your plays here at all. Pre-flop, Ace-Jack offsuit is not a raising hand in early position. You should limp and not raise. When re-raised by the small blind you figure to be playing against AA,KK,QQ,JJ, or AK all of which badly cripple your hand. On the flop, you have a clear fold when bet into by a pre-flop re-raiser having no pair, no draw, and no hand.
First off before even reading the rest, your ideas about not raising early with jacks are misguided. You have a hand that would rather not have three or four opponents, so raising will usually lessen the field and make your hand more likely to win the pot. Also, if the BB gets a free play and you lose to deuces and eights you are going to be sorry you didn't raise. Also, a reraise often will help you by limiting the field to just you and one other whom you have a pre-flop advantage over. Only once in a while would it be good for you to limp preflop, the rest of the times you will more likely be hurt. Don't screw around, raise with your jacks.
Second, you will do better to describe the action in a more simplistic manner. for example, on the first hand, on the flop:
Flop comes Th Js Qd. The BB bets out 2$, I am next and raise to 4$. One cold caller and the next player raises to 6$, next player calls and the next cold calls 3 bets. BB calls two more, and I call. Original raiser calls the extra 2$. 5 players.
For the record, you should have CAPPED THE FLOP. Don't screw around!! You flopped a set on a coordinated board where several players are likely to have a straight draw or two pair. Even if someone has AK you will still do well to charge the stragglers the max and get good value on your excellent full house draw.
On the turn you CHECKED!!!!!!!! BET. And if raised, definitely CALL or even reraise!!!!! SCREWING AROUND!
Duhh. Raise BTF. I'm going to have to "send over some guys" to break your legs if I see another post where you were first in with jacks, played like a wimp, then lost to offsuited connectors.
I'm not commenting on the remaining hands, but for the most part you pretty much played like a wimp.
Keep studying and you'll get there. At least you are spending time thinking about the game and your play away from the table.
dave in cali
In a wild 3-6 Hold 'Em game at the Trop. I am on the button with Jack-Ten Off, early position raise, I call b/c everyone one in front of me called (mistake?). Unfortunately, the bet is raised by the big blind and subsequently capped, everyone but one calls. This is a huge pot preflop. Flop comes 7-8-rag rainbow. Bet to me and I call (I think I have to go for the gutshot with the huge pot odds). Turn comes a 3, two hearts on board. It is bet to me and I call, but then it is raised behind me and I call (should I have called in the first place?). River comes a 10, and I am forced to make a crying call with my top pair (which loses to someone who rivered trip tens with his pocket pair). Should I have played this hand differently? All comments appreciated.
JTo is a tough hand in that situation. (8-handed capped preflop) If you flop a pair, you are very likely outkicked. If you flop two pair, at least one of your opponents almost certainly has a Broadway straight draw that they are not going to give up to your raise on the flop or turn.
If you flop a straight, you could get run down by flushes and boats with everyone calling to the river.
When you flop a straight draw, which is pretty often, you have odds to call to the river.
It's a hand you can make a lot on, but you can also lose a lot.
In most wild games, I won't call a raise with JTo when I suspect the betting is going to be capped. I will call with JT suited if I think my opponents are raising with crap, but not if they are turning over AA, KK and AKs with regularity.
If I think it's going to be capped, I only call with a hand I feel comfortable paying 5 small bets (AA - JJ, AK, AKs)
If JTo is that type of hand for you, good call. If JTo is too speculative a hand for you to put a lot of money in on, then fold.
If I was 90% sure that the blinds would just call, I have an easy call. If I think the betting is going to be capped, I fold and wait for those premium hands in that situation.
I play this way to cut down my swings, even though I know I may be giving up long term EV.
Pre-flop you should not call two bets cold with Jack-Ten offsuit regardless of how many players limp in ahead of you. Make it suited and you have a call. Given the huge pot, I think the rest of your play is fine. But this is why you should have folded in the first place. You end up with a marginal holding where your outs are few, the opponents are many, and the pot is large.
fold BTF.
once you are in this pot you played OK but you do not have enough to enter the pot in the first place. this is why we don't play JTo if the pot is raised.
Trouble hand.
dave in cali
no offence,but if you think the game is wild,then it must be out of this world wild. you seemed to be the wildest player there.
I am laughing... thank you.
AA in sb,in a 4-8 loose game.five callers pre-flop.is calling,not raising correct?and post flop,w/7,8,9 rainbow,i lead bet get raise and reraised.i folded,correct?
1. Yes, AA is a raising hand despite the fact there are five callers BTF.
2. yes again, on the flop you should fold to a
3 bet with a 789 flop.
Pre-flop you should always raise with AA regardless of how many players limp in. You have the best possible starting hand in poker and should raise with it. Once the flop comes, when you bet and get raised and re-raised with a coordinated board like that, I think folding is clear.
2-4 Holdem at PP.
I'm dealt KsTs UTG. I raise (don't comment. It was a good play for the table and my image, IMO). Player to left (PTL) calls 2 cold. All fold to BB who calls.
Flop: AsQsXs.
BB: check ME: Bet
Both fold.
My thinking: That's a scary board after UTG (me) raised. Even these two guys probably have me on at least AK. There's no cards that can come on the turn that will help either one of them catch up that AREN'T ALREADY THERE (that's an important distinction in this non slow play). If they're drawing to broadway or have a single spade, they're going to call the cheap bet which will hopefully tie them into calling another bet on the turn if they catch up a little. Anyone with trips is going to call anyway, so I have to bet against them.
If I had one of them pegged as a habitual bluffer, I might have checked and let them "take over" on the turn. They both were players who called with more hands than they bet with, though, and I really thought I'd get at least one call. Sometimes they just don't match up though.
Comments on the play?
Ark
I don't like your pre-flop raise. In fact I would only limp in with this hand pre-flop if the game were extremely passive with hardly any raising. Once the flop comes, if your opponent won't call a bet on the cheap street he probably has nothing and will fold regardless. Here is a case where raising pre-flop on a weak, speculative drawing hand like this may have cost you money. Wouldn't it have been nice to have several players limp in behind you rather than driving them out with a raise pre-flop?
in a typical 2-4 game I would bet the nut flush the whole way and not slowplay at all, so I think you played fine.
however, if one of them has two pair, you DO have cards that could hurt you on the turn. Given that they called a raise, two pair is certainly not out of the question here, nor is a set.
I still don't like your pre-flop raise. Limp maybe.
dave in cali
One thing to consider is that even though most turn cards won't help hands that aren't already there, someone with a hand like JTo might fold to the flop bet, but if they spike a K on the turn, can't resist calling or even raising, and might even call if they caught a J. Heck, even when your hand is as obvious as night and day, they'll often still call you down. I've checked quads twice on an AAx flop and x turn after some sort of heavy preflop action, and gotten called down by some turd pair that hit on the river, like a 6 that 76s spiked, or whatever. They still can't resist calling to keep you honest.
I'm still inclined to just bet it out here, but you should consider the above.
-Sean
I was playing 2-4 at Garden City in SJ for the first time (I play a lot more online) and for the first hour or so I was playing tight and was ahead $50 or so, then for the next two hours I got trash hands, or the flop missed me completely. That combined with the $3 on the button ate up my whole stack.
blah
I think i'll stay online until i move higher so the rake doesn't hurt as much.
One thing I noticed immediately when I started playing 6/12 was that the rake and tokes did not bite into my winning so much.
I don't play online. Low limit games are to learn how to play. To play intelligent poker, I find that I must play at least 5-10 HE or Stud. IMHO.
Next time you play in that live game, line up an extra $100 buy-in to be used only for drops and tokes. In about eight hours or so, you will have busted a rack to the house. Bad business.
On the other hand, online play offers the lowest rake available outside private games. If you play tight, you will not even pay half of what you pay in the live game, possibly as little as a third.
--- Chris Callahan
Don´t play in $2/4 with a dead button drop of $3, you´ll have a hard time beating that game.
Feeney, and everyone.
Could you read my two posts, one entitled "Am I destined to lose" and the other "another hand for comment". I'm really getting frustrated and want to know if I played these hands in a reasonable fasion. These are all on Paradise 2/4.
Thanks in advance - any comments are appreciated.
-Michael
cv
Studying/playing since 9/99. 99% of my live play is in CA. The other 1% is in Vegas. And I play on Paradise of course.
Thanks, I hope to hear your thoughts.
@
It seems to me you are still pretty young when it comes to Poker. I think you need more experience at the table, and you also may want to consider a couple lessons from David to get your thinking on the right track.
I looked over the hands you played, and your comments seem as though you are still unsure of how to Analyze your hands. That's fine because we are all here to learn. I don't think you are "destined to lose", but I do think you need to keep working at your game.
CV
Thanks ... that's a bit re-assuring. You mean lessons from "Dave from Cali" or DS? Aren't lessons hyper-expensive (the irony)?
Thanks,
-Michael
Michael if you are going to take lessons and just play low or medium limit poker than I would recommend Bob Ciaffone for $25 per hour. When you are ready to play $40-$80 or higher than give David Sklansky a call.
I find myself agreeing with Jim more and more these days, so I don't know if that means I'm mellowing out or if Jim's hitting some goofballs before he logs Anyway, I don't know what use a $2-4 player would have for private lessons from Sklansky, considering that a couple hours with Sklansky would probably cost somewhere in the ballpark of a $2-4 bankroll. (Additionally, I can't imagine that a $80-160 or higher pro like Sklansky would have an edge of more than $4 per hour over a $20-40 caliber pro in a $2-4 game, so you wouldn't be able to use David's personal advice profitably for a while.) Use your money to buy every good book you can get your hands on, read the covers off them, and if you've reached the $20-40 level or higher and need additional help, then consider private lessons with Sklansky.
Besides, David would rather you spend your $25 on Gary Carson's book instead of 6 minutes of lessons with him.
-Sean
Well, you get what you pay for. I believe that anybody who studies the game should be able to move to at least a 5/10 game in the first year of play. In some places they could possibly get into good 10/20 games. A couple lessons from David speeds up the process by helping the player to think correctly about the game.
CV
I agree with your thoughts about moving up, but I also think that studying Theory of Poker, HPFAP, etc, in conjunction with reading this board, RGP, and thinking about the game away from the tables, should be enough to help a thinking player beat most 10-20 games for at least a small amount. If a person needs private lessons from a top-notch pro to beat a 10-20 after having digested all the material contained in the books, that person is probably missing something. (If nothing else, game selection skills.)
-Sean
If that was true then couldn't you also say that only people who are "missing something" go to college to be taught?
CV
No, I'd think a more apropos analogy would be that the only reason to consult with a tutor outside of class would be if you missed something from the lecture or the textbook.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that many players could greatly benefit from David's lessons, and I might even take some myself when I'm ready to make the jump to 40-80 or 50-100. But I can't see how a $2-4 player could benefit from $250/hr lessons.
-Sean
The biggest problem that poker students face is that most players can't teach. So Sklansky would be more of a teacher than a remedial tutor when it came to poker lessons. I believe David offers group rates also.
I agree that throwing a Sklansky Lesson at a average 2/4 player would be a like using a Bazooka for a job a BB-gun could do, but I don't think Michael is an average 2/4 player.
CV
@
"another hand for comment" is the one I'm more interested in. I'm actually intersted in them all if anyone has the time.
Thanks,
-Michael
Mike,
Reading your hands I think you need some time at a real table to help to understand how the game really goes down. I think you made way to many calls in these situations, especially when two nines and hearts hit the board and you beat out with aces. You might want to spend more time looking at the board for those scare cards, which in most situations, WILL beat you. Don't get into "check-call" mode just because someone raises. You've got to learn to let some hands go.
My Worthless Opinion
"Rook"
(n/t)
Sometimes you will get frustrated with this game. if you cannot handle it, you will not be a long term winner, which by the way, is the only way to be a real winner at poker or any other form of gambling.
sometimes you post on the forum and don't get the answers you seek. shit happens, once in a while I have posted and gotten no responses. lucky for you some of us were in a talkative mood and we can type really fast.
Also, I am a scientist and hereby declare: there is no such thing as destiny when it comes to poker. Destiny is for mystics, religion, superstitios people, and various other persuasions (which I cannot necessarily explain away with science, but that is a different story which I'm not touching). but poker is not one of them. if you play well, you will win as long as you play enough and "really are" playing well. however, read mason's work on the long run in "gambling theory and other topics" before you get too excited.
Besides "don't slowplay", my favorite forum line is "there's no magic bullet".
dave in cali
I just want to thank everyone for their responses. They've helped in my current state of self-uncertainty. It's hard to know if you're playing "good poker" when you understand variance, SD, and long run. It's also hard when someone bets you off of a hand in one situation, but in another they actually have the hand they are representing with their bets.
Thanks again everyone!
ok what's the name of that computer program where you can play simulated games? is it turbo texas? and honestly... will it REALLY improve my online game? dont talk to me about playing live games, i live nowhere near a poker room.. im determined to learn to beat the 5-10 and 8-16 games at paradise. i do just fine now in the 2-4, thank you.
any details about the program(s) and whether it's worth the money and more importantly the time would be really useful. where can i get them if i should and how much?
yours truly, determined!
the Turbo series of poker software, Wilson Software (check the Favorite Links, or in Conjelco's catalog).
I believe it will help, but haven't played online.
I was playing some 3-6 at a casino when the following hand occurred.
I was in the SB with QQ and a fellow in middle position raised preflop and there are 3 callers when it gets back to me. I call.
The flop is A-Q-x rainbow. I check the raiser bets, 2 callers i raise, he 3 bets I 4 bet (by now the rest of the callers have folded) and he 5 bets. At this point I'm totally sold that he has AA and I just call. I check call the turn and river (which didn't add any flush or straight possibilities, and no king/ace/queen) and he flips over... AQ? I was left wondering if i should have raised him on either the turn or the river, but I felt the 5 bet was a clear indication of trip aces considering his preflop raise. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks Mark
First of all, before the flop you should have re-raised. Your hand is plenty good enough for that. Make the BB fold his garbage. Make everyone else pay through the nose to play against your premium hand.
After the flop, you simply can't be afraid of set over set. It's very rare and when it happens you should lose LOTS of money. When it doesn't you will usually make LOTS of money. You should have raised on every street, IMO.
David
I had this exact same thing happen to me in a 3-6 game, and i lost 40$ when he showed me AA.
For what it is worth!
I know, that's a risk you take. You still will make more money in the long run playing middle (and bottom) set pretty darn aggressively.
Sometimes you've just got to get in there and fire chips with both hands.
Don't ever let the the outcome of a single event dictate how you respond to future events at the poker table. That is the road to mediocrity at best.
David
I agree with David.
You should have reraised pre-flop.
On the flop, I would have bet, hoped he raised, this would likely thin the field and give me the chance to reraise and make runner runner and gutshot draws really pay. If he has JJ or KK he might check, might as well bet and hope he raises.
But in your case, when he 3 bets I would have flat called here and check-raised the turn. The other players will get trapped between you 2. If you get reraised then check-call the river.
Like David said, you have to lose $ when you flop a set and lose. Set over set is a rare occurence and it should not affect your play. He could have AK, AQ, AJ or A-x and flopped 2 pair or an underset xxx. You did not mention if the player was solid or not, eliminate xxx and A-x if he was.
Anyway the only hand you don't beat is AA.
IMO the other fellow overplayed his hand when you 4 betted it. When a player 4 bets, it usually means a set. He should have called your rereraise on the flop. Called your bet on the turn or bet himself had you not bet.
Hope this helped,
Royally yours,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I would generally play AQ the same way he did.
With your hand, I would generally 3-bet before the flop, as it gets more money in the pot and further defines your opponent's. If you had done so and your opponent just flat called instead of 4-betting, you could knock down the AA possibility a few rungs, at least until facing heavy action on a later street. Barring that, given this sequence I would have either led on the turn or have gone for a check-raise. I tend to prefer leading, 3-betting the turn, calling a 4-bet, and check-calling the river. I don't like check-raising the turn as much because if I don't know if I can reliably 4-bet the turn there, although perhaps I could against opponents who are overaggressive on later streets. (In my experience, most 3-6 opponents are either weak or overaggressive on later streets. It's rare to find someone who plays roughly correctly on later streets, and that's probably true in general as well.)
-Sean
1) What exactly constitutes a "Short Handed" game. 7 players? 6? Ive read S&M on short handed games, but I didnt see a good definition.
2) If there were no rake, how much looser would one play? Rake aside, poker is a zero sum game and (it would seem to me) in loose games, should allow for playing more hands pre-flop than is suggested by S&M and most other authorities - and then outplaying the weak loose players at the flop and beyond. But the rake does seem to justify a much more conservative strategy. (I just hate sitting and folding and folding and folding...and then often still losing.)
3) What method do dealers use to keep track of the total amount in the pot? They seem very adept at keeping track of the rake while dealing. Are they trained to count small bets or keep an exact total? I count small bets, but wonder if there is an easier way - and figure that whatever method the dealers use has got to be pretty good.
Thanks in advance,
Canuck
I don't know how dealers do it, but I learned a good way to track the pot from Ken Warren's book. (It is probably the only good lesson I took away from that book!)
It sounds confusing, but it works pretty good in practice.
After the preflop, multiply the players by the preflop bets. (Note if the blinds are in or not).
On the flop, start with the number of bets you have preflop and add the flop bets as they go in as action goes around the table.
When the betting on the flop is finished, divide the small bets by 2. This gives you the number of big bets in the pot.
On the turn and river, count the bets as they go in. Take the final number, add any blinds that folded preflop, take out the rack and there is your number.
The reason I like to add the bets as they go in on the flop, turn and river is because that makes it easy to keep track when someone bets or calls on bet on a round, but folds to a raise. This happens far more often in later rounds than it does preflop.
It also allows you to know your exact pot odds whenever the action is on you.
1) I tend to consider 6 or less "shorthanded," but it really doesn't matter. As you become experienced you should consider each possible combination of players under its own merit, just like you should consider each position relative to the button under its own merit (as opposed to "middle position," "early position," etc.)
2) You should play tighter in a raked game as opposed to a game with a time charge/button charge/game where the house takes no charge. Loose players are badly punished in a raked game. With a time charge poker isn't zero-sum, but you can loosen up just as much as you would if there was no house charge at all.
3) I just count as it goes around the table, as each player puts in a call I go 1, 2, 3, etc. and if a raise, 2, 4, 6, etc. On the turn I divide by half and start the count from there. It becomes second nature pretty quickly.
The problem with counting flop callers and multiplying is that you lose track when people put in 1 bet but drop for 2, 3, or 4.
-Sean
Dealers don't have to count very high to take a full rake. In addition, they usually don't need to do any other calculations simultaneously, so it really is easier than correctly solving the problem as a player.
canuck said: "(I just hate sitting and folding and folding and folding...and then often still losing.)"
..then hold em is not the game for you.
I was playing a passive 5-10, i have a king 10 of diamonds, flop is qs js 6c the flop is called buy the sb i call 3 more callers after me and the button raises everyone calls. the turn is a Qc its checked to me i call there is a raise one caller and i reraise(all in for 35) two callers. At this point im hopping that no one gets a flush on the river but i never expected this a qh. As it turns out no one was on a flush draw the other two had a 2 pair on the turn and a tight on the river one had jqoff and a q9of. Now im wondering if i made the right move raising on the turn with two differnt flush possiblities. I think i did please comment
First off, in the future, space out your post, use the enter key, it will be easier for us to read you and you'll get more comments.
You did not give much of the specifics like your position and the exact amount of players seing the flop. I will guess you were in early to early-middle position since there were 3 callers + the button acting after you on the flop.
And then you say the flop is called, I assume you meant bet. Then you say on the turn it's checked to you, you call... hunh? What are you calling if it's checked to you?
Come to think of it can you clarify? It'll be easier if we get a clearer picture.
In any case, if I got it right, your call on the flop is marginal. You probably only have 6 outs because of the possible flush draw.
I don't think you can bet or call on the turn. Other than the flush possibilities, you could be drawing dead, i.e someone could already have QJ, or AQ which kills you (Q9 is remote but always a possibility). And in either case he has redraws against you.
And you should always have enough chips in front of you to not get all-in, you'll lose $ should you flop great.
Hope this helped,
Royally yours,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I've been playing 3-6 up till now. I move up to a 4-8 game. There are a number of dealers and a house prop in the game.
I have KJo in the small blind and limp, no raises. Flop comes KJK. I bet and everyone (3) folds. Should I have waited for the turn or river? I try and follow the suggestions of betting when you have the best of it. Thanks in advance Bob
This depends, sometimes I bet, other times I don't.
Was the flop 2 suited?
Are your opponents solid or bad?
What is your image?
Against only 3 players(plus 1 of them is in the big blind) I'd tend to check-call and check-raise or bet the turn. If noone shows aggression.
It's hard pinpoint how to maximize your profit here, it depends a lot on the players.
Royally yours,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Hi, Bob, nice to see you posting. I met you a while back at Gamblers World. Please send me an e-mail so I can get your address.
If this was at Gila River or Casino Arizona, it sounds like a fluke if the game was that tight. Usually you would have anyone with a Jack or an Ace, or 3 to a straight, or ... anything, calling a single flop bet.
Like the Prince said, you can hopefully do better with this decision next time if you can judge the character of the table at this moment, and check if your opponents still in are somewhat timid, and bet most other times. If in doubt, I think you should bet against this usually loose crowd. You did nothing wrong.
Dick
I am normally not a big fan of slowplaying but in this situation you have a hand that is virtually unbeatable. I would not bet here and if someone else bet I would probably just call. I will frequently even check the turn. Now all that being said, if no one wanted to call your flop bet you were probably not going to make any money on this hand anyway.
You have a HUGE hand i would check call to the river, then bet the river.
This clearly is an instance where you could have slow-played because there are next to no turn or river cards you can lose against. (If you´ve got a tight image, that´s another reason for slow-playing)
Eight limpers to me on the SB and I raised with KJs in a 3-6 HE game. Was this raise correct? All comments appreciated.
I'd say no.
Although this would be a great play from a late position, from the small blind, I usually don't do it. Maybe others do so but not me. You have the worse position on the flop and you'll have 8 players acting AFTER you. A lot of action could take place after you have bet if you hit.
I like to flat call here. I don't raise with many hands from the blinds, usually only premiums pairs.
This depends on you. The fact that I don't do it does not mean you shouldn't.
Of course this play adds to your variance. I like to add to my variance when I have position.
Royally yours,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Good raise. After 8 limpers, you should be raising with a wide variety of hands, and KJs is an excellent hand in that situation. Those who raise with only premium pairs out of the blinds are 1) too readable and 2) too willing to leave money on the table. I would only just call there if I were ridiculously short-stacked without the ability to rebuy or underbankrolled.
Failing to raise with KJs in the small blind after 8 limpers in a 3-6 game is a substantially bigger mistake than calling with 72s on the button after 8 limpers in a 3-6 game.
-Sean
Sean:
Nice to see we disagree, I hope it will lead to exchanging ideas.
First off, we are talking low-limit here so the fact that YOU (an educated player) are able to read me, I don't mind much since I usually won't be profiting from you anyway. The clowns don't notice these things. It's like when a solid player raises UTG. You know he has a good hand. So do I. It does not matter. Maybe you and I will fold but the weaker ones won't, and these are the important folks.
Second, say you limped and then I raised you from my blind. So what ? so you know I have a big hand, are you going to fold it for 1 more bet ? no... The only thing it gives you is a better read on me after but I don't care, you'll usually fold on the flop anyway.
BTW I do raise with many hands from the blinds depending on the players and how many are out there.
Hold'em is a game of position. EVERY single player has that advantage on you on the flop...and on the turn.. and on the river.
Like I said, I'll raise it from a better position every time, I just don't like that play from the blinds. It does not make it wrong, it's just not my style. And BTW, I'm very aggressive.
Royally yours,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
First, I hope you didn't take my comments personally. When I drop by the small stakes board I usually try to reply to as many posts as possible.
You're right that being predictable isn't terribly important at 3-6, but many winning 3-6 players who make the jump to bigger limits by playing terribly weak-tight and predictably, and it's better to nip bad habits in the bud.
Hopefully the predictability reference wasn't a red herring--the biggest reason the failure to raise is a huge mistake is because it leaves so much money on the table. When 8 people see the flop, most of them are playing trash. They're playing hands like Q7o, 93s, and the like. You can, and must, punish the shit out of them by raising before the flop.
Hold'em is highly positional in general, but it's not terribly relevant here. First, the positional advantage of some clown holding Q7o is pretty irrelevant in the first place. Take your KJs in the blind and give the Q7o to a 20-40 caliber pro, and I guarantee you that as long as you play competently after the flop that you'll win more than the Q7o player in that scenario. It follows that in these loose games where you must show down the best hand, that having a big hand is much more important than having good position, therefore, you must put the money in the pot when you have a big hand.
As an aside, relative position is more important in these sorts of games than absolute position, but I think I'll leave that up to others to elaborate.
You can't beg off a substantial mistake (I estimate that failure to raise with KJs after 8 limpers in a 3-6 game is at least a 2/3 small bet mistake, possibly more) with stylistic concerns. You could make that argument for a hand like T8s, perhaps, but not a huge hand like KJs. You really think that only AA-JJ/AKs-AJs/KQs are the only profitable hands with which to raise there? I'm just not sure what the many hands with which you raise out of the blinds could be if you're passing a raise with KJs and 8 limpers.
-Sean
nt
Two points:
(1) In a 3/6 game raising out of the blinds with KJs is purely a value bet. Deception is pointless in 3/6.
(2) The more people contesting every pot, the less important position is. In a 8 way jammed pot, the best hand is going to win. Position matters little. In a tight 10/20 game, the entire game is about position. In a loose game, forget position (unless the game is very aggressive, then you must be very very tight from early and middle position) and just get the most money in the pot when you have the best of it and fold when you dont.
I would be more prone to make this play with one or two limpers than with a whole table full. With this many players it will take the best hand to win and your poor position coupled with the speculative nature of your hand means that you are handicapped. Players limp in with KQ,AJ, and other cards containing Kings and Jacks which seriously cripple your chances for improvement. You are hoping for a flush or straight as your best shot at winning this pot against a large field like this. But you hurt your implied odds when you raise here plus you open up the possibility of further raising. Now all that being said it cannot be a bad play but it is not a play I would make. If you are doing this to "vary your play" I would respectfully submit that your efforts are wasted in a little game like this since your opponents are basically unaware anyway. It might make more sense in a bigger game where your opponents are more astute.
I'm actually a bit surprised that you disagree with a raise here, Jim. I advocate thin value raises before the flop fairly often, but I don't think this one is all that thin or all that close. With 8 limpers ahead of you, there have to be some real garbage hands out there. I would raise with KJs purely for value to punish the clowns playing Q7o, 64o, A5o, etc. Even if a dominating hand like KQ/AJ is out, there are enough fish in the pot to soften the blow. Perhaps a novice is better off just calling in order to keep the pot small (as a novice might be more likely to tie himself to the pot if he raises), but I would think most players with at least a bit of experience would profit nicely from a raise here.
As an aside, I feel a lot more comfortable raising with a hand like KJs than a hand like 99 here. A lot of people seem more inclined to raise with the medium pairs than the non-ace suited hands, but in loose games with big pots I usually feel like I know where I'm at more often with the KJs type hand.
Someone asked what do to when the flop completely misses you. I don't think there's anything wrong with raising before the flop and check-folding when you miss. That extra bet doesn't obligate you to pound away at a whiff--it's only $3! You'll have to do that from time to time when raising out of the blinds into a large field. (I.e. raising with AQs, K on the flop and no other face card or card of your suit, and you're in check-fold city.)
-Sean
Clearly raising here with King-Jack suited will camouflage those times when you want to raise on your premium hands like AA or KK. There is nothing wrong with raising pre-flop and then check-folding once the flop comes if it misses you. I do this with AK all the time against a large field where I raise and then miss the flop totally.
I don't mind punishing clowns who come on trash holdings like Queen-Seven offsuit, Ace-Five offsuit, and Six-Four offsuit when I figure to have the best hand. But it is not clear to me that I benefit by raising with King-Jack here if one of the many limpers has Ace-Jack or King-Queen. I think the guy with King-Queen or Ace-Jack benefits from my raise at my expense. I would much rather raise here with AK or even AQ against a lot of limpers out of position like this than with KJ suited.
I totally agree with you. Its a pure value bet. With 8 limpers you don't need the best hand. You dont even need the second best hand. The 3rd best hand will make money by raising in this spot.
I know people dont believe TTH simulations, but they show that KJs can be the 3rd best hand and still make money against 8 limpers by raising.
I would raise in this situation 100% of the time. I would raise in this situation with any two suited royalty, any suited connectors down to 78s, any suited ace, and pairs down to 88. The only offsuit hand I would raise with would be AK or AQ.
The reason that suitedness makes such a huge difference is because with 8 players you need about 15% equity in the pot, and suited cards have about 4% more equity than unsuited. When your talking about 15%, 4% extra is huge.
KJs has 19% equity in the pot. Actually its probably around 18% considering the 8 limpers aren't QUITE completely random. If I had TTH handy, I could give you a better percentage, but I think 18% is pretty accurate. Not raising with it is a huge mistake against 8 limpers.
Actually, KJo even has 15% equity in the pot. It would be marginal whether raising with KJo in this position would be profitable. I wouldnt do it, though. For the simple reason that (1) raising is marginally profitable so your really making money for the best hands not yours and (2) your making the pot huge so that anybody will have odds to take cards off against you. Number 2 is still an issue with KJs, but the extra equity you make by raising more than compensates for the money your losing by giving people drawing odds.
The above logic also applies to AJo and KQo, although with these two hands TTH says raising is more profitable. I would limp in this situation with both, though.
No, you´re out of position, I prefer not to raise. Imagine you don´t make your hand, what are you gonna do: Bet with nothing? Let it go although you´ve got overcards?
If you´d been in late position you could have raised preflop and taken a free card if the flop misses.
Please help.
I play small stakes (6&12 stud poker)on a regular basis. For about a month now, I can not get a card if my life depended on it. And when I do, I get a bad beat. I consider myself a good player, but the cards are not comming. I keep waiting for my cards to change but it's not happening. My question is, should I keep waiting it out, or take some time off. I took about 2 weeks off but that did'nt seem to change anything. Thank you.
but this Q applies to hold em too.
dan,
I am not sure how to interpret what you are saying, but of course you cannot change your luck by taking time off. The cards will still be random when you come back.
Anyway, it is not that unusual to have a losing month even if you play well. I big concern for many players, though, is that they tend to play worse when they get on a losing streak, thereby making things worse. If you discover this, it is probably time to take time off.
During your break from the tables, take a really good look at your game. Reread some poker litterature (if you have any) and follow some interesting 2+2 threads. Even if you are a good player there is always plenty of room for improvement. Try to see especially if you have reacted negatively to losing. Are you playing to many hands and too passively, as many players would in this situation? Post some hands to the forum to see what the gurus think about your plays.
Good luck.
--- Chris Callahan
In addition to Chris Callahan's good advice I would add that you should consider stepping down to a lower limit game until you can regain your edge.
I have found that when the card are running bad a review of my books is a great remedy. I almost always am reminded of mistakes that I have been guilty of recently (usually unaware I’m even doing them). My play always seems to tighten up after a little soul searching and funny how the cards seem to improve.
The following happended to me three times last night and I am sure I played it incorrectly. I am a newbie, and am attempting to learn through simulation, the Lee Jones book, the Slansky and Malmuth text, and live play.
Please advise:
I hold KQo in late position, one from the button (The other two times it was a slightly worse hand, both KJo. No callers in front, I call, button calls. LB folds, BB checks. Flop is rainbow: 2,7,10.
BB checks to me. What is my play here with KQo or KJo? All three times i let the button bet after my check and folded after the BB folded in turn. Do I call? Should have bet when the BB checked to me pre-flop? How far do I take 2 overcards to an unpaired, no str8 or flush board?
This question probably has no simple answer, but any info is appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike
Given no callers before the flop and holding KQo off the button in anything resembling a normally structured game (the possible exception being a game with a horrific rake), you should open-raise before the flop 100% of the time with KQo. Open-limping with any hand is insane there, with the possible exception of AA or KK against oblivious opponents.
-Sean
thanks for the info....
As you can tell i've got a lot to learn!
Mike
Being "one from the button" means you are in the cutoff seat. You should open with a raise from the cutoff seat with KQ or KJ since you have a good playing hand under the circumstances. Your raise may drive the button out and give you position over the blinds if they choose to play. When you just open limp like this from late position you create a whole host of problems once the flop comes. If you had correctly raised pre-flop you should plan on betting the flop normally when checked to. You will frequently win the pot without a fight.
If you´re the opener you should have raised:
1) You could buy the button 2) You don´t allow the blinds a free (and semi-free) flop 3) You want as few opponents as possible on the flop with KQo 4) You´ve got position on BB and SB 5) You likely have got the best hand
So, with everyone having explained that you should have raised preflop, your original question remains unanswered.
I would say here that you probably also have to check. You did not raise preflop, so you haven't showed enough strength for the blinds or button to believe you have an overpair, so they will (correctly) deduce that you are trying to buy the pot and call. So, given that you showed weakness preflop, you probably have to continue to play this hand weakly, and drop to any bet unless you manage to hit something on the turn.
David
5- 10 online.
On the button w/ JTd. UTG limps, one call, I call (raise for value? Or do I want to entice the blinds to stay in?), LB folds, BB calls.
Flop: 8, 9, Q rainbow.
Check, bet, raise, I call (planning to raise the turn), call, call.
Turn: Qc second club on the board.
Check, bet, call, I raise, fold, call, call.
River: Kc.
Everyone checks to me. I consider runner- runner flush, but I’m much more worried about KQ. Any other club aside from K or A, I would have bet (would that be correct?). Specifically K, though, because there is no pre- flop raise.
I check.
If there is any interest, I’ll post the results later.
Before the flop, raising or calling can both be correct depending on a variety of factors. In general it's better to knock out the blinds to put dead money in the pot, so if both limpers were weak, check-folders (or check-callers), and the blinds were tight, I would be inclined to raise.
On the flop, I like a 3-bet, as flopped straights are vulnerable. There are 15 turn cards that will mean you no longer have the nuts (board pairs, a J or T), and you can't reliably go to war if one of those cards hits. Also, your opponents would have to be brain dead to not fear you calling 2 cold on the button in a small pot, provided you are a decent player. But then again, this is the small stakes board, so the latter point is probably moot.
Fearing KQ on the river is a "monster under the bed" type situation. There are only 6 ways an opponent can hold KQ, suited or offsuit, and you should be able to envision a ton of hands you can beat there. If bet into, you can make the case for just calling instead of raising (given that you showed strength on the turn, they're still betting into you, and that you're obligated to pay off a 3-bet if your opponent re-raises), but when checked to, just go ahead and bet your hand, and pay off a check-raise.
-Sean
Pre-flop, you have a speculative drawing hand and you want players in not out so raising is not recommended. Furthermore, you just hurt your implied odds on this hand plus you run the risk of a re-raise thereby having to pay 3 bets to take a flop instead of 1.
You should raise on the flop with nuts. There are a ton of cards that could come off on the turn which seriously compromise your hand. Slowplaying is a serious mistake.
Your turn raise is fine but notice that your hand is much more vulnerable now with the top card pairing.
You should raise on the river since your hand is probably best and you will get calls from worse hands than yours. Your scared thinking here underscores the futility of your slow play on the flop.
I think you played fine. I think I would have played it the exact same. The river card is scary of course so you don't want to step into a check raise against either a flush or fullhouse.
I agree with Jim's comments on the hand. - Call preflop and definitely jam it on the flop - and turn if they let you.
I think the river decision is tougher. I would not put anyone on KQ or another full house because they are almost definitely going to re-raise on the turn if they had held KQ, Q8 or Q9.
It's also hard to put your remaining opponents on a flush draw with the way they were betting previously.
I would think that I probably have the best hand, and I would think that anyone with a queen is going to call me.
If someone has me beat, well, they got me.
thanks for the comments. if i had a bit more experience, i would have had the wits about me to remember that S&M specifically address jamming the pot when you flop the nut. live and learn.... i certainly will not make that mistake again. in terms of not betting the river, i think that this is something that i do a bit too often. for whatever reason, whenever i have a good hand that isn't the nut, i want to check through (although i don't always). perhaps because i misinterpreted what S&M write about not betting on the river if you suspect that any caller will have you beaten. jim b. is right, there is fear in my game. especially on the river. i've been working hard to iron it out.
results:
he turns over the AQ. i win with the str8 to the K. next time i'll make up for those bets that i lost this time. thanks again for all the help.
-captain marlow
not so fast. not reraising on the flop didn't turn out all that badly as you were able to raise on the expensive street and get two callers (a total of 4 big bets). had you reraised on the flop, they definitely would have figured you for a powerhouse (top twopair, trips, or, most likely, the straight) and weren't likely to bet into you unless they caught a monster. which means you would have sacrificed at least 2 big bets on the turn and gained 2 or less small bets on the flop. had the flop not been rainbowed, then the reraise WOULD have been perfunctory.
on the river, if one of the two remaining opponents had bet out, I would've just called because two players had called your raise on the turn. once it was checked to you, was it correct to bet? remember that the flop was raised and that your turn raise was not reraised. that rules out Q8 and Q9. what else would someone have raised the flop with? certainly 89, possibly QT, QJ, certainly QK or QA. many but certainly not most players will raise pre-flop with QA. and many players, even in low-limit, will not call pre-flop holding QT from early position. it's impossible to be precise, but there was a high likelihood of QK being out there (roughly 30-35%) ONCE the king appeared on the river. however, it's hard to imagine someone improving to QQQKK not betting in that situation and hoping to get raised by either the flush or a smaller full house. so I would downgrade that 30-35% to maybe 5-10%. which still leaves the flush possibility. since both of these players were actively betting before the flush draw appeared, I would tend to discount it although there's always the oops factor to consider. all that said, once it was checked to you, I think you could count on holding the best hand 85-95% of the time and so should have bet for value. you therefore missed one or two big bets on the river.
1. BTF Just call with JT you would like to have
5 opponents in the hand with you.
2. Flop I think you should 3 bet here. The odds are very good someone has AQ or better. Your getting action on Plus, you want people in worse position than you to chase.
3. Turn- An obvious raise, but your hand is starting to get more vulnerable.
4. River- You have to bet the river. If it is raised and reraised back to you, then you can drop. Otherwise, you will have to pay off.
4-8 in Reno. UTG raises. fold to me. I re-raise. Button calls. blinds fold. UTG calls(?)
flop: low blanks. UTG checks. I bet. Button calls. UTG calls. so I put him on AK or lower pair than mine.
turn: another blank. UTG bets. I raise to try to isolate him. Button folds. UTG calls.
River: Ace. UTG bets. I fold. He turns over AK for top pair.
I have a lot of trouble with overcards in general when the flop doesn't hit anyone. Should I not have raised? Am I costing myself an extra bet when I lose on the river? Should I have checked the flop and waited for an extra card? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I don't know what you could have done differently. You bet and raised when you had the best hand and folded when you didn't.
Not much you can do.
Those KK hands are just Ace magnets for me too. I am on a nasty streak (4 weeks) of getting KK shoved up my tailpipe. Don't get me wrong, I like seeing them and I raise it up when they are good, but they are getting rivered like mad, even when I flop a king!
It evens out though. JJ and QQ have done better than usual lately.
Go figger.
To many times in the past i have had people take a shot at me when the river is a Ace I call every single time if it is heads up.
I have beat enough bluff attemps to make it worth my time. Now if there is 2 or 3 callers to me that would change everything and i would fold.
I agree.
I also call here headsup and make my opponent show me a better hand.
Even though you lost the hand, you made plays with very positive expectation.
I wouldn't make a habit out of folding on the river in this spot, and I would never show anyone a high quality lay down like this.
You should be proud of yourself, you played the hand perfectly. The fact that you lost shouldn't be something you worry about. One of the most difficult things to come to terms with in poker is that you can play a hand exactly right and still lose a bunch of money. When you accept this phenomenon, you will become dangerous to your opponents.
1. You MUST raise with KK BTF.
2. Your bet on the flop was correct. Don't give free cards when you have a good hand.
3. Good raise on the turn.
4. You made a very tough fold on the river which in this case was correct. Your opponent completely misplayed AK, so don't feel too bad about the result of this hand. Remember, he only had 3 outs unless there was 2345 on board.
Pre-flop, of course you should re-raise with pocket Kings. You have the second best possible starting hand and should want to charge everyone dearly to take a flop with you. I don't understand why you have a question mark after the UTG calls. I would be more concerned about what the button cold-called three bets with than what the UTG had. The UTG's call of your re-raise is automatic here since the pot odds make it worthwhile for him to pay one more small bet and see 3 cards.
On the flop, of course you bet having a big over pair to the board. On the turn, when you raise the UTG when another blank comes you are not "raising to isolate him". You are raising because you feel you have the best hand and you want to make it as expensive as possible for the button or anyone else to stay with you.
I don't like your fold on the river with all that money in the pot. Suppose the UTG has JJ or QQ and has decided that the Ace is a good scare card and represents his best chance of winning the pot by getting you to fold if you do not have an Ace? I think you should call. You only have to be right a small fraction of the time to make calling correct here.
I think I agree with all that's been said here. What about a case where it's harder to put an opponent on a hand, and the ace comes on the flop. Do I lay down unimproved KK to an ace?
UTG: call
fold to me
me: raise (KK)
button: call
UTG: call
flop: A 8 4 (rainbow)
UTG: Bet
me: ??
Is this a raise or fold situation? which is it?
Say I raise.
Button: call
UTG: call
turn: blank.
UTG: bet (big bets now)
me: ??
How about here?
I think this problem generalizes to a lot of common cases where somone may have flopped a big hand, but mine is good enough to win if no one did. Her are a few.
KQ [A K 8] (or [A K Q])
AK [T T K] (or [7 7 K])
Thoughts?
-solublefish
I am a new player (about 3mo) so forgive me if these posts have been too obvious.
4-8 Reno.. I have AQs in mid position. folded to me. I raise. call. folds to button who calls blinds fold. So now I am in early position, correct? Is this the right way to think of this since I am the first to act now?
flop: blanks with one of my suit. I bet. fold. button calls.
Turn: Queen. I bet button calls.
River: Jack. I bet, button raises, I call. He turns over KK to beat what I thought was top pair and kicker.
What did I do wrong. Should I have checked somewhere? When would a good player know he was beaten?
Appreciate the help.
Hello,
Actually, I think it was the button who played this hand incorrectly.
Your preflop raise was good. His slowplay of KK was probably a bad idea here because he has you beat, but if an Ace falls, he's dead.
I probably would have bet a flop full of blanks also.
A call from him on the button worries me a little.
The Q on the turn is (well, it's supposed to be), a great card for you. Your opponent again just called with his overpair, which I think was a mistake.
On the river, you had top pair and a good kicker. Headsup, it is not unreasonable to think that a worse hand than yours will call, so a bet is not a bad idea in my opinion.
Then your opponent raised and now you have a tougher decision. It depends on your opponent, but I don't think you have an automatic call here.
A raise from him, unless it is a complete bluff, means he could probably beat top pair, top kicker. I wouldn't put him on KK, but I might put him on two pair.
A fold here is not a bad play, but if if the player had shown wild or maniacal tendencies to me in the past, I would make him show me a better hand.
The call on the river totally depends on the opponent, otherwise, I don't know what you could have done differently.
I agree with Dan C's response. I don't think you did anything wrong. I would have played it the same way. I think the button did a horrible job of playing his KK. Even if he decides not to reraise before the flop, I think he should have raised after the flop or at least on the turn. Regardless, you're probably stuck calling (especially after the turn with top pair top kicker). On the river, I would probably call the raise. Depending on the player, there might be times when I may fold, but I think you're hand here is strong enough to warrant a call. I've been raised in your situation before where the player had something like QK and my AQ held up.
YOu played the hand well and should have lost more money than you did,console your self that the button played bad and did not charge you the max he could have, because if i see the turn i am not folding heads up with top pair top kicker on a non threating board.
With only one opponent it´s alright to bet the river (because now it´s more likely that you are bluffing, making him call with weaker hands), but if there are 3 or more, check the river.
I agree with Dan C and Jace's comments. I would usually call the river unless my opponent was an LOL or a TOM. As the great Izmet Fekali is fond of saying: "Making tough folds on the river is not the way to make money in limit hold'em."
As an aside, the terms "early position", "middle position", etc. apply primarily in describing your position pre-flop. Once the flop comes, yes you are the first to act and are at a positional disadvantage but no one thinks of it in terms of changing your seat description from being "middle position" to "early position". You opened with a raise from middle position and got two callers.
as for your position, early position refers to the first three seats to the left of the BB. Once you raise and one player and the button calls, you are simply first to act. You could think of it as you are "out of position".
Flop bet is ok but checking would not be that bad. Since there are only two opponents, if there is some chance you will win the pot outright then I would bet.
Turn is OK.
A good player would know he was beat when he got raised on the river, but he would pay off anyway because the pot is big.
By the way your opponent with the kings played horribly.
dave in cali
Like I said in my previous posts, I am a newbie. So I apologize if this question has been answered a million times.
I am thinking about quitting raising and reraising before flops in these low limit games at least in early position.
It seems I never get anybody out of the damn hand and I end up getting my ass kicked by some guy with a weak draw and a good flop. And this seems to happen on a regular basis and I feel like I'd rather win less money when they do hit and save money when they don't.
I have read all the material on this, so I know you should raise with these hands preflop to get the most money in the pot. But is this realistic at low levels. Because if there are a lot of bets in there, aren't you giving the draws better reason to be in there?
Is it really true that these hands win more often than not, because I have been getting my ass handed to me more often than not. But I've only been playing for a couple of months.
Thanks for the time and effort to help me out.
I would say that you never, ever want to quit betting and raising when you have the best hand.
However, when the flop obviously misses your hand and hits your opponent's hand, when you know are beat - dump it.
Of course, there is not much you can do when you get rivered but save maybe one bet, and often by then the pot is too big to not call one bet.
Even so, don't get married to good starting hands, especially against a lot of opponents.
In a loose game with a lot of players playing every hand, you WILL get your ass handed to you more often than not with high pocket pairs.
AA, KK and QQ do lose more often than they win (there is no such thing as a hand with a 51% win rate!), but if you play them properly, you will make money overall with them.
If you are able to dump your losers soon enough and keep charging those draws when you have the best hand, you will make money in the long run.
I used to have the same concerns, especially when I first started playing at the 2/4 and 3/6 limits when most games were loose and out of control. I remember when my AA got cracked on the river once in a huge raised pot by some guy playing 24 offsuit (he floped a 2 and another 2 came on the river). Boy, was I pissed. I even turned into a tight/passive player and only limped in with big starting hands like AA and KK.
However, in the long run, I believe that you will win more money by raising with these hands. It's true though that you may not win as many hands. The pots get so big that even if you win one and end up losing 2 or 3, you should come out ahead.
I know what you're going through, but it's almost imperative that you continue to play tight/aggessive. Good luck and play strong!
you give up too much when you don't raise. you usually have the best hand, therefore you benefit by getting $$ into the pot. plus you often narrow the field, increasing your chances of winning the pot. Plus you have to charge the players that limp with trashola to play against your premium hand. You may be giving the draws better odds post flop but you are "CORRECTLY" charging them extra to see the flop and play against your premium hand. They are losing more BTF than they are gaining after the flop.
If you quit raising BTF you cannot expect to be a winning player, even if you play in frustrating loose low limit games. Raise, reraise, cap with your premium hands. Don't screw around. Otherwise a picture of you will be shown under "loser" in the dictionary.
dave in cali
You must also add some variety to your play. Your opponents must not be able to pigeon hole your starting hands when you raise. It's too easy for them to play against you if they know what you hold. Give them something to wonder about with some deceptive raises (occasionally).
I know what you mean, but I don´t think it´s necessary to make deceptive raises in early position in these limits (late position would be something else). In early position I´d only raise with AA, KK, QQ, AKs and AQs. It´s right that you give away your hand when you raise in early position, but if my opponents know that I raise only with the very best, it kind of compensates.
I think that what you need to do is work on your post-flop play. Don't worry about raising pre-flop and bailing out on the flop if you miss. Perhaps become even more aggressive on the flop; check-raise more if you figure there will be a bettor in an appropriate position. Plays your draws pretty aggressively. Never slow play your very strong hands. Don't bluff.
When I hear people complaining about the table and how they are going to stop raising before the flop, I know that they are poor players post-flop. Keep your standards and aggressiveness up, and work on knocking opponents out (or building a huge pot) on the flop.
Eric
What kind of hands have you been raising with?
Been following Lee Jones' advice mostly.
A 6/12 hand last night reminded me of your question.
I was in the BB with 85o. All folded to the button who just called. The SB called and I checked.
Note: The button is kind of goofball and has shown frustration when other people make hands when his miss the flop. I figured he either had a great hand he wanted to milk or he was limping in with suited cards hoping to hit the flop.
The flop comes 844. SB checked and I bet with my pair and backdoor straight, hoping the other two would fold. They both called, which I thought was very bad for me.
Turn was a T.
Button bets, SB calls and I fold.
River is a blank, button bets, SB says "I'll just call". Button smiles and turns over KK, clearly very proud of himself. SB turns over 34 for trips.
Then the button loses it! He screams "FUCK!!!" and does one of those "knuckle slams" down on the table as *hard* as he can. Looked like it hurt. Then he starts shaking his head and muttering about how bad a player the SB is.
I was amazed. This guy completely dug his own grave on the hand and then blamed his own bad play on his opponent.
Instead of raising and easily picking up the $9 in blinds, he called and paid off the trip 4s to the river, losing $36. I am not sure why the SB didn't raise on the river - I think the SB thought the button would not call if he held just a T or small pocket pair.
Not raising with KK cost this guy $45 (should have cost him $52) and put him on a huge tilt.
Actually with KK you really, really don't want to steal the blinds. KK is worth so much more than the blinds that I'd much rather give the blinds a chance to flop a pair. If I lose the pot, so be it; at the time of the limp, the pot is very tiny. (In practice, I tend to raise because limping is too conspicuous, but if I were in a random low-limit game against opponents who don't know me, I might do it because open-limping in late position is common in such games.) Even better to limp when it lets a horrible player in cheaply. Check-calling 3 times with flopped trips??? KK played perfectly. His problem is disciplinary. (Going on tilt is bad enough, but tilting over losing a pot that really wasn't all that big. That sort of player should raise if only to prevent himself from tilting!)
-Sean
I certainly understand your reasoning, and I agree the SB played rotten. (He's a rotten player)
A good deal of times, the blinds defend because the raise on the button is an obvious time to steal the blinds. I would still raise on the button with a big hand.
I feel that I open raise often enough from late position that just calling with KK is a bad play for me.
keep raising but be more reluctant to bet out or tag along if the flop misses you. for instance, you hold big slick offsuit (AK), black suits, and raise in early middle position and get six callers before the flop. the flop comes T97 with two diamonds. if one of the blinds comes out betting, you should fold because a) you could easily get raised by someone behind you b) you might be way behind already and almost drawing dead c) even if you are not way behind, none of your outs are dependable, and even if an ace or king falls on the turn and helps ONLY you, the straight, flush, and other draws can still overtake your top pair/great kicker on the river.
even with a ragged flop like 942rainbow, you will rarely be able to bowl over that lowly pair of 2's when you hold mere overcards so proceed with prudence.
While I agree that it is rarely necessary to raise with a deceptive hand, it can still be very helpful. It's rare that you are sitting at a table with a complete group of dullards. Usually, at least one of your opponents will be noticing what you do. Although many opponents may play way too many hands before the flop, some can be dangerous once the flop comes.
If you constantly only raise with big, strong cards in early position, your opponents (who all have position) can make your decisions difficult when rags flop. It is helpful to balance your attack so that you may have something when rags flop. Of course, if you play poorly after the flop, it may be more important to improve your post-flop play than balance a poor attack.
For now, continue to follow Lee Jones' advice on raising pre-flop. There are two reasons to raise pre-flop, to build the pot or to drive out other hands. When you raise to build a pot, you are raising for value. When you raise with Aces, for instance, you may be doing both. You need to understand that when you raise for value, you will lose that hand more often than you win with it. For instance, in a full game A, A is considered to have about a 33% chance to win.
If you raise pre-flop and get called by, say, 5 players (we are talking low limit here) the pot is giving you 5:1 odds at that point. Your expectation to win is about 1:2. You are getting a 5:2 overlay on your raise. Bottom line: you will lose more hands than you win, but you will win more money in the long run on your raise.
You observe players getting bent out of shape all the time when their Aces don't hold up. They expect them to win all the time. Actually, you should expect your Aces will lose more often than they win. However, they will win more than their share of the hands (about 1 in 3) and will thus win more money in the long run than any other hand starting hand. Continue to raise pre-flop with good hands in proper position.
Of course, you need to play well after the flop. I have found that my biggest factor in losing (in the past, I hope) is playing a hand poorly after the flop by staying too long and putting in too many chips. It is not my good hands that get beaten that cause me to lose in the long run, it is the drain on my chips by the poor, or marginal, or obviously beaten hands that I don't throw soon enough.
As Tyro notes there are two reasons for raising preflop. If you are raising to get more money in the pot then yes you must keep raising. However, when you are raising in situations where you are trying to get people out than it may well be time to stop raising on those particular hands. If something isn't working than don't do it.
I read your KK post so I will take it this is one of the examples you are refering to.
First, you should ALWAYS raise with premium starting hands regardless of your previous results, regardless of your bankroll, and regardless of the limit.
Second, this is somewhat balanced by the fact if 5 or more people are in a hand, you will probably need to improve on the flop to win.
Realize that your chances of improving are the same as other players. Let's say you have KK and I have 98. You are a huge favorite to win. If the flop is K98, I'm trapped.
You win with premium hands over time. They will likely win 20-30 % of the time, but you will make money over time. The times they hold up more than compensate for the times you lose. To win in the game, you need to understand this concept.
In a single session not long ago I lost with AA, KK and AK. Raised the roof on all three before the flop but lost in the end. Poker. Gotta love it.
Barry
5-10 game w/full kill, loose passive. I'm the killer in the seat after UTG and post 10.
Pre-flop: UTG, a tight, passive, predictable rock, raises to 20. This raise almost surely means a pocket pair of 10s or better, AK, or AQ. I call 10 w/Kd 10d. My rationale for calling is that I'm already halfway in and I anticipate at least a couple of cold calls from the loose players downstream. Does anyone fold here? My friend (MF), a tight, solid player, is next to me on the left and cold calls 20. Cutoff and button (loose passive players) both cold call 20, we see flop 5-handed.
Flop: 8c Jh Qh. UTG bets 10, I call 10 w/my open-ended straight draw, MF raises to 20, cutoff folds, button coldcalls 20, UTG calls 10 more, I call.
Turn: 2s. Check, check, MF bets 20, button calls, UTG calls all in, and I call.
River: 5c. I check, MF bets, button folds, I fold.
MF shows 10c 9c for the flopped nuts, UTG had A-Q.
Questions:
Was I correct to call on the flop and turn w/an open ender despite the flush draw? I had six clean outs, but some of my opponents could have been (and as it turned out were) holding some of my out cards.
What do you think of MF's pre-flop coldcall with 10-9 suited. After the hand, UTG complained bitterly and incessantly about MF's terrible call and unbelievable luck.
Later, away from the table, MF and I discussed the hand. His reasons for calling:
Two were in and he figured on at least two more cold callers downstream.
UTG is extremely easy to read.
His opponents would be unlikely to put him on 10-9.
UTG was short-stacked and close to going all-in. Therefore, MF figured he might be abled to draw cheaply if necessary.
I told MF that I probably wouldn't have called in his position. However, in retrospect I don't think his call was that much of a mistake if one doesn't mind the variance. What do others think?
Thanks, Caddy
T9s for at least two bets and possibly more to come isn't profitable. The deceptive value of the hand and a chance at a cheap draw don't make it profitable. But it's not much of a mistake.
Of course you have to call looking at 11-1 to draw to the nut straight, regardless of a possible flush draw. It would be right even if you had only 4 outs.
Hi!
I think your play was fine.
I'll comment on your friend's thinking. I think he has it in reverse. The fact that the opponent is easy to read is an incentive for calling, ok.
BUT, the fact that he was short-stacked is where I think he has it wrong, because it kills his implied odds. A hand like this one needs implied odds and the UTG player having raised, he's the one likely to give him the implied odds he needs. And UTG is short-stacked. And your friend has to call a raise.
This does not make calling a bad play if he can expect looser players downstream to call too, has you did but I think he should be thinking the other way around. And anyway, it does not mean that you or the other players in the hand wil not make him pay for his draw.
IMHO,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
For the past 5-6 years, I played mainly 3-6 and would get beat up pretty bad. Over the years, my play improved dramatically, but I was still having trouble beating the game (usually ended up with a net loss). More recently, I've only been playing 6-12 and have been doing very, very well. I've been cashing out at a rate of over $50/hour for the last 2-3 months. The players are tighter and in general, there is more respect for raises. I know that only time will tell if I am truly beating the 6-12 game.
I sometimes get tempted to go back to the 3-6 game and just see how I do now, but when I look at the crazy players there and the fact that I've been doing well at 6-12, I stay at 6-12.
Anyways, I have three quick questions?
1. Have any of you had similar experiences when moving up in limits?
2. Do you have to beat a game at a certain limit in order to move up to a higher limit?
3. In general, what type of players should I expect to encounter at the next limit (which is 10-20 at the cardroom that I play in)?
If you play fairy solid poker you should be able to beat any low limit game, but there is a bigger luck factor in the really low games b/c of the suck outs.
In 10-20 and up the games tend to be more gressive and your raises are just taken for granted so you have to be a little creative with them and play more aggressive with your fair hands or they will just out bet you trying to get you to fold.
Jace,
The pool of players in the card room I play in are not that much better from 4-8 to 6-12. I have been playing 10-20 15-30 for awhile now. I see the 20-40 guys sitting waiting to get to the 20-40 game and some do have a different level of hand reading ability than the regular 6-12 10-20 player.
So as always game selection is key.
Best of it !!
MJ
P.S. 3-6 The rake will kill ya anyway.
If you play a solid game, I recommend you stay at 6-12. 3-6 games are very loose because most players will draw you to the river with their straight or flush draw because it costs so little to call to the river. Also, it's very hard to bluff since most players will call you to the river with any pair, even bottom pair when you are trying to bluff. This is from my personal experience - I have just moved to 6-12 from 3-6 like you have and I find that 6-12 players give you more respect and you can bluff more since it costs more to call you to the river.
And I agree with MJChicago, the rake will kill you.
CaptainQ
I am still having problems with certain hands like A/10o, K/Jo, Q/10o. I have quit playing them alltogether because I usually end up second best on them or when the flop does hit me they are not very profitable. I see people playing them all the time,In early and late position. I know there is a right time a way to play these hands but every time I do I end up giving back some of my profits.( so I quit playing them.) Am I throwing away some hands that could be profitable to me? Should I play them only in late position? if so how? What if I play a hand likeQ/10o and the flop comes 9,7,2 rainbow and it is checked to me. Do I bet or check. Any general advice would be great. Thanks
These are among the most difficult hands to play correctly, so it is no surprise that you are having trouble with them. Two considerations which are very important are: Your position, and the quality of your opponent(s). Q-10 can be a strong hand against a weak player who plays many hands, but against a strong player it usually wins smaller pots than it loses.
I wouldn't play these trouble hands in anything but late position against anybody but players that I could completely out-play. If players enter the pot from an early position that have high opening standards, I wouldn't play them at all. These hands do poorly in multi-way pots, also.
nt
I'm happy that you asked that question because I also have problems with those same hands. I used to raise with them to thin out the field and represent more strenght than I actually have but every time the flop shows strong cards and I make second pair, I get confused and usually lose money with them.
I also stopped playing them until I understand how to play them, I feel there's money to be made with those when played correctly but for now I only get trapped with them.
David Saintonge
You must play well post flop.
You must be able to limit the field.
You should only try to out play oppenets capable of folding, against calling stations wait for a better hand to play.
I tend to play these hands in late pos. i raise with it when it is folded to me , but i do get a fair amount of respect on the table and that helps.
noteworthy, but everyone commented on a different hand with almost the same subject.
I will change the wording to try and make it more palatable reading as Dave suggested :)
I'm UTG with pocket J's in this 7-handed 2/4 game at paradise poker.
I open-raise and get 3 callers including the button + the BB checks. We see the flop 5 handed.
*** FLOP *** : [ 5h Qh Qs ]
Big blind checks. I bet. Next calls. Then a middle position player raises. Everyone folds to me and I re-raise. The initial caller calls a double sized bet and the initial re-raiser calls.
What the heck am I thinking?
I bet and re-raised. When I bet my thinking is that I need to follow through with my raise BTF. There's 4 BigBets in the pot. Since 2 Q's flopped it is unlikely that any of my opponents have a queen and if one does, they might be scared I have AQ or KQ. Also, there's a 2-flush on board and the last thing I want is to give out a free card. Once it's re-raised, it's pump or dump - so I pump. Both my opponents are tricky - they know what they're doing by my best account (probably aint worth much). So I either believe the raiser has a Q and fold or represent KQ or better in my hand and also show that I won't be run over.
We see the turn 3-handed.
*** TURN *** : [ 5h Qh Qs ] [ 8d ]
I bet out. The next player calls and the re-raiser on the flop calls all-in for 1/2 a BigBet.
Now I think someone has a Q and I'm dead to a J. Is this reasonable thinking or am I surcumbing to some kind of emotion of dispair?
Still 3-handed we see the river.
*** RIVER *** : [ 5h Qh Qs 8d ] [ 7c ]
It's checked around and I show my J's. The next player shows T's. Initial re-raiser shows 7's and takes 10.75 BigBets down when he catches a set on the river.
I lose 2.5 BigBets as I take 1 BigBet down for beating T's.
Is this routine? Did I overplay it? All comments welcome.
Thanks,
-Michael
Because you didn't get raised on the turn you have to think your Jacks are pretty good. The answer to your question is yes you played it pretty strong but I think trying to find out with a re-raise on the flop was a good indicater of were evrybody was. You were just unlucky.
My worthless opininion
Your flop re-raise isn't necessarily wrong. For starters, in low-limit games I've always founnd that the typical player slowplays flopped trips, rather than raising on the flop. You can't just give up that easily when someone pops you on a cheap street.
I would also have been inclined to bet the river after no one played back at me after the flop re-raise and turn bet.
-Sean
Pre-flop. I think you meant the BB called, not checked. Open raise with jacks, good. Don't screw around and do something stupid like limp.
On the flop, yes, because there are two queens on board, it is less likely that someone has a queen. So I like your betting out with two pair, you may have the best hand. But when it is raised, you have to ask yourself "what would they raise with". Following through on your preflop raise with a flop bet is one thing. Reraising with two pair when someone else likely has trips is another. Yes, someone with a weak queen may fear you have AQ or KQ, but face it, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO FOLD. My guess is that you reraised with only two outs.
On the turn is not the time to realize someone has a queen. By betting I am guessing you charged yourself to draw to two outs and you are lucky you didn't get raised. I hope you would have carefully considered pot odds if you had been raised and realized that you were probably not getting 23:1 and therefore folded.
I think you overplayed it. To be honest, I would have probably folded to the flop raise unless the pot odds (including implied odds) justified seeing one more card. I didn't count the pot but it's likely you may have had odds to call the raise trying to catch a jack but after that you should have probably checked/folded. I say this despite the result. In this case, you did in fact have the best hand, but if you routinely played this situation in this way you will probably lose $$, much more than you would ever win.
Dave in cali
i am new to this great game, so far i am a winning player overall but have recently expericaned a couple of loosing sessions4out of 5
My play has become better but i have been loosing i play starting hands according to the position I am pretty good at reading players.
I can't seem to win, my good starting hands seem to loose to garbage?
Im wondering what youre averige win/loss rate per session is.
Not that it means a whole lot but i win about 7out of 10 sessions.
When i first started 4 years ago i had about the same win ratio , but my losing sessions tended to just about wipe out my wins. Now i very rarly take a huge loss maybe 1-100 times.
I personly decide on a limit that i will spend in any given game. Very few players can lose a lot and still play well.
ive come to believe that ray zee is absolutely right; if you lose two in a row something is wrong somewhere.
im right around 70% too, although im not too good of a player and probably half of my losses were totally my own fault.
brad
I have no clue. I enter each session into a spread sheet, and from time to time figure out how much I'm up for the year, month, and sometimes week, but I tend not to focus on session results. I know I had 10 winning months and 2 losing months in 2000, but I have absolutely no clue how I do from session to session, and don't particularly care to know.
-Sean
According to Sklansky's video he was stating a 1-3 ratio. A losing session 1-3...
Kevin
I have never understood why players worry about how many winning sessions they have or what their winning session percentage is. If I play 10 sessions of $20-$40 and have 7 losing sessions where I played 56 hours and lost $2000 but then I have 3 winning sessions where I played 24 hours and won $3600 the only relevant statistic out of all of this is that I played 80 hours and won $1600.
I do not keep track of this. I suppose I probably win more often than I lose, but to be honest I really don't care. Sean and Jim both have it right on the $$ with their attitudes on winning session %. Since it's all one long session anyway, what's the difference what the result of today is? Focus your energy on playing better, not on keeping track of meaningless stats.
By the way the only stats that are really that important:
SD hourly win rate Total winnings (if you have played enough hours)
Dave in cali
2/4 game @ Canterbury in Mpls- I am on button w/ AKo VG player 3 to my right raises I reraise 2 call and Poor Player makes it 4 bets VGP calls I call
5 total take the flop A Q 6 rainbow.
PP bets 2 fold VG calls I raise--both call
turn is 10 & is checked to me and I bet-they call
River isa K--checked to me I bet PP calls VG player raises I pay him off to AJs for his straight--PP had QTT
I think I made 3 mistakes here 1. reraising w/ AK making the pot too big 2. not capping the flop 3. not checking the river w/ the scare cards
I put the VGP on A Big or QQ being he didn't cap it on the flop--Am I too hard on myself?
I personly do not reraise with AKo. Maybe suited if it will not drive out any players.
I would have raised the flop, bet the turn , and check the river.
Pre-flop, I believe you over played your hand 3 betting with slick unless you had some reason to believe everyone else would fold and you good isolate the raiser with position. How could you have capped the flop when the poor player bet, the very good player called, and you raised and they just called? Nevertheless, you should not go crazy here on the flop because you only have one pair not two pair or a set so one raise is fine. On the river, I think your bet is fine when they both check to you since worse hands will call.
I meant cap it preflop--the VGP probably would have put me on AA then & I think he would have folded w/ the A on the flop--he would not normally draw out to a gut buster-the pot got too big
you said that another player capped it so why are you worrying about it? If anything, I might put HIM on AA.
wouldn't Steve make money by capping preflop from all the worse hands calling
Yes, but the problem is that it quite possible someone has AA,KK, or AK suited given all this raising and re-raising going on. It is a real bad day when AK runs into AA.
so your ev would be higher by not capping?
I think you lose less overall since there will be a high percentage of the cases where you are badly dominated.
ohio
Jim
I am surprised that you think that making it three bets BTF with AKo is overplaying your hand. I think it is a standard play, you should reraise to thin the field. I recall recently you said you would just call a raise with AQo (in some specific situation that was being discussed). As I recall, you took some heat for that, with the opposition advocating reraise or fold, but never call. I think that if your big slick is suited, you could either call or reraise, with calling being an option because suited big slick doesn't mind multiple opponents. But offsuit I think that reraising is the only way to go. I say this because I find it to be either a reraise or fold situation, and you obviously are not going to fold for just one raise. AQo, maybe, ask John Feeney....
Dave in Cali
I don't believe that 3 betting with slick is at all automatic. I think it depends upon who the raiser is and whether or not your re-raise will really thin the field. The smaller the game the less likely your re-raise will narrow the field. In a $2-$4 game, a guy may be indifferent to calling $6 versus $4. In a $20-$40 game players feel very differently about cold-calling $60 versus $40.
I'll have to concede that one.
I still prefer reraising but I will consider what you have said here. I did not think there would be much of an arguement against the "classic" S+M advice, which I previously thought was pretty solidly unargueable. But there are always exceptions and this may be one of them. If your reraise will not thin the field A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, then it might be OK to just call a raise with big slick or big chick.
If this situation comes up and I decide to just call, I will post the hand.
Dave in Cali
1. AK is worth a 3 bet in this spot. I think you did the correct thing.
2. How can you cap the flop, no one reraised.
3. You should have checked the river because the board had 4 to a straight and anyone with a jack has you beat.
The results sound normal to me no matter how you played it. IMHO I think Big Slick is grossly over rated and it goes down in flames more often than not.
I only raise with AK suited and in good position to boot otherwise I want to see the flop as cheap as possible with AKo. I know most players would disagree with me on this but from what I have observed and played with Big Slick it only looks good and has potential but it needs lots of help.
AKo is better than you give it credit for. Think of it like this, the most common help on the flop for any given non-pair hand is to flop one pair. The odds of flopping a pair is the same whether you have 67s or AKo. But with AK you will automatically have top pair, top kicker if you do flop a pair. Plus AK sometimes wins unimproved, but usually only if it is heads up or perhaps three handed. AKo does not want to play against a large field, and it certainly doesn't want to let hands like 76s in cheaply. AKo is giving up implied odds to suited connectors if you let them in cheap, you have to raise.
As for one of your comments, the one about AK getting run down often, that happens with EVERY hand, not just big slick. Against nine random hands, AA will only win about 1/3 of the time. And when you are in a game where six people take the flop on a regular basis, you are not necessarily a favorite to win the hand when you flop something decent but not spectacular. Implicit collusion. But if you flop a pair with big slick you will likely be a $$ favorite, if not a favorite to actually win the pot.
dave in cali
Dave,
I understand everything you mentioned and what you stated goes along with what is written in the top publications.
However, I'm just reiterating what has happened to me when I have had AKo and what I have observed from other players misfortune of raising with big slick.
The other night a guy raised me preflop, postflop and turn. I was first to act with AdQc and floped top pair with the Q. The turn and river were blanks and he called my river bet. I took the pot with my pair of queens and he showed the AsKs and said "if you don't raise with ace king you might as well not play poker". Anyway since I stoped raising with AKo I have yet to regret it. But in reference to good poker playing you and the other gentleman are correct even though I think he over played the hand by raising 3 times. His aggressiveness did scare from raising him back.
Thanks for your comments. I think I'll go back to raising again due to reasons you mentioned above.
Rich
Richard, good deal on going back to raising. Don't worry too much about past results. I could say "I haven't won a pot with pocket jacks in over four months". But that doesn't mean I should change the way I play them BTF. Same with AKo. It really is correct to raise/reraise, despite what has happened in the past. You would have to play a whole bunch of AKo hands before you could conclude anything that is statistically significant. My guess is that the # you would have to play would be in the thousands or perhaps higher.
I agree with Richard, especially at 3/6 where the chances of thinning the field are drastically reduced. At low limits, AKo has drastically reduced value.
First off, making it three bets before the flop is mandatory, not a mistake. if you are going to play AKo or AQo when there is a raise to you, you must reraise to destroy the implied odds of suited connectors and small pairs, plus you want to limit the field. Reraising is standard, I would do it here every time. When it's capped back to you obviously you call.
Second, you stated that there was a bet and you raised on the flop, then everyone called. you did not have the option to cap. You played fine, obviously you are going to raise here.
Turn no brainer.
As for the river, I do not think it is as clear-cut as you say. I would usually bet here given the action. You could not have necessarily put the other player on AJs. But checking would probably be OK too. If anything I would worry about someone having AQ or AT, not a straight.
Also, I think you are confused as to what would have happened if he had QQ with that flop, he probably WOULD have capped it. Flopping second set on a board like that demands a cap if possible.
Dave in Cali
what kind of bankroll should you have to play low limit poker in units
My advice would be 300 big bets
ohio
Mason addresses this in depth in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, giving different specifics for different games and levels.
A good working approximation is 200 big bets.
Dick
These may not be too interesting. But these situations seem to come up quite often and I'm wondering if I'm playing correctly.
The game is 3/6 at Paradise Poker.
I'm in the BB with JsTc. A middle position (MP) player open raises. The button calls. I call the raise.
Is this a terribly loose call? How many players should I want before I call? Should I definitely throw it in if an early position player was first in for a raise? Since the button called 2 bets cold should I have just thrown it away?
The flop comes AdKc2c. MP bets and the button folds. I call with my inside straight and backdoor flush draws.
The turn comes an 8c. MP bets. I call with my improved draw. But with only a Tc how discounted is the strength of my potential flush?
The river is a Jh. MP bets and I call with a pair of J's. MP shows As9s.
Am I a total fish in these situations?
Thanks,
-Michael
Make that hand suited, and a preflop call is easy. Since it was offsuit, it is marginal.
I do not like your call on the flop. There are 7 small bets when the action comes back to you. This is not enough to justify calling with your gutshot (and very mediocre backdoor flush draw).
Yes. Unfortunately quite a guppy in fact. You are guaranteed to be up against at least one hand that has you beat based on the open raise, so why waist money? The only time this might have the remotest justification would be in a pot with numerous (say six or seven) callers and you knew none of them were going to re-raise. But how could you know that? See my point? Drop the 10/J off and wait for a chance with better cards. You have to view that BB as your donation to the game. Hell, because of its position, I hate catching AK off there. I'd call with it but I don't like it.
You compounded the problem by continuing to chase with the hand when the flop knocked you down where your only true out was the 4 potential Qs. You really want to invest 2 big bets looking for 4 Qs out of a 52 card deck?
Pre flop I think your call is marginal but not necessarily horrible. Still though, I would rather play JTo on the button against several limpers that against a raise three handed.
On the flop there are 7 small bets in the pot when you call. you need 10.5:1 implied odds in order to make calling here correct. You have to be very sure that if you hit the str8 on the turn that you will get called by your lone opponent on the next two rounds. That's just to make calling BARELY correct. Therefore I would fold on the flop. The backdoor 10 high flush draw is not a consideration worth bothering with.
On the turn your draw has improved but really by how much. now you are kinda stuck calling but I bet you wished you woulda folded.
River I think with two overcards to your jacks and the pot offering 6.5:1 I think calling is marginal. I think you are beat here the vast majority of the time. What would he be betting with that you can beat?
Dave in Cali
Just a beginner so bear with me please...
When looking out outs for hands with backdoor flush opportunities, I have often counted that as having another two out. Why??? Well, the odds of turning a flush needing a runner-runner is about 5% (55 possible combinations out of 1081). With 47 cards remaining, I just tack on two more outs to come out to a bit less than 5% since it won't always win.
If that is a valid approach, then in this case our hero would really be looking at 6 outs (four for the straight and two for runner-runner) - or roughly 7-1 odds. That puts him right on the line on the flop as far as odds go. Doesn't this make a somewhat stronger case for calling.
Just wondering if this is a valid approach or if I am way off base here....
Don't forget, if he catches a club on the turn, he'll have to pay a bet on the turn to actually realize the back-door potential, so the odds are reduced. Worst scenario happened which was a club catch on the turn but not the river.
I don't like your approach since it doesn't seem to include effective odds. It is a gross generalization, but I like to consider backdoor draws as 1 out each. It was discussed at length on the forum, but I can't remember exactly when or what the thread was entitled. Since the pot odds rarely justify calling with only a backdoor draw, I usually don't consider them unless it is borderline and I am leaning towards calling. A ten high backdoor flush draw is probably worth less than one out though.
Dave in Cali
Pre-flop your call of the raise out of your big blind with Jack-Ten offsuit is a toss-up in my opinion. The middle player open raising does not need a premium hand for this. I think I would call as you did but it is close.
On the flop, you have flopped a gutshot and backdoor draw. There is $22 in the pot and it costs you $3. You are getting a little over 7:1 on your call with 4 outs which is a 10.75:1 shot. Your backdoor draw may add something and if you hit a Queen you might collect another $12 downstream. Again it is close.
On the turn, a call is automatic. You have the third nut flush draw but with one opponent it will almost always be good if you hit.
At the river, I would fold given the two big over cards on the flop. A flop containing both an Ace and a King must have given the pre-flop raiser a better hand than yours especially since he continued to bet every street.
As a statement that you can not be run over that easy in a live game i would probally call as you did.
But sence this is online and you may never play with these players again i would fold on the flop.
tell me if i understand this correctly.a standard diviation of 80 means you could have a loss of 3 times this amount in any given hour of play.so the higher your sd the bigger your fluctions.the smaller your sd the smaller your fluctions.a person with a high sd takes more risks by playing more hands.a conservative playerhas a smallersd by playing less hands.what is the ideal s.d. per hr.?i know the most important thing in poker is your hourly rate, but your s.d.is indirectly responsible in part for your hourly rate to some extent.so you guys who average a big bet per hour, what is your s.d.per hour?
The relationship between standard deviation and your win rate actually revolves around more than just the number of hands you play. The level of aggressiveness of you and your opponents will affect it as well. A good player typically has a lower standard deviation than a really good player. This is due, in part, to the number of chips a really good player puts into the pot when he/she has an advantage.
I wouldn't recommend focussing on your standard deviation as such. Keep an eye on how much you are winning per hour and evaluate situations (hands) in which you could have made more money (given what you thought about the hand during the hand) by playing more aggressively (or passively).
You might check out, Stat King from Conjelco, it does a lot of the work for you in terms of analysis.
As Ed says, your standard deviation will vary depending on the character of your game. That being said, hold'em s.d.'s reported here from time to time, and also from a very old post by Dan Hanson, usually are about 10 Big Bets, i.e. if you play 3-6 then your s.d. will probably be about 60.
Dick
In general tighter players have lower sd's. But while a GREAT tight player will have a lower sd than a super GREAT overall player (sgop), the sgop will have a higher hourly rate.
What is sd? sd is both a measure and a predictor. It tells how likely and how far away actual results are from expected results. As an example, say your expectation (hourly rate) is $30 and your sd is $50. This means that 68% of the time your hourly result will be between -$20 and $80 ($30-$50 to $30+$50). These types of results are said to be within 1 sd of the mean (mean = expectation). You will be within 2 sd's of the mean 95% of the time and within 3 sd's 99% of the time. 3 sd's means that your actual results would be between -$120 and $180 99% of the time. Your mean and sd are always estimated from past results. You'll NEVER know your true mean or sd (I suppose that's debateable depending on perspective as you do have a current mean and sd). But as you play more, record your results, and re-compute your mean and sd, your computed mean and sd get closer and closer to your actual mean and sd. Mason says these numbers converge quite quickly - I don't remember how many hours are needed though. May be someone can comment on when these stats become valid to be used as predictors.
-Michael
So if the following is true (For the stated SD and Expectation):
--- 3 sd's means that your actual results would be between -$120 and $180 99% of the time. ---
Then, if I begin each hour with $120 (obviously I can't remove money from the table, just looking for clarification on how to use the above numbers), after 100 hours I will have busted out just one time and made over $180 one time.
If I have a trip where I plan on spending 100 hours playing would I need a bankroll of just $240?
< Yes, if you assume your results will be within 3 sd's of the mean for all 100 of those hours. Theoretically, results can be 1000 sd's from the mean.
< No, you can still have multiple consecutive sessions that are negative. Suppose you have 5 losing sessions(1 hour each) in a row. The first 4 are -$50 each (this is only -1.6 sd's from the mean and your results will be there or below ~10% of the time). On the fifth after you've lost $40 ... you're bankrupt.
Mason's books have bankroll requirements in them ... they're a great resource.
Right, I had all of the facts in front of me and didn't connect the dots. Although taking your 5 straight $50 losses at aprrox 10% each makes the likelyhood of this happenning 1 in 100,000.
Looks like I have a book to buy :)
Posted by: Scott S (smallbeck@contactics.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 January 2001, at 6:40 p.m.
I have KJs in the SB in a normal 5/10 10 handed game. My image at the table at the table should have been tight. Especially since I went 7 rounds with only seeing a flop one time from other than the BB.
UTG limps. LP limps. Cutoff and Button fold. I raise. BB folds and UTG and LP call. UTG was a weak player and had very loose opening standards. LP was an average player.
Flop
A9x rainbow, none of my suite.
I check. UTG bets. LP calls. I fold.
The button is now completely confused because he could not understand what hand I could have that I would have raised from the SB a folded with this flop. For reasons I still don’t understand, I told him after the hand. His comment was that KJs was not a raising had in this situation.
I think my three choices were:
1) Call pre-flop; Check/fold on the flop.
2) Raise pre-flop; Bet the flop.
3) My actual play.
All comment appreciated. Thanks.
A raise out of the small blind with King-Jack suited against two limpers is not a play I would make but I have seen good players make it like David Sklansky in a $30-$60 game about a year ago. The problem is that you need to follow it up with a flop bet especially when the flop comes Ace-high since you will frequently win without a fight. I like the order in which you have listed the three choices except that your actual play is a distant third.
Against good players I would agree that a bet on the flop would very likely win the pot. However, I felt that either of these players could be holding Ace-anything based upon their prior play. If anything other than an A flopped I would have bet out. As a side note I am also trying to work on a perceived problem in my post-flop play. I think I am overvaluing the strength of some hands and end up showing down third best, leaving a lot of chip in my wake. My desire not to have this happen probably influenced my decision to fold. I desperately need to work on my hand reading skills.
Do not raise from the SB, that's choice #1. Don't bet the flop, check and fold. that's choice #2. Don't discuss strategy with your opponents, especially your strategy and why you used it, that's choice #3.
as for #3, I like to make them think I am discussing "strategy" by telling them things like "I was feeling lucky" or "I folded because I didn't feel it". Trust me, when it comes to correct strategy, they will not hear it from me, but I will tell them all kinds of stuff to send them on the wrong path. Like "great play, I always lose with aces too so why bother raising?"
dave in cali
I like your raise. You were in a great position to bluff on the flop. People always talk about late position in holdem. Against few opponents first postion is also valuable. Depends on the table, depends on the players. If you would have bet the flop you stand a good chance to pick up that nice little pot. Especially if you have a tight image. If you get called, just shut down check and fold the turn. If you get raised, fold.
So I've moved up to the $6-12 tables as someone here suggested, and gotten back to winning ways. Bought in for $180 and waited about and hour for my first pot, which was $240!!
The question I want to ask, have anyone here ever collected a pot of 20 big bets or more with a hand no stronger than two pair, and not even aces up.
I won the pot with pocket kings to a 10-5-5-8-7 board with no flush possibilities. Five-way, strong action both pre-flop and on the flop, only one of these folds before the river, a guy allegedly holding pocket 7's!
I was very satisfied with how strong I played it.
Lars
I am sure many players have. I once won a $1500 pot in a $20-$40 game with pocket Queens on the button. The five boardcards did not help anyone enough to beat my Queens. Once in awhile the best hand gets to win.
I have won a very large pot (closer to 40 BB) with a single pair of aces that somehow held up despite a capped pot with 10-way action BTF and had four players left on the river. These things do happen.
Hi,
Generally, loose passive game in BB with 7-5 suited:
1. With a EP Raise and four calls, dump or call
2. How does it change if the raise is later position but pretty sure 4 to 5 callers without another raise?
3. Same questions, SB?
If this should be posted on "Beginners", please tell me.
Thanks,
From the big blind facing an EP raise and four callers, I would call but it is marginal. Make it 76 suited and the call is automatic. You are getting 11:1 pot odds to take a flop and see 3 cards.
If the raise is in later position but you are confident that no one will re-raise, again it is a marginal call.
From the small blind your pot odds have dropped from 11:1 to about 7:1. I would fold.
The point is that with a small suited one-gapper like this I want an overlay to the odds against flopping a flush draw which are around 7:1. The reason is because my good flops involve draws and not made hands which means I have to pay additional money on the later streets to see the hand through and hope I hit.
n/t
should you set a stop loss on your losses or winnings?
this is an illogical idea touted by many morons and other charlatans who think they know what they are talking about but don't.
if you have a positive hourly expectation in the game, it doesn't matter if you are up or down, only whether you continue to have a positive expectation. if you have lost so much $$ that you are upset and tilting and no longer playing well (ie now you have a negative expectation due to your lousy state of mind), then perhaps you should quit. Otherwise you should continue playing.
I played yesterday and the first hand I had JT and the flop was 9 Q K. I bet the whole way and someone made a flush on the river. Next hand I flopped top pair and a flush draw with KQs. I made two pair on the turn, bet to the river, and lost to a flopped set of fours. I was already down several rows of chips when a couple hands later, I flopped a set of sixes and someone else flopped a set of sevens. Down almost a rack in less than 15 minutes. Now if I had a stop loss I would perhaps be quitting after this. But I knew that these players all got lucky and played their hands very badly (no one raised me with either set or with the flush on the river), therefore I was simply experiencing a downswing in luck and it did not reflect whether I had a positive expectation in the game. So I continued playing. three hours later I cashed out for over a rack more than I bought in for.
Read "gambling theory and other topics" by MM found on this site. Pay special attention to the sections on money management (the extremely silly subject of).
Dave in Cali
I would never get up when winning unless I was tired.
I do however get up after suffering losses like you gave as an example, I go for a walk, take a little break, look for a lucky table ;)
If I don't do these things then I tend to steam even more, the next hand I'm beat. Better to take lots of breaks when the chance your game may be less than its best.
I do however set stop losses online. To avoid collusion, to avoid tilt, and to avoid games that are beyond my experience.
These are: after a 20BB loss I take a break and go do something else, after a 50BB loss I stop for the day and go and read the internet forum. Its therapuetic.
NOT! ;)
As a rule, the answer is no. There are two schools of thought.
1. Play as long as the game is "good" regardless
of results.
2. Set a series of stops which are arbitrary dollar
amounts to "preserve" your bankroll.
I think you are better off with option 1. However, if you start getting upset, distracted, or excessively tired you should leave the game. Another time to leave is if the game all of a sudden becomes harder with the entry of multiple competent players. Another time to leave is you have personal business to tend to. Play the best you can ALL the time and you will not need to worry about stops.
I agree with Dave's comments on setting stop-losses.
However I would add that it does make sense in certain situations.
I think almost every beginning player should set stop loss limits.
I don't think most beginning players can reasonably expect to be favorites in every game when they first start playing. Even if they have a decent understanding of the basics, they usually don't have the ability to react to unexpected situations like when games turn unexpectedly wild, tight, short handed, maniacal, whatever.
When I started playing, I thought I knew a lot more than I did and there are quite a few situations where a stop-loss limit would have done me a LOT of good. Even though I was in some great games, I couldn't win because I did not yet know the right strategy to counter my opponents and I bled chips.
A stop-loss limit would have allowed me to stem the bleeding while I did some studying on what was happening. I would still have had the experience in playing that type of game, but I wasn't necessarily learning any more by losing more.
After someone gains a few hundred hours experience in different types of games, their skill should be at the point where stop loss limits no longer make sense and they can use the other factors Dave mentioned in deciding whether to keep playing or pack it in.
Playing 3-6 at AC, game typical. Raised with AA UTG. MP 6&7, Button called. Flop 2 2 K. I bet, MP 6&7 called. Button raises, I called. Turn was Q. No flush draws. I bet, MP 6 called, MP7 folded, button raises. I folded my rockets. River was a rag, MP checks, button bets, MP called. Button won with QQ. I was fuming because the button was not really a solid player as I have seen him chase any A to the river a couple of times. Was I simply ouplayed or did I play scared? Comments please!
From what I know being "outplayed" is when you release a hand that would have been the winner. In your situation this was not the case. The button just got really lucky and hit his 2-outer.
I probably would have 3-bet the flop and led on the turn ( I don't think he would have re-raised you on the flop unless he was a complete idiot). When raised again on the turn I would have put him on either AK, KQ or a 2, but your're going to have to show me the 2 because I can beat AK and KQ. I would have lost more money on this hand because I check-call to the river.
Better luck next time.
Ok, guys, long time reader, first time poster. I'm somewhat dubious on poker as money maker in low limit games. Is anyone cool to post their stats, (long run stats) of low limit? Preferably in a time vs. money graph? And preferably from a online card room?
So lets see it guys, you say its a money maker, but I want the cold hard facts.
I was going to respond to this, but then I realized that there's really no point. What could you possibly learn from reading someone else's stats?
If you don't believe that low-limit poker is beatable, then you would have no reason to believe that people would provide you with real stats. And anyhow, unless you get 1000+ hours worth of somebody's stats, you're going to get a skewed sample anyway.
You just have to believe people when they say they beat the low limit games. Many people have beaten the low limits and moved on into higher limits and professional play - the fact that these people exist should be proof enough.
However, if you really want a spreadsheet of a stranger's poker results, E-mail me and I'll send you mine.
~DjTj
Hi all,
Paradise Poker 2-4 tonight...
I have QcJc in the cut-off.
2 limper to me, I call, button calls, SB calls, BB checks. (I sometimes raise here but I like 1 more limper before me to do it, I wanna keep players in)
6 players on the flop, 6 SB in pot.
Flop is:
2d 2h 5d
It's checked around.
Turn is:
Qh
Check, Check, bet, call, raise and it's up to me...
What do you do ??
I'll post the results later...
Thanks!
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Ok, so the board reads 2d 2h 5d Qh, and it's been bet and raised to you. QcJc is not a strong enough hand to call two bets cold with this kind of board. Possibilities:
1) Someone with a deuce missed their check raise on the flop.
2) Someone has a bigger queen.
3) Someone has a diamond draw with a queen.
4) Someone just picked up a heart draw.
5) Someone flopped a boat.
Given the potential hands against you, and your lack of potential for improvement, I think you have a clear fold here.
GB
3 players and 3 hands possible . better has Hit a pair of Queen caller has an hearth , diamond or straight draw raiser slow-play triple 2 or maybe semi bluff about hearth . Too many players in the hand someone might have a 2 , fold is the best .
I (correctly) folded.
Winner (Turn raiser) showed QJ, other had Qx lower kicker.
ThePrince
Hi!
Paradise 3-6 hand, full table, just sat down.
I'm in the BB with pocket threes.
Early player raises, three callers to me, I call closing the action.
Flop comes:
J 2 4 rainbow
Raiser bets, all fold to me.
Now here's my thinking. I'm heads up if I call, most pre-flop raisers feel obligated to bet on the flop no matter what, thus he could easily have AK, AQ, KQ or others (AT for example) that I beat. I call. Good call?
The turn is a 6.
I thought this was a good time for a check-raise semi-bluff. Plus I could have the best hand.
Comments?
He called...
Results later...
Thanks!
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
You should have folded pre-flop.
Reasons:
1. a low pair doesn't play well against many players
2. a raise would be unlikely to get you heads up.
3. With the hands you expect him to have, your dead meat
4. you only have 2 outs (the other threes)
post-flop:
1. if he has top/middle pair or a pocket pair higher than yours, he still has you beat and you only have two outs.
2. if he has overcards, he has 6 outs vs. your two and two cards to get there.
turn, you check:
1. if he bets, he has top pair or overpair and your raise is making him richer.
2. if he checks. then he may just have overcards or middle pair (4 or 6 and you're still beat)
With 3 cold callers, this is an easy call out of the BB for only one additional bet. Your immediate pot odds are about right plus with an early position raiser you also have good implied odds if you hit your hand.
When you said you played at Paradise I am assuming you were playing online. Although I have never played online, it is my feeling that it would take longer to get a feel for the players just because you can't see them. Also, this would be harder still since this was the very first hand you played (correct?).
In order for a semi-bluff raise to work you need to be against a good player who will lay down a better hand otherwise it is just a waste of money. It has been my experience that a typical low-limit player in early position coming in for a raise will usually have AK or better. They usually don't raise with a big Ace, Ax, or KQ. You are probably beat on the flop and you probably wouldn't lose a lot of money in the long run if you just folded on the flop.
Even if the player had AK, most 3-6 players will not laydown AK even after being raised simply beacuse they feel "committed" to the pot. And if an A or K hits the river you are "screwed" because they will call. More than likely they will have a big pair (JJ or better) they will almost certainly call you down and more than likely you will miss on the river.
The only other suggestion I would make is to simply check-call him/her down to see what this player would raise with and use it for future reference. In most low-limit games you are usually going to have to show the best hand to win.
I hoped the semi-bluff raise worked!
the check raise could work in many situations but i dont think this is one of them, you have 6 outs, two threes and four fives to make your hand, that being said. you are hoping to blank off the river and win when (i hope) you bet again on the river. many players will not want to call a river bet if they were raised on the turn, even if it is for just one more bet
im sure this is what happened i would hope you stopped playing this crazy cards from early position, let the other guy suck out play solid, strong and you will win more than 5-6 BB an hour on that crazy site
It's better to check raise the flop , instead to check raise the turn for two reasons. You check-raise the flop and ... #1 - If he has AA,KK or QQ he will re-raise you on the flop and you will fold . It will cost you only 6$.If you check raise the turn , it will cost you 15$ , and if he has AA , KK , or QQ , could chance that he calls , and will re-raise JJ . #2 - make a move right on the flop , don't give him the chance to hit a big pair if he has AK , AQ , KQ , etc .
oK let me guess the result : He has AA , and call the turn , you have hit the 3 on the river ?
He called with QQ and showed down on the river.
ThePrince
is it a good call
in loose games this hand sucks if it is not suited. I think S&M even recommend folding this hand in late position if there are already many limpers. In addition you are really in a pickle if someone raises. in that case, if an Ace flops you are probably outkicked. If a ten flop you have a weak top pair that is vulnerable to over pairs and higher cards coming on the turn and river, not to mention the fact that top pair rarely wins in these multi-way pots. If you get bored and want to play more hands in early position try something like 7-8 suited. it won't cost you as much money.
nt
in late position it's oK to call only and only if there is one limper and this limper is loose . If your on the button , raise if nobody is in the hand .
I’m in the SB in this full tabled 2/4 game at Paradise Poker and get JdJc. UTG open-raises. Everyone folds to me and BB. We both call.
*** FLOP *** : [ 3c Kh 5c ]
Checked to raiser who bets. I call and BB folds.
*** TURN *** : [ 3c Kh 5c ] [ 6h ]
I check and fold to a bet. Is this good play?
**********************************************************
Eleven hands later in the BB I get JhJc. 3rd to act calls. Next to cutoff calls. SB calls. I raise and they all call. We see the flop 4-handed.
*** FLOP *** : [ Qd 3s 7d ]
Check, I bet, fold, call, fold.
*** TURN *** : [ Qd 3s 7d ] [ 2h ]
I bet, he calls.
*** RIVER *** : [ Qd 3s 7d 2h ] [ 4d ]
I check, he bets, I call. Should I dump it here?
He has Jd5d.
Comments on how to think and how to play are appreciated as always.
Inofmration for kicks : I lost to the same guy in both hands.
On your first hand, I'd rather see a bet out on that flop. When it gets to the pre-flop raiser, he'll define how good your hand is. If he raises, you fold. If he calls, a bet on the turn should lose him. If you just check on the flop, he could have anything from 10's to Aces and anything in between. Get some information from him.
The second hand you played more aggressively, and it almost payed off. Don't forget to put your opponents on hands. When he calls on the turn, you should give serious thought to a flush draw, among other things.
GB
.nt
Playing 6-12 over the weekend. Decent table, with a wide range of players (loose/passive to tight/aggressive). Anyways, there is one hand that really pissed me off. I didn't mind losing the hand, but it was the play of the guy with the worse hand that really ticked me off. Here is the situtation:
Middle position player (MP) limps. He's a tight/aggressive and fairly good player. Player to my right (Idiot) raises. He's a loose/aggressive type. I make it three bets with KK. Button and SB fold. BB calls and MP calls. Idiot caps it and all call.
Flop: 7d 7c 8d
BB checks, MP checks, Idiot bets, I raise, BB folds, MP 3 bets, Idiot caps, I call, MP calls.
At this point, I put the Idiot on a big flush draw (he's vocally asking for another diamond) and I put the MP on trip 7s after he 3 bet the hand.
Turn is a 4h.
MP checks. I know he's waiting for a bet to check raise the idiot. If it's checked to me, I plan to check. However, Idiot bets. I give him a questioning glare and I call and MP raises (just as I predicted). Idiot says maybe he doesn't have best hand and just calls. I call.
River is a 10s.
No diamonds. MP bets. Idiot folds and shows his AdJd and brags about his big draw. I think for a long time and MP (who I've played with before) tells me that I can't win. I muck my KK and MP is shows the whole table that he had 77 for quads.
I read MP pretty well and if I didn't know him, I would have definitely called the river. But he's not the bluffing type, so I knew that I was beat. If it was any other player, I would have called. Would anyone have played my hand differently? If Idiot checks the turn, and I feel good about my read of MP, was my plan to check the turn okay, or should I have bet? Should I have folded at the turn after MP raised? What about MP's play? Any comments appreciated.
As for the rest of the night, Idiot lost all his money and I came out a little ahead.
if you had mp on trip 7s, you are a huge dog (only outs are kings, and not against quad 7s). knowing that he had this had, why did you call the check raise after the flop???
kings are a great starting hand...don't be afraid to fold them.
Why did you call the turn? MP is screaming that he has a 7, and he obviously isnt gonna play games with an idiot in there and you showing obvious strength.
Your getting 27-1 odds to call the last flop bet, so that one was a good call to try to pick up another King, but you had no odds to call the turn.
So you call two on the turn (when you should have folded), then fold on the river when your getting 21-1 odds?
You do know this game is about winning money, right?
I don't think he was getting that good of odds on the flop.
There were 12.5 small bets in preflop.
Idiot bet, hero 2-bet, MP 3-bet and idiot 4-bet.
At this point, he is getting 10.75:1 (21.5:2) to call for his king. He might think his implied odds are a bit better (barring MP having 77), but not much better if those two keep going to war.
On the turn, there are 12.25 BB in the pot. Idiot bets and now hero is getting 13.25:1 immediate odds and around 9:1 effective odds (because he knows MP is going to raise) when he is 22-1 to hit his hand.
Comments on my odds calculations welcome.
I think the hero dug his own grave on this one.
Why have you call him all the way if you knew he has a 7 with 2 outers ?
After reading the responses from ggordo, Joe, and Dan (and also some personal analysis of my play), I can conclude that I played this hand wrong and should have dumped my hand after seeing the turn. I wasn't doing the math and simply became too attached to my pocket kings (as I'm sure all of us have done at one point or another).
Thanks for the insightful comments.
Good response Jace.
I would think there is not a person in this forum who has not married KK a few times in their career!
I am more cautious now when there is a pair on the flop and I hold a big pair and many player call my bet
Had to work late on a project last night, but dropped in to the 'office' for a couple of hours to unwind after a long day. Sit into the 3-6 game (only other limit going was a full 15-30). Interesting mix of talent, with 3 or 4 decent players to stabilize things, a few passive calling stations to help build pots, and one loose cannon. I hadn't seen this guy around for a few months, and didn't recognize him at first, but after I watched his action for a few hands, I remembered him. He was pushing all sorts of marginal hands, and made a couple of virtually hopeless bluff raises that got called down.
Before I get to the hand in question, a little background. On one hand early in the sit, I limp in late position with suited connectors, make 2 pair on the turn, and raise this guy. He re-raises, and I just call. On the river, he cracks his stack, and I thought he said, "Six.", meaning a bet. I threw my $6 in there, but he had in fact said, "check". Got to clean out the wax, I guess. Anyway, I left my bet in, and now he check-raises! I look him up, and my 2-pair is good.
Anyway, on this hand, I have AcKc UTG. I raise, get 2 cold-callers downstream, Hero (no Rick, not THAT Hero) calls out of SB. BB also calls, and 5 of us take the flop of A-8-3 rainbow, no clubs. Hero bets out, BB folds, I raise, driving out the 2 pre-flop cold callers, and this guy re-raises. At this point, I figure I am either still way ahead, or I'm way behind. I do not cap it, but call.
Turn is a Ten. He bets, I just call. I can't envision laying this down given the 'moves' he had made in the past half hour, but I have to slow down a little bit given his flop 3-bet. River pairs the 8. Now he checks.
This gives me a little pause for thought. Is he playing me? I don't think he's trying anything too tricky, and he HAS burned up two racks in just over an hour. Did he have A-3 on the flop and now his hand blew up? Anyway, after he checks, I go ahead and bet the river for value. Now, as in our first confrontation about 30 minutes earlier, he check-raises again. Well, given that he did so earlier on only one pair, and tried a couple of flat-out check-raise bluffs on other players, the call was in my mind easy.
Results a little later in the show, as they would say on SportsCenter, but a couple of questions first.
1. Would anyone 3-bet the flop after getting check-raised on top pair/top kicker with no obvious draws?
2. If you just call the flop check-raise, do you raise the turn heads-up? If you do, what do you do on the river if he flat calls? What if he 3-bets?
3. When Hero checks the river, do you turn 'em over, or bet?
Flame away.
Frequently, in these spots, your opponent will be afraid that you won't bet the river. Thus to see a check raise here would be surprising. I think that A3 is a logical hand for him given your description of how he has played. Therefore, your river bet should be made.
What's interesting about this hand is that even though typical players will never try for this check raise, it can sometimes be correct. Someone like you who has to have a pretty good hand to be there on the river after the given action would be a candidate for a check raise. But you almost never see these plays.
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
I think the reason you don't see these plays is that the would-be checkraiser wants to avoid looking like a chump if his opponent just checks it down himself. But as you point out, it can sometimes be correct when you know that someone like Dunc here must have an Ace to see the hand through to the river.
Also, checkraising on the river is seen as somewhat of a confrontational or even underhanded ploy. On the other hand, checkraises on the flop and turn are seen as part of proper poker strategy.
That said, most river checkraises when they occur mean that you are toast. It is just much easier for your opponet to bluff bet rather than look for a bluff checkraise as there is no guarantee that you will bet.
I would expect that Dunc would have lost this hand but I guess since he was up against a maniac, ..well...who knows. Gotta call him down no doubt.
I would 3 bet on the flop since I have the top kicker with my top pair and from what you describe this guy is anything but solid. He might be just over playing any Ace and, if not, your 3 bet on the cheap street may well slow him down a little. Assuming he calls then I would bet the turn if he checks. Otherwise I would just call him on the expensive street. You don't have quite enough hand to call the flop raise and then raise on the expensive street. As the hand was played, I think calling his turn bet and then betting river when checked to was logical. If he check-raises you on the river than you simply call and make him show you a better hand.
Well, he showed me a "better" hand, alright. 8-3 for the full. I just smiled, tapped the table, and complimented the bozo for sucking me in.
There were a couple of issues here. One was that he had tried the same thing with me earlier when I had thought he had bet and he didn't, and then he check-raised on one pair, so for sure, I'm going to look him up with AK. And the other was that I didn't want to leave some crumbs laying around.
I made a comment in another thread a couple of weeks ago about value bets at the river that I have been making a conscious effort NOT to leave bets laying around waiting to be picked up on the river. I feel I have been getting better at this, and when the guy checked to me, I felt my AK was the best hand, and acted accordingly. Didn't work out this time, but c'est la vie.
Up to this point, I had been running all over this game in the first hour, but I could just feel the momentum swing after this hand, and I felt I had lost some edge. It was almost midnight; I had to get up early the next day, so I took my $150 profit and cashed out. But I'd make the same bet again in similar circumstances.
Hi,
I was in middle position, holding KdJd in a loose/passive 3-6 game.
Flop: KKJ
Eveyone folds to me and I check with UTG betting, button calling. I call.
Turn: 5
I think about check/raising butI am afraid it will chech thru. I bet.
UTG raises and Button calls.
I raise and both call.
River is blank. Both call my bet.
I win with Kings full. I never learned what the Button held but the 5 on the turn gave UTG 5's full with the Jacks on the board.
Please analyze my play. Any way to get another bet?
Please analyze the UTG play. Was it a fold to the turn re-raise by me?
Thanks
You played the hand fine. You probably got as much out of them as you were going to. Waiting until the river to raise is too late, IMO.
As for UTG (by which I assume you mean the cutoff who sits to the button's right), I don't blame him for not laying down his boat. You have to be pretty sure of someone to lay down that kind of hand.
GB
Well played
Last night I beleive I experienced one of the worst run of card followed by an outstanding play made against me. I think I'm gonna need a few days to recover from this one.
I'm playing 3-6 and I've got the button with As 6d (best hand all night) in a very loose game with only one decent player. I limped in and this mistake is what began a very humbling experience.
Flop came Ac 5s 9s, SB checked, BB check, check so I bet out, SB check-raise (this player has been known to check-raise with great hands and weak hands, he's a maniac)everyone calls.
Turn 2c, everyone checks to me so I decide to bet out and again get chack raised by SB, should I have folded there? I called again.
River 6s SB bets out and I call beleiving I snaped his bluff and he turns over AA.
I left after that, upset that I let myself be played so well. I'd appreciate advice on how I could have played this better, when I should have folded, and what I can do to not let this happen to me again. Thanks
From your post, it seems as if you already know how to avoid this situation.
If the game is loose, raising on the button to steal the blinds is probably not going to work, so fold and let them chop it if they want. No reason to call here. You save $27.
Once you were already in the hand, and your opponent is maniacal, you are kinda stuck.
If the SB was a maniac as you say, constantly betting and raising with nothing, I would simply call him down to the river and make him show me a better hand. I would not bet into him on the turn with ace no kicker. The flush hitting on the river would keep me from raising with my two pair.
However, a player has to be pretty damn maniacal to make me play this way against him. Against maniacs, I use Caro's advice, (which goes against normal tight aggressive play) - Bet and raise less often and call more often.
Playing this way isn't going to make the SB too much money in the long run. What if he had just called with KK or QQ? You flop an ace, river two pair, call him down and he is dead.
In a very loose 3/6 game with a maniac in the blind, I would probably just pass with A6o and avoid the situation altogether.
you understand that limping in with A6o on the button is a mistake. not repeating that mistake will save you money.spitball
I agree that calling with A-6o even if it's the best hand you've held all night is a mistake. Without commenting on the player who held the Aces play, he didn't so much as out play you as you made your own life difficult. The bet on the flop is fine, you have the nut back door flush draw and top-pair. When the maniac check-raises you, you still have enough value in the hand to look at the turn card because of your considerations of his play, and your back-door draws.
When you get no help on the turn, you need to evaluate taking a free card here. There are other players in the hand so you must consider their presence as well, and you have a vulnerable hand with few cards that will look good on the river. You need to consider folding on the turn when he check-raises you the second time.
Against that opponent, you are pretty much forced to call on the river (given your action on the turn), but you will run into these problems less often if you don't play this hand in the first place.
I gather from your narrative that there was an early limper in addition to the blinds so you limped behind him with Ace-Little offsuit. This is a bad idea because the best flop you can hope for that is reasonable would be one with an Ace. But your weak kicker makes you vulnerable. You should fold pre-flop. If there were no early limper, then you can open with a steal-raise from the button but that was not the case here.
On the flop, your bet is fine with top pair when checked to by 3 opponents. But when you get check-raised by the small blind and the other two players cold-call the raise you are usually up against at least one better Ace. They cannot all be on Spade flush draws. Even the 6s is not a clean out since it could give someone a Spade flush reducing you to a draw. I would fold here.
Having mistakenly called the check-raise, I think you should check here and take a free card rather than bet again. The guy with the better Ace is not folding. When check-raised again, this time on the expensive street you have a clear fold despite the other two players folding.
could I have lost less?
I'm on the button with QhJs playing 2/4 on a full table at Paradise Poker. UTG opens, fold, fold, call, fold, call, fold, I call, SB folds, and BB checks.
*** FLOP *** : [ As 3s 6s ]
Check, check, bet, call, I raise, fold, fold, fold, call.
Two of us see the turn:
*** TURN *** : [ As 3s 6s ] [ Ks ]
Now I have the second nut flush. I bet and get raised. I call.
The river is a Th.
I check-call the river and lose to nut flush of Qs4s.
Was the winners play good? I think I want this person in my games, right? He called with Q4s with two early limpers already in.
Was my play ok?
Thanks,
-Michael
Regardless of how poor your opponents' starting card decisions are, you were still drawing to the third nut straight on the flop. This is usually a bad idea. One reason is, that you may already be drawing dead, the other is, who are you expecting action from when you make your hand? The fourth nut flush?
Generally, in this situation, you will be better off folding on the flop.
Why are you raising the flop bet with only the third nut flush draw and an Ace on the table with all these opponents? If you are going to play, you should just call. If your draw is live, you want players in not out. There is also the possibility that you are drawing dead. If you are going to play then you should just call but I think folding is right. The rest of the hand is a bad beat story.
I'm the SB playing 2/4 on-line on a full table. I have KsKd. UTG folds, call, raise, fold, fold, fold, call || I re-raise, fold, call, call, call.
*** FLOP *** : [ Ah Qh Kc ]
I bet, raise, call, re-raise || I re-raise, call, call, call.
*** TURN *** : [ Ah Qh Kc ] [ 4s ]
check, check, check, bet || call, call, call
*** RIVER *** : [ Ah Qh Kc 4s ] [ 9s ]
check, check, check, bet || call, fold, call.
Winner flopped nut straight. He was button.
Was my play sound? Or did I overplay?
Thanks,
-Michael
The cap on the flop may not have been necessary - I'm assuming (given your check ont the turn) that you already suspected that someone had flopped the straight - in that case I assume your cap was to get some of the other draws to fold. However, its only making the two players in between pay 2 more small bets, which isn't enough to take away the odds for the flush draw or even 2-pair - you don't need to get rid of the one-pairs or the inside-straights really.
So, perhaps you could've saved a small bet...this is pretty much just bad luck.
Had J-J on the button, unraised pot so I raised to about 5 callers.
Flop K-J-10.
Raised my trips to a set of callers, was reraised by UTG!, thought he 2 pair so I capped.
Turn an Ace, worried about a queen now so I just call his bet.
River comes another lovely Ace filling my house. He bets I raise he calls. He told me flopped the straight........ and I don't feel bad about it at all.
Monster situations like these ain't even worth discussing. You shall always raise on a set during the post-flop betting, possibly unless you've flopped the lowest set with both A and K on the table too and a very solid player capped it.
The thing is, if your up against one opponent, there are many hands he could raise you on that would not beat your set. In a family pot, he probably wouldn't raise without two pair. What gives both you and him an excellent reason to raise eachother in this situation even though you are both obviously holding quality hands, and in the end, one has to be worse than the other, is the other callers.
It's a win-win situation for both of you in the long run. A set on the flop will make the house often enough to play a flopped straight and two callers VERY strong (this is while cards are still to come of course). The straight will hold up often enough to play strong as well. The other players are almost handing you money while you and him have a crapshoot over the pot, he'd do the same with set in that situation vice verca and so on. These are pots that everyone gets their fair share of, so when you flop big stuff and there are families in there - PLAY IT AGGRESSIVELY!
I've been having the same trouble myself in low-limit online games, to wit: Do I have to believe the nuts are out there every damned time???
I'm experimenting with most often not believing it, so I would have lost more bets than you did on that hand, because I would have bet out and maybe even re-raised on the turn. I think it's still worth some aggressive play because I fear the hearts and also a lone J or T on the river.
So far, my "don't believe it" approach has been maybe a hair more profitable than the more passive approach (and more fun), but it's been a wild ride. I should note again that I'm talking about the micro-limit $2 games online where many, many people go to the river with any damned thing at all, so I might be getting a little more equity on that marginal flop.
Chris
Chris,
Your question: "Do I have to believe the nuts are out there every damned time???" is not the question to be asking. The trick (and I realize that those 2- 4 tables are very unpredictable) is to put your opponents on a range of hands based on what you know about them combined with what you can put together about their play in the hand before and after the flop. By arbitrarily assigning that kind of value to your opponent's hands, not only are you costing yourself pots, but you are not working on some of the most fundamental yet important skills in the game, namely reading the board and reading your opponent's possibilities.
Re- read S&M, or read it for the first time. If you consider their work to be the gold standard for "tight aggresive" play, you will have a better time anticipating your opponents.
Finally, assuming that you play Paradise Poker, choose a table with a LOW number of people to the flop. By playing at a tighter table, you will find it easier to put the ideas in HPFAP into play because you won't need to adjust for maniacs and LA players.
best of luck,
-captain marlow
I don't think you over played your middle set at all. You could easily have the best hand and you have a ton of outs with two cards to come to make a full house if you don't. In fact, after capping the flop, I think you should bet the turn and not check. If you get raised than you can think about slowing down but with 3 opponents and 10 outs to a boat you still are in a strong position here. At the river your play is fine.
What Jim Brier posted is dead on. Don't even THINK about not hammering away with this hand until the river.
Tough hand. Not a whole lot you can do here.
If you flop a set and don't lose a lot of chips, you didn't play it right.
Paradise $2/$4, extremely loose.
I'm in the Big Blind with Kc6c
EP open-raises, MP calls, I call.
Flop is 7c 7d 5c
I check, EP bets, MP raises, I fold
Turn is 5h
EP bets, MP calls
River 2c
EP shows 99 to win MP shows 88
Thanks
You were getting 9:2 or 4.5:1 on your call. Assuming you don't expect a re-raise and the EP will call it's actually 5:1. That's pretty generous odds for a flush draw with two cards to come. I'd call.
Calling the pre-flop raise out of the BB in the first place was a little more marginal. I'd rather have more than two players.
David
I don't know if this is right or not.With two cards to come the odds of making a 4 flush are 1.86 to 1. You had $13 pre-flop and $6 more on the flop. your pot odds were 19:4 or 4.75:1 . If the middle player calls and you call there is $25 in the pot. You had to put in $4 more to see the river and another $4 to see if someone made a full house or nut flush.At the time you folded you had to put in $12 to win $49. 49:12 or about 4:1 . This ignores the times you will lose to a full house. Most people don't raise a paired board without trips at Paradise's 2-4 game so I don't know how much this reduces your odds. Does anyone know? Also , how much further are they reduced with 2 pair on board? Especially in a game where you can't figure the chances of someone having a 7 or5?Also, if someone makes a full house, theres going to be more raises, how do you take that into account on the flop?
Poorboy,
You also have a backdoor straight draw and an overcard. This adds value to the hand although as it turned out your opponents held some of the straight cards. You have odds to call this flop for sure. A raise is actually ok too.your opponents might drop overcards (thus giving your king out a better chance of holding up if you hit it). And you have odds even if they both call. Raising on the flop will often allow you to get by the turn with one or less bets in many cases and disguises your hand, giving you better implied odds.
Things change on the turn considerably. Drawing to a flush with two pair out there isn't a good idea, so if you make it to the turn I would lead out if I felt there was a chance to win as a semi-bluff. Notice this board is scary to them as you are in the blind and your holdings are much wider ranged. A flop raise would make your semi bluff on the turn better, especially heads up.
The preflop call is a slight loser.
I am guessing that semi-bluffing is useless in these tiny games since the players will always call with any chance of winning. I could be wrong though.
x
I thought about betting out on the flop. Semi-bluffing works pretty good at online $2/$4. Players are loose preflop, but play much better post-flop. They even know when to lay one down.
i disagree. semibluffing doesnt work very well at paradise 2-4. the fish are oblivious to it and the decent players (of which there are far far too many to make the game profitable) know the trick so well themselves that they tend to put people on it and call them down or bet into you. very very frustrating game there.
if you have the bankroll for it, the loose 5-10 and 8-16 games that have been popping up there are much more worth the time of two plus two readers. the fish are really fishy and lame sometimes and the good players like to lay down when the odds arent there. get some more credit cards or something..
Hmm. I don't like playing flush draws in loose games with a board pair. And actually, as it turns out, both the 8 and 9 of clubs might have given you a *very* scary situation. Lastly, someone *could* yet be on a better flush draw than you. Not likely, but yet.
I'd probably call here (and thereby commiting my draw all way to the river unless another 7 fall on the turn), but there are far better situations to play a flush draw in.
I actually won a huge pot at another loose Paradise Poker $2-4 table, limping in on 8-9 spades and the flop giving me mid-pair and a three-flush. Pre-flop raisor (of course this came after my limp) bets out, four callers, I figure I may be behind but there are people playing worse hands than mine and raise. Pre-flop raisor re-raise and there's three callers plus me I think. Turn card is Ace of Spades. Another bet from pre-flop raisor, two callers and I call as well. River is a 10 of Spades, all check to me and only pre-flop raisor call me.
Any comments on this one? Should I have raised on the turn too, with possibly 14 outs of 46 (9 spades, two eights and three nines)?
Lars
The call preflop was marginal, as stated by others. I would have called the flop though with your flush draw with possible backdoor straight and overcard possibilities. Of course, the pre-flop raiser could have something like AQs for the nut flush draw. On the turn, the pre-flop raiser bet again. I'd put him on an over pair and doubt that he has a 5 or 7. I'd be much more worried that the other player may have a full house. At this point, a call becomes very questionable because you may be drawing dead, but if you can somehow read the players (I know this may be tough for online play) and believed that your draw was still good, then I'd call. Tough decision, and I'm not sure what I would have done after seeing the turn.
Yes. You and two others saw the flop for two bets each, 6 total. On the flop there are 9 bets when it comes to you, giving you 9.5:2 odds. You are 4.2:1 to make a flush on the next card, 1.86:1 by the river. Given an early position raiser and a cold caller, it is unlikely either has a 7 or pocket fives. Both may have overcards or a pocket pair, which your draw will easily beat both of. I think you should have pursued this draw unless you were certain it would be capped on the flop and at least raised once on the turn.
If anything, fold BTF as your king is likely dominated thus making it a non-out, plus you are only getting 5.5:1 to call with only two opponents, thus somewhat limiting your implied odds.
The player who cold called with 88 made a mistake. I would either reraise or fold, with folding being the more common choice for myself. Reraise against very loose or maniacs.
havent looked at the other posts yet but in a very loose internet game this is definitely one you want to see to the river. definitely. very bad fold.
3-6 at the Commerce. typical loose-passive ensemble. 2 players are at recess, so it's seven-handed.
I hold A8offsuit in the cutoff and there are two limpers. Do I fold, call, or raise?
Same situation but with A9offsuit. What should I do?
Same situation but with AToffsuit. Same question.
Two reasons why I would call with either one:
1> it's loose & passive, so a raise to potentially trim the field will likely not have that big an effect.. However, especially starting 7-handed, your hand is too strong to throw away.
2> it's loose and passive, so you should have an easier time playing your ace should you flop a pair with it.
M.
Maybe I'm too tight but I think A8o and A9o are total trash. ATo isn't much better but I would call here. If all opponents had passed to me I would raise with all three hands.
I folded both A8 and A9 but not without misgivings (especially since I would have won both hands). (AT was purely hypothetical).
while I think folding is "somewhat best" with A8 and A9, the next best might just be raising to induce "lonely paint" in the blinds -- like Qx -- to fold and possibly neutralize the high card in flops like Q93.
with AT, I say "raise" for the above reason and because the 2 limpers would have raised with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK and probably AQ which leaves only AJ to worry about (in the event an ace flops) and even if a JJ or QQ crouches in wait, I can still flop a mighty ace 1/6 of the time or so.
(n/t)
You need to factor in the hands you'll win by being checked to and then, by being the first bettor, running out hands that would draw out on you.
You cannot play these hands too often however or your competition will adjust.
8 or 9-handed 3-6 HE at the Commerce. after 2 limp, I raise with black aces in middle position, 2 cold-call, the button reraises, call, call, I cap the betting, and all call. one of the cold-callers is now all-in.
the flop comes QQ6rainbow, it is checked to me and I bet. all fold except a woman seated to my immediate right who calls. this woman plays virtually every hand. the turn is a 6. she checks, I check. should I have bet? the river is a blank. she checks and I check. should I have bet?
results to follow.
Since she likes to "play every hand", there's a good chance that she likes to call with hands that don't warrant it. So, I would suspect her on a AK, even a AJ or 99 type hand.
If you bet the turn, you can prepare to fold if she check-raises. If she calls the turn, she may even have as little as ace high.
If she calls the turn, I would bet the river as well. I like your chances of getting called by a lone ace or a random pocket pair..
BTW, if this were a high-limit game with sophisticated opponents, I would check the turn in an effort to induce a bluff on the river. A free card doesn't hurt you in the least..
M.
Check the turn. You may induce a bluff on the end, and since I am calling a bet on the end anyways I would like to increase the chances that she may bluff me.
In my opinion there is no point betting the turn since she will fold if you have her beat, and call or raise you if she has you beat. Looks like a negative expectation play to me. The pot is large at this point and I don't want to fold against a check raise. If she bets on the end it only costs you one bet to call, and you have the extra 23-1 chance of catching an Ace on the river for free. It's quite possible she has a 6 and didn't bet because she is afraid you have a Queen.
If she checked the blank on the river I would consider betting, but this would be opponent dependent (I've played against guys who would check that 6 on the river too, afraid you were setting them up by checking your Q on the turn). If I didn't know my opponent very well I check it down on the river. If you're best you win a nice pot without costing yourself anything, but maybe I'm too passive with a double paired board.
that's pretty much how I read it, Mark. I thought she would be unlikely to call a turn bet unless she held a 6; after the turn was checked through, and she checked again, I think I should have bet because she might have called with any pair higher than a 6 or with an ace and she certainly didn't have me beat (not that cagy).
by the way, the all-in player missed so I scooped the pot.
I think you should bet the turn. When she checks to you in all likelihood she has a good, playable second pair that beats the board. The most likely scenario is that she is hanging around hoping you are on AK. If she check-raises you, you should probably fold. If she calls and then checks the river then you should just check it down at that point.
ordinarily your approach would be irreproachable, but recall I capped the betting preflop revealing my powerhouse. on the other hand, she was such a lousy player, I couldn't even rule out her holding a Q since she might have merely checked and called on the flop with anything less than AQ (she had never raised or checkraised on the flop in several hours by the way). and I felt she was just as likely to be holding a 6 as not because she basically played random combos. still, one way or the other, I missed a big bet.
I haven't peeked yet, but here's my take.
No problemo with the pre-flop action. Get the money in there with bullets. When you bet the flop and only get called by one person, and they check to you on the turn, I think I would still bet. If two or more check to me and I'm last to act, I would strongly consider checking behind them. Checking a strong hand behind this woman is still a very viable alternative, because you do not fear an overcard hitting, but it could give her a slim free draw to beat you if she has a pocket pair or a 6. This is of course offset by the fact that you get the free card if she's setting you up for a checkraise with a Q. You may also induce a river bluff, or a "value" bet from her with a pocket pair or a 6. You would of course call the river if she bets out.
When she checks on the river, I would still bet. One, they have to be really good to check to you twice holding a Q, and you probably don't see this play at LL too much. Two, you have to protect the times you would make the exact same play with Slick. If they see you are capable of checking down a big pair on the turn, they may be less likely to look you up on thin holdings down the road.
if she held a 6, the turn would've yielded her a full house and I would have had 4 outs (2 Q's, 2 A's). also: see my reply to JB above.
I've got to read these a little more closely. When I posted this response, I missed the fact that the board double-paired on the turn. Obviously, if she's got a 6, you are in just as much trouble as if she held a Q, and this would make it more reasonable to check behind her on the turn. However, if she checks twice, I would still bet the river.
let's say there are 8 players, you're on the button, and all but one player has limped. what's the worst suited hand you'd call with? what's the worst suited hand you would (sometimes? often? always?) raise with?
same scenario, except move one seat to the right relative to the button. now what's the worst suited hand you'd call with? and what's the worst suited hand you would often raise with?
If I can suspect 6 opponents to see the flop with me, and I don't suspect the blinds will raise, and I have the button I would play 45s and 78o (this is arbitrary, I haven't really decided on how low of offsuit connectors I would play in this situation, I might go down to 45o, but right I don't do this very often) for my minimums for calling. I would raise with 9Ts often, and Axs always.
In the next situation I would play the same hands for calling, and would raise 9Ts.
I prefer not to draw for straights unless I have to; therefore, I routinely fold 65offsuit and 78offsuit no matter what. (also, in games against many opponents who routinely play any Qx, Kx, or Ax from any position, when the flop comes 66x, I've got a serious kicker problem when holding 65). on the button, with lots of limpers, I usually raise with JTsuited but not T9suited. I figure if the flop comes J or T high, my kicker is decent enough to win more times than not; and with many Q-high flops, I may be able to combine backdoor or inside straight possibilities with middle pair and/or backdoor or outright flush draws. I of course call with T9suited down to 65suited for sure, maybe with 54suited. I don't like raising with suited medium connectors, because if paint is missing from the flop, there's often not much action. when I draw for a straight, I want there to be mucho overlay to make up for those times Mr. Flush upends my made hand. I'm continuing to experiment with other suited combinations like Qx and Kx, even junk like 69suited. my sense is that by calling, I'm coming out ahead though I'm becoming more reluctant to call with these hands when I'm one off the button because of the number of raises I've had to "endure" lately.
otherwise, if I'm positioned one off the button, I tend to raise less often with a hand like QTsuited and not call with 89offsuit.
I'm playing 3-6 and this hand occurs about 15 min. into the game. I'm in middle position with AQ diamonds and this sweet old lady (she will be called SOL) who has bluffed one or two times (failing miserably) is on the button, I raise the blinds, two callers, and the SOL raises, I call as well as the two others.
Flop comes As 10c 4d UTG I bet, two callers and again SOL raises me, everyone calls.
Turn was a 6h and it was checked to SOL, at this point I beleive I should have folded, would that have been correct?
River was a 5d and again it was checked to SOL, she bet out and I folded, should I have called her down here? The two other callers folded too. I never saw what she had.
Normally I think this would be a pretty borderline question but about half an hour later she began bluffing every pot. And I felt as though she stole that poot from the three of us, maybe I'm just jealous that she got me to fold the hand.
Yes.
You said you had been playing for about 15 minutes and saw her bluff unsuccessfully twice, that sounds like a fairly high bluffing frequency to me. But had you played with her before? You didn't mention this. You need to consider how aggressive she is with her made hands and with her bluffs. If you had played with her before and knew that when she bet with this type of strength she had a great hand then you might be able to fold, but even then I would probably call because of the size of the pot. On the river there is 15 BB's in the pot, I definitely call this lady down based on your description and the pot size.
Obviously this lady doesn't fit into the usual little old lady mold.
Against an LOL (Little Old Lady) I would fold but against your SOL who has a track record of being unreliable I would call her down every time.
Typical game condition. On turn a three flush card fall, with 3 players behind you, check or bet? Let's say somebody raised on the flop, and someone cold called two bets, now check or bet?
I think it seriously depends on the other cards on the flop as well, but I definitely be thinking about betting out on the turn in both cases. I would be more leary in the second case, where a player cold called 2 bets on the flop, but I depending on my opponents on this hand I would still bet most of the time I think.
When you say "early positon with trips" do you mean that you have a set and three opponents? Or do you mean you have trips in that there is a pair on the table? In general, you can still bet here because no one may have a flush and even if they do you have 10 outs to beat a flush.
I am in early position with ThTs. I raise. Button calls, blinds call. Flop comes 3 baby spades.
The blinds check and I bet out, the button raises.
I reraise. Button calls. Turn is an offsuit blank.
I bet and button calls.
River is a spade. I check and call to AsTd.
The pot was big enough that I should call right? I figured there was a big enough chance that he was just one of the following:
1. a fish timidly calling with a baby flush but betting the river thinking I had no spade when I checked.
2. a fish foolishly drawing to an 8 or 9 high flush.
3. a decent player making a move on the river figuring me for a weak spade flush or figuring I had no spade and was betting all along fearing the last spade (which was the truth).
Was this a correct pot odds river call?
natedogg
I would call the river here. You are getting 10-1 on your call so as long as you think you have around a 9% chance of having the best hand you should call.
I think I would have played the flop and turn a tiny bit different though. I would have just called his raise on the flop instead of reraising, to see what the turn brought, and if it was a blank I would bet out again, and folded to a raise since few players will semi-bluff twice in this type of situation so I think that I was facing a made flush or at least two pair when I was raised on the turn. I save one small bet in this case, but I don't think your flop reraise was wrong, it just isn't really my style.
You played correctly but I like Mark Dodd's approach here about just smooth calling the raise and then leading on the expensive street with your over pair when a blank turns up.
blind position. Holding: 56. Flop: 347 off suit. with 3 players behind me. I am wondering what is the best way to keep them in. Assuming that players are typical players, so that if I check raise, then bet the turn, most players without a good draw and has nothing better than A7 will fold. If check call and then check raise, there's a good possibility no one will bet the turn. I am thinking maybe bet, bet is the best way to keep them in. Any opinions?
You need to understand that while you currently have the nuts, your holding is vulnerable to being counterfeited especially with a lot of opponents. Suppose a Five or a Six turns up? Now anyone with a Five or a Six in their hand has the same straight you have which cuts your equity in half. If no one has one of these cards, they may get scared when a Five or Six turns up and fold anyway if it gets bet on the expensive street. Other bad things can happen as well. Suppose everyone gets a free card and a two flush turns up? Now all of the sudden there could be a flush draw out against you on the turn so players are now playing correctly by hanging around to hit their flush.
I think the best way to play this hand is to simply bet and raise at every opportunity while you are still in the driver's seat. If everyone folds be happy to win what is out there. But don't set yourself up to lose a pot here by trying to finagle an extra bet downstream.
2-4 Paradise, just sat down and don't know anything about the players.
I'm on the button with AQo. There are 3 callers and a new player who posts when it gets to me.
I call.
Small blind calls and big blind checks. 7 players see the flop of Ac6h9c.
3 players check, and someone bets out. 1 player folds and the next player raises.
I re-raise.
2 callers and the original raiser caps it.
I call and so do the other two players. 4 of us see the turn, which is 3d. Checks to the capper who bets.
I call.
So does everyone else and the same 4 players see the river come 8d. Checks to the capper who bets again.
I...
Any thoughts on this hand - what you would put the other players on? What would you have done on each street?
My thoughts and the results later...
~DjTj
I would play it the way you did. One could argue that 3 betting on the flop with top pair/top kicker is over playing your hand but not in a tiny game like this were most of the players are unaware. Furthermore, there is a two flush on the table so between the bettor and raiser one could have top pair and the other just a flush draw. However, when it gets capped you need to slow down and plan on just calling to the river unless a third Club shows up and all hell breaks loose.
I think you can probably fold on the turn when you don't improve.
While there can be some maniacs on 2-4 Paradise, it is highly likely that the capper actually has a hand, I would put him on a set. Your only chance here is that he was way overplaying a flush draw and even then you are not sure of having the other two players beat.
If you are going to call two more big bets, you have to win the pot 20-25% of the time to make money here. I think you are bigger than a 3 or 4 to one dog.
Paul Talbot
Tough hand.
This is one of those hands you don't want before you have a feel of what the players are like.
Since we don't know anything about the players, we don't know if the capper is a maniac. Even so, only a pure maniac would cap the flop without two pair or a set, and pure maniacs are hard to find. So I would have folded on the turn after he bet.
This is a good information hand though. By that, I mean that it tells a lot about how the other 3 players will act in the hands to come. If you get to find out what the players held, anyone that saw a capped pot with less than top pair is a total fish, which is likely with so many people in the pot, and if the capper had less then top pair, then he's a pure maniac. To me, even though you might lay down top pair to a set, you'll get you money back by the end of the session.
oops. Two card fulsh makes the situation different. Still, I think I would have folded on the turn, but it wouldn't be too bad to call. If I did call on the turn, I would have called on the river too, after the flush card didn't hit.
As for being an information hand, not as much as I thought it to be.
oh well, this thread is already way down on this forum, but basically, I had put my opponent on a good hand and felt like I should've folded the turn also.
Once the river came I thought I would make up for my mistake by folding then, only to see the capper turn over 7c8c and another player winning the pot with A4o. I folded the winning hand in a rather large pot, one of the worst mistakes possible. *sigh*
~DjTj
Here is a transcript of a hand I recently played at PP, the descrition of my thought process follows.
Game #43725637 - $3/$6 Hold'em - 2001/01/10-21:40:28 (CST)
Table "Kadavu" (real money) -- Seat 4 is the button
Seat 1: Jeffer ($236 in chips)
Seat 2: SUZIE Q ($205 in chips)
Seat 3: glove ($461.50 in chips)
Seat 4: anons ($164 in chips)
Seat 5: Scratty ($179 in chips)
Seat 6: GandalfGrey ($214 in chips)
Seat 7: jtpac ($102 in chips)
Seat 8: 02binla ($94 in chips)
Seat 9: whiskey ($50 in chips)
Seat 10: Fast Corky ($111 in chips)
Scratty : Post Small Blind ($1)
GandalfGrey: Post Big Blind ($3)
Dealing...
Dealt to GandalfGrey [ Ad ]
Dealt to GandalfGrey [ Jd ]
jtpac : Raise ($6)
02binla : Fold
whiskey : Fold
Fast Corky: Fold
Jeffer : Fold
SUZIE Q : Fold
glove : Fold
anons : Fold
Scratty : Call ($5)
GandalfGrey: Call ($3)
*** FLOP *** : [ 9c 7d 7s ]
Scratty : Check
GandalfGrey: Bet ($3)
jtpac : Call ($3)
Scratty : Call ($3)
*** TURN *** : [ 9c 7d 7s ] [ 5h ]
Scratty : Check
GandalfGrey: Check
jtpac : Check
*** RIVER *** : [ 9c 7d 7s 5h ] [ 6c ]
Scratty : Check
GandalfGrey: Bet ($6)
jtpac : Fold
Scratty : Call ($6)
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $38 | Rake: $1
Board: [ 9c 7d 7s 5h 6c ]
Jeffer didn't bet (folded)
SUZIE Q didn't bet (folded)
glove didn't bet (folded)
anons didn't bet (folded)
Scratty bet $15, collected $38, net +$23 (showed hand) [ 6s 4s ] (two pair, sevens and sixes)
GandalfGrey lost $15 (showed hand) [ Ad Jd ] (a pair of sevens)
jtpac lost $9 (folded)
02binla didn't bet (folded)
whiskey didn't bet (folded)
Fast Corky didn't bet (folded)
Ok, preflop I call out of the big blind against an UTG raiser with AJd. Three of us see the flop. jtpac has been playing pretty tight preflop and hasn't raised many hands preflop in the hour that I have been playing with him. I put him on two big cards, possibly a big pair. Scratchy was an unknown quantity. He had just sat down a little while ago (while I was in the bathroom).
I bet out on the flop because I think there is a chance jtpac will give up to overcards on this flop, plus I have two overcards and a backdoor flush. Like I said, Scratchy was an unknown, but I thought this may be a good semi-bluff spot.
Obviously the semi-bluff didn't work. I figured it was time to give up on the turn. jtpac may have an overpair and won't lay it down, and I'm unsure about Scratchy. I'm ready to lay this down to a bet.
Ok, no one bets, that 6 looks like a blank, I know it didn't help jtpac (he would have bet an over pair on the turn I think) so I think I can dump him and I also think there may be a chance to dump Scratchy here too. The pot is laying me 27-6 for my money and I think it's close to 20% chance for a bluff to work here. I guess not.
I want to know what you guys think of my semi-bluff flop bet, my turn check (and ready to release strategy), and my river bluff. Flame away.
BTW, I used this hand about 15 minutes to value bet QQ all the way through against Scratchy.
I don't like the semi-bluff very much if you knew that Scratchy is a calling station. Mostly because if jtpac also knows this he will be much more likely to draw to overcards and he's sure to have you either dominated or beaten at this point. Although you didn't know this about Scratchy, I probably would have assumed it in a 3/6 game. I don't give low limit players credit for tight play until they show me and I only bluff against people that know how to fold. But for all I know online may be quite different.
If you are going to try the semi-bluff, I think in this case you should have fired off another round on the turn. I wouldn't have given jtpac credit for an overpair unless he raised the flop. With just overcards alot of people will peel one off, but fold on the expensive street.
The river bluff after the turn check is fairly likely to get called by AK high or AQ high or any pair. Whether to make it depends entirely on your assessment of your opponents. Clearly in this case it was correct since it would have worked if Scratchy hadn't caught a pair on the river.
David
Here is a hand where I think I misplayed JJ. My comments follow
Game #43732379 - $3/$6 Hold'em - 2001/01/10-22:06:08 (CST)
Table "Kadavu" (real money) -- Seat 10 is the button
Seat 1: Jeffer ($192 in chips)
Seat 2: SUZIE Q ($183 in chips)
Seat 4: deester ($94 in chips)
Seat 5: Scratty ($224.50 in chips)
Seat 6: GandalfGrey ($190 in chips)
Seat 7: jtpac ($125 in chips)
Seat 9: Bigdraw1 ($69 in chips)
Seat 10: Fast Corky ($81 in chips)
Jeffer : Post Small Blind ($1)
SUZIE Q : Post Big Blind ($3)
Bigdraw1: Post ($3)
Dealing...
Dealt to GandalfGrey [ Js ]
Dealt to GandalfGrey [ Jc ]
deester : Fold
Scratty : Raise ($6)
GandalfGrey: Raise ($9)
jtpac : Fold
Bigdraw1: Fold
Fast Corky: Fold
Jeffer : Fold
SUZIE Q : Fold
Scratty : Raise ($6)
GandalfGrey: Call ($3)
*** FLOP *** : [ 8c 5h 3c ]
Scratty : Bet ($3)
GandalfGrey: Call ($3)
*** TURN *** : [ 8c 5h 3c ] [ 6c ]
Scratty : Bet ($6)
GandalfGrey: Call ($6)
*** RIVER *** : [ 8c 5h 3c 6c ] [ 8s ]
Scratty : Bet ($6)
GandalfGrey: Call ($6)
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $59 | Rake: $2
Board: [ 8c 5h 3c 6c 8s ]
Jeffer lost $1 (folded)
SUZIE Q lost $3 (folded)
glove didn't bet
deester didn't bet (folded)
Scratty bet $27, collected $59, net +$32 (showed hand) [ Ah Ad ] (two pair, aces and eights)
GandalfGrey lost $27 [ Js Jc ] (two pair, jacks and eights)
jtpac didn't bet (folded)
Bigdraw1 lost $3 (folded)
Fast Corky didn't bet (folded)
Ok, up against Scratty against. Been playing with him about 45 minutes now. I have a pretty good read on him now. Loose/passive calling station. Hasn't raised a hand preflop yet (I also haven't seen him show AK or anything either). I raise to isolate him and his reraise just screams AA.
Flop is ragged, and I call with my overpair to see if he will slow down on the turn. The turn gives me a flush draw so I call thinking it may be good. I call the river simply because the pot is big and I need to make sure.
The thing is, I WAS sure. I could have folded the flop and not felt bad at all, but I didn't. I didn't trust myself. I was like 95% sure he had AA's and didn't listen to my gut. What do you guys think?
Flame Away.
I tend to assume loose-passive types will raise pre-flop only with high pairs until they show me otherwise. for the sake of argument, let's meet him sorta halfway and assume that he would raise with any unsuited AK and any unsuited AQ as well as AA, KK, QQ, JJ. that would mean that 18/43 of the time he would be way ahead, 1/43 of the time dead even, and 24/43 of the time you would be slightly ahead. not much here to bank a reraise on. I think you would have been better off just calling before the flop thus inviting several other players to join the fray (calling 2 bets cold is no great stretch for most players playing 3-6), and then playing for a set.
You won't find people on 3-6 capping without AA or KK very often, unless they are maniacs and this guy didn't sound like one.
I think the 3 bet was fine but once he capped you have to be thinking you're in trouble.
I probably would have folded the flop here, or possibly put in one raise to see if he was still willing to keep going. The only problem with that is that a lot of the passive fish on PP would just call you down there with Aces, so you'd just end up losing more.
You have to be happy about getting SuzieQ and BigDraw1 on your table though, 2 of the biggest fish ever to push the mouse :-)
Wardy
Yes it was a great table.
Paradise 2/4 full table. I'm in the BB with AsAd.
UTG folds, call, fold, fold, fold, call, raise, fold || call, I re-raise, call, call, call || call.
The original raiser is a strong player with over $350 in front of him. I expected him to cap pre-flop.
*** FLOP *** : [ 3h 9d 6d ]
check, I bet, call, call, raise || fold, I call, call, call.
I didn't re-raise because of the original raisers lack of capping on the flop has be concerned he may have pocket 9's. Seems DUMB now, but in the heat of the moment I didn't want to put another bet in, so I just called. :(
*** TURN *** : [ 3h 9d 6d ] [ 4h ]
I check (wimp?), check, check, bet || I call (double wimp out), call, call.
*** RIVER *** : [ 3h 9d 6d 4h ] [ 5c ]
checked all around.
Early position player has pocket 7h7c for the straight. I strongly believe I could have forced him out had I check-raised the flop or the turn. Or even bet and re-raised either of those as he would of had to call double sized bets (as he did pre-flop). The pot had 14.75 BigBets in it - 3.5 of them were from me.
Poor play? All comments welcome. Oh, I looked at the hand history. Strong player had KsKc. Other player had Ac2h.
I would definitely raise on the flop, and bet out on the turn hoping to get raised so you can reraise. You let the draws get there way to cheaply. The 7's had no business in the hand for one bet, and even a wild player would fold that trash for a double bet.
"I would definitely raise on the flop, and bet out on the turn hoping to get raised so you can reraise."
are you nuts?
If you bet+reraise the flop you do NOT want to get raised on the turn. Such a raise means you are way behind.
On the flop you must play your pocket rockets fast when a two flush flops. One of your Aces is the "Ace of Trump" so to speak which is worth something because it not only gives you a backdoor draw but keeps someone else on a flush draw from getting too frisky since they have to fear the possibility of an Ace-high flush against them. On the turn, again you must be aggressive and not allow your opponents cheap cards or free cards to run you down.
you played this about as weakly as you couldve post flop. what's with you? you want to raise and reraise every chance you get with AA and a board like this. especially at paradise 2-4.
if you cant show agression with pocket aces than what are you doing playing hold em? paradise 2-4 is tough enough as it is for such a low limit game, dont lose anymore than you have to there.
3-6 Hold Em at the Trop. I have AK Spades on the button, 4 callers in front, I raise, blinds call, limpers all call. 6 players, $36 in the pot pre-flop. Flop comes 4-6-10, 2 hearts. Check to me, I check. I think I should bet here, but every time I do bet with overcards, I get called and lose. What is the right move? What if I bet, get callers, then another blank comes? Do I bet again? Anyway, the turn comes a 5. Checked to me and I decide to bet but am check raised by the big blind. One caller and I fold. He turned a set of fives. How should I have played this hand and why?
Having no pair, no draw, no hand, and 5 opponents I think you should check and hope for a free card. Betting into a field like this is really leading with your chin especially with a two flush on the table. Don't be fooled by all the checking You will not win the pot outright by betting and you will get called by better hands in some spots and even raised frequently. Just check and hope for a free card. If someone bets, you can consider calling although the two flush could kill two of your outs. If it is bet and raised to you, then you can fold.
The play of overcards is one of the most difficult in hold'em. Someone needs to write a book on this subject alone.
How about: "Overcards and Blinds" by Jim Brier.
i've got a little slice of my bankroll already set aside...
But don't you think a raise on the flop would have knocked out the small pairs, such as the 5's? This is why sometimes I raise a hand such as this, but intend to fold on the turn if a scare card shows.
Papio
It was checked to Jeff on the flop so all he can do is bet or check. Maybe a bet will drive out a pair of Fives but anyone with bottom pair, middle pair, a decent second pair like Sevens or Eights, or a weak Ten will hang around. With this many opponents all kinds of holdings are possible. Players will always call here with far more hands than they will bet with themselves. Jeff could even get checked-raised given all those opponents. The point is that while betting may improve his chances of winning the pot it will cost him money and his chances are still pretty slim having no hand against all those opponents in a limit game.
You don't have a hand and you only have 6 outs to hit your hand. With a two flush on board you can only really consider that you have 4 outs, which is equivalent to hitting to a gutshot. But, the big difference between hitting to overcards in this spot, and hitting to a gutshot is that a gutshot draw is to a pat hand (probably the nuts) and with overcards you are only trying to make one pair, which may not even be good if you do hit. Don't fool yourself into think that AK is the best hand against 6 opponents on this flop, and most other flops where you miss as well. I would likely check this flop and fold to a bet. You didn't hit, you have Ace high and may be drawing dead, I say save your money for a better opportunity.
A bet saved is just as good as a bet won.
x
I was hoping to add a question to this post:
Was the pre-flop raise appropriate given the 4 limpers ahead of the button? Is this a hand/situation/position where a call is better?
Steve Keith
A raise is definitely the right play. Hands like AKs, AQs, etc. play well in multi-way pots so a raise is definitely the right play. I would raise AKo and AQo as well in this type of situation. If memory serves me in HPFAP21 S&M advice not raising AQo (not sure about AKo) in this type of situation because it plays well with a smaller pot (this was in the loose game section I think). I disagree with this somewhat, I think you have the best hand and should punish the limpers and destroy their implied odds by raising their trash hands. This is how Abdul and Izmet recommend playing preflop, and I like it better for this type of situation.
Hi,
3-6 with BB 3 and SB 1.
In the BB with Axs or Kxs, EP raise and 4 callers to me. Call or fold?
Same question for SB.
Also, any good arrticles or books on Blind's playing?
Thanks,
Am learning Omaha hi/lo. Playing 3-6 with full kill. Question is - given a similar situation (number of callers, position etc) should one tighten up an extra notch, when the kill is out. So for example perhaps not call with a hand in early position that is marginal?
I guess the same question would be true of Hold-em and other kill games.
This Kind of Qualifies as a bad beat story but instead of being annoyed by this, I found it Truly amazing.
Take a look :)
Ps note the the cold calling of the preflop raise, and the flop raise by "Banken"
Apologies to those who can't decipher PP logs but I think this reads better unadulterated....
Table "Malolo" (real money) -- Seat 1 is the button Seat 1: banken ($246 in chips) Seat 3: jackdrake ($159 in chips) Seat 4: Big Pimpin ($148.50 in chips) Seat 5: Wardy ($70.50 in chips) Seat 6: bill74 ($268 in chips) Seat 7: poosygalore ($127 in chips) Seat 8: cero_z ($194 in chips) Seat 9: bobbyb ($113 in chips) Seat 10: BigBetGary ($27 in chips) jackdrake: Post Small Blind ($1) Big Pimpin: Post Big Blind ($3) Dealing... Dealt to Wardy [ Tc ] Dealt to Wardy [ Td ] Wardy : Raise ($6) Big Pimpin said, "nh" bill74 : Call ($6) poosygalore: Fold cero_z : Fold bobbyb : Fold BigBetGary: Call ($6) banken : Call ($6) jackdrake: Fold Big Pimpin: Call ($3) *** FLOP *** : [ 8s 9c 6s ] Big Pimpin: Bet ($3) Wardy : Raise ($6) bill74 : Call ($6) BigBetGary: Fold banken : Call ($6) Big Pimpin: Call ($3) *** TURN *** : [ 8s 9c 6s ] [ 4c ] Big Pimpin: Check Wardy : Bet ($6) bill74 : Call ($6) banken : Call ($6) Big Pimpin: Call ($6) *** RIVER *** : [ 8s 9c 6s 4c ] [ 2s ] Big Pimpin: Check Wardy : Check bill74 : Check banken : Check *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $76 | Rake: $3 Board: [ 8s 9c 6s 4c 2s ]
banken bet $18, collected $76, net +$58 (showed hand) [ 5h 3c ] (a straight, two to six)
jackdrake lost $1 (folded)
Big Pimpin lost $18 (showed hand) [ 9s Kd ] (a pair of nines)
Wardy lost $18 (showed hand) [ Tc Td ] (a pair of tens)
bill74 lost $18 [ Qc Jh ] (high card queen)
NH Mr Banken Sir, and Well played.
If you don't thing like that...play in a 20-40
Yor message is almost un-readable ! You can do better than that ! When you copy - copy also some of the bad stuff in the top of the transscript/message - you thereby get 'broken lines'.
PussyGalore is tight - banken is not - just a wild guess - I don't really know him.
.../ Jack
when I logged on yesterday, I put my name up to play in your game but by the time I got a seat, Banken was gone...spitball
Are there any competitive online free games to practice on? Any help is much appreciated. This forum rules.
Give Ultimatebet a try. They are in beta and are offering a contest for whoever logs the most hours in play time.
Barry
I've never played at the site Barry Martin reccomends, but I used to practice using GPKR. You can often find competetive games on their (once you make enough of a bank roll to move up in limits).
He is talking about IRC poker.
The client can be downloaded at:
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~gregr
games are slightly loose (3-5 seeing the flop), but nowhere near the crap at paradise, etal. You can even run a bluff sometimes. Most players are regulars and will help you with the technical stuff.
It was down a while and everybody's bankroll was reset, so the 2 10/20 games are crowded and you have to wait until a seat opens. You start with $1000 at 10/20; when you reach $2000, you can move up to 20/40, but there aren't enough players there yet. there are also tournaments (multi-table), and the 23 handed NL tourney which is a trip.
The interface is great for learning. The players are displayed in table format. The hand group, pot odds, pot size and number of players are displayed. Also all hands are displayed at show down. You can see how bad crap hands really are, how AK plays against AQ, etc.
Also, it plays around 50 hands/hr. If you play slow, 2 players can kick you from the game. But this speeds the game when players have connection problems.
Look for the medium-short-handed games ! Full-handed games will often be super-crazy.
Try pokerpages.com
This hand occurred at a 3-6 table on Paradise Poker. I had just sat down and moved right into the big blind (I didn't want to wait to post after the button) so this is my first hand at this table and I don't know many of the names at my table.
The hand is dealt and I realize that this hand is being playing 5 handed even though 9 players were at the table.
UTG calls, next two fold, and small blind calls. I am dealt As 9h and I check (should I have raised this out of the big blind against two opponents playing 5 handed?) There are 3 players and $9 in the pot.
Flop: 4s 9c Ah. SB checks, I check. Between 80%-90% of the time I would bet in this spot, but the board looked rather ragged and I have top two pair, so I try for a check raise here. UTG bets (good job), SB calls and now I raise, UTG reraises, SB calls the 2 bets and I proceed to cap it. Did I play this flop too aggressively? Still 3 players in and $45 in the pot.
Turn: 5s. Sb bets (Huh?), I raise, now UTG reraises me and SB caps it. It is two bets back to me and I stil have top two pair. I'm now afraid that UTG flopped a set of 4's and the SB may have hit two pair (A's and 5's) or a set of 5's. I decide to call. I've seen too many players overplay there hands online so I still think I may be best. Is this correct? Still 3 players and now $117 in the pot.
River: 2c. SB bets, I call and UTG calls. Pot is $133 (rake).
Any 3 makes a straight on the river, but the pot was large and I don't think a duece helps anyone based on the action so far. I will post the results seperately. I want to know if I played this too agressively. All thoughts are appreciated on all aspects of this hand. Flame away.
SB had 2s 3c for the bicycle on the turn. UTG had Ad Js. I don't think I can get away from this hand on the turn, but I want to see what you guys think. BTW, I made good use of the information I gained from this hand later in the session, but it sucks losing the big pots like this one (22 big bets).
I think you definitely played too aggressively here. First of all, I think just calling preflop and not raising is the right thing to do with your hand. On the flop, you have top two pair, which is in general, a very strong hand. I think the check-raise strategy is good because of the texture of the flop. After the middle player (MP) reraises you, I don't think you have to cap it, but it wasn't a really terrible decision. I would put MP on either 44, 99, or A9.
On the turn, when SB bets, I would actually be really worried. Although I've already skipped ahead and read the results of the hand, I would have guessed that the SB has made a straight or has a set of 4s or 9s. It doesn't make sense why SB would call all the bets on the flop and then bet out on the turn if SB didn't have a very strong hand. I don't like your raise here, and I really don't like it after MP reraises.
On the river, when another straight card hits, and SB still bets, it's obvious that you're in trouble, but I would still make a crying call (but I probably wouldn't call if MP raised).
I was surprised that MP only had AJ. I would have totally misread his hand, but with all the raising, I would have felt that you did not have the best hand by the turn. I don't know what SB was doing calling all the raises on the flop with 23, but I guess I've witnessed stranger plays.
One question. If the river came a blank (like a 7 or 8), what did you plan to do if SB bet? Would you have raised again or just called?
I was calling the river unless I tightened up, in which case I would raise. I was fairly sure that I was beaten, but I was going to make a crying call here. If MP had raised on the river I would have folded. I seriously could not put the small blind on 23, just didn't even pop into my head as a consideration.
As soon as SB bets out on the turn, I assume a set or a str8. You are behind. Furthermore, why is Mr. AJo re-raising on the turn? Strange, but then I would know I was pulling mighty slim. If he raised on the river, then I shout 'collusion' but he didn't.
One more point: Mr. Str8 is pretty bad, playing 23 to 4 bets on the flop.
Mark
This hand happened several months ago, but it still bothers me. I believe my reasoning was sound, but I'll leave it up to you to decide:
UTG (loosey goosey) decides now would be a good time to post a $6 straddle. The player to his left says, "Hey, that's a fine idea, I'll straddle to $9!". At this point, I'm next to act and see AQo. Pre-flop isolation opportunities are rare in low limit, so I decide now would be as good a time as any, so I bump it to $12. It gets folded around to the button who calls 4 bets cold (play foreboding music here). The straddlers both call without looking at their cards.
Flop comes 9 high rainbow rags. Straddlers look at their cards, and both check. I bet out, hoping to scare the blinds out, and maybe the button too. I didn't know anything about the button, he was a younger guy who had just sat down. As I bet, the 2nd straddler says, "Oh, you have a REAL hand!" Both straddlers call.
Turn is an offsuit blank, no real straight or flush draws out. Straddlers check, I bet again, button calls, straddlers fold. At this point I figure either the button is chasing his 2nd pair, or he's just really really passive with his overpair.
River is a J. I bet, button calls, I prepare to muck my Ace high and the button turns over...
AJo??
Anyway, results aren't really what are important here, was the isolation play a good one? If I do this 10 times with the same cards and the same players (and different flops, obviously), would I come out a big winner? Small winner?
Thanks for any input.
GB
I think it's a great idea. The board simply missed you. The button likely put you on big overcards trying to isolate the gamblers so he called with his big overcards. He probably figured his AJ might hold up without improvement. It improved though.
I like your play except that the straddlers could hold a VERY wide range of cards including cards already on the board. I probably would have checked.
-Michael
I think you have a wonderful value raise pre-flop, against 2 random hands. But don't expect to isolate them, at this limit. If the button is a typical 3-6 player, he is not cold-calling 4 bets by S&M standards - he could have a lot of different decent hands.
Once the flop comes without an A or Q, you basically have a drawing hand. I play with an awful lot of low limit players who will call to the end with any pair, and with the pot this big, that is probably close to correct play here anyway. (especially if they know you like to bet your unpaired overcards !!??!! You didn't say how well they know you.) I suggest a check here, hoping to get a free card. Same on the turn and the river. With 3 hands out against you, someone is going to have a pair, and someone is going to call you.
Due to pot size, you can certainly call a single bet on the flop and turn as a draw, and probably pay off one bet on the river.
Now I'll look and see what he had.
Dick
Online $2/$4 game, I am on an incredible 2 day rush up about 175BB (100 @ .50/$1 75 @ $2/$4)
Thats even after this hand.
I get Qh3h in the Big Blind
UTG limps,EP limps, CO Raises, Button Cold Calls, I call, both limpers call. $21 pot
Flop is 9s Th Tc
I check, UTG checks, EP bets, CO Raises, Button cold calls, I CALL, UTG folds, EP Calls. $37 pot
Turn is Kh
I check, EP bets, CO calls, Button folds, I call. $49 pot
River is 5h (WOOHOO!)
I check, EP bets, CO calls, I raise!, EP RE-RAISES (uhoh), CO folds, I call.
EP shows his flopped boat with 99
With a paired board, should I just check-call the river? Should I have even been chasing?
"I get Qh3h in the Big Blind"
Q3 suited is very marginal, but whenever I'm getting 7:1 or better I'm calling out of the blinds OR from late position with a suited paint.
Calling 2 bets on the flop was way more marginal than the pre-flop call. Although I am still getting pretty good odds. (math gurus feel free)
Betting out on the river would have cost me just as much as the check-raise.
"Q3 suited is very marginal, but whenever I'm getting 7:1 or better I'm calling out of the blinds OR from late position with a suited paint."
This play is surely -EV (and you were only getting 6:1 when it came back to you). You really only have one way to win, flopping a flush or four flush draw. Having only one way to win is not good enough to call a non-steal raise with, especially in the worst position.
On the flop you are getting 7:1 when you have essentially nothing. You are a lot worse that 7:1 to backdoor your flush and even if you do the paired board means some of your outs kill you plus you could lose to a higher flush.
Hope the rush continues, good luck,
Paul Talbot
"Calling 2 bets on the flop was way more marginal than the pre-flop call. Although I am still getting pretty good odds. (math gurus feel free)" "Betting out on the river would have cost me just as much as the check-raise"
First of all, there is no way I call a raise with Q-3 suited even if I am the big blind. This hand is trash and needs a miracle flop to survive. What if you flop just a queen? You are probably outkicked and in a lot of trouble with that many players. Flop comes with a pair and it gives you a runner-runner flush draw. How could you call 2 bets cold with this holding when it is very possible you are drawing dead, and it is very unlikely you will hit your flush? I guess if you are still in it, your play on the turn and river is ok (though I too would bet out on the river and call the raise). You were literally giving away money on this hand.
Jeff
Paradise $2/$4
I'm in the SB with QsJs
UTG folds, EP1 limps, EP2 limps, MP1 limps, MP2 limps, LP limps, CO Raises, button folds, I CALL, ALL LIMPERS CALL. $32 pot
Flop is Ks Td Ts
I CHECK, BB folds, EP1 checks, EP2 bets, folded to CO who calls, I CALL. $38 pot
Turn is As (Woohoo!)
I CHECK, EP1 bets, CO calls (dangit), I raise, both call. $62 pot
River is Qd
I BET, both call. $74 pot
EP1 show JcTc for Broadway CO shows QhJh for Broadway I show my Royale with Cheese
Could I have value bet/raised anywhere without driving them out?
The guy with trips on the flop and broadway on the river wasn't going anywhere, and the other guy had an open-ender on the flop and made broadway on the turn, so he wasn't going anywhere either. An open-ended straight flush draw deserves to be bet and raised at every opportunity, and when you HIT your draw, there is no excuse for not making the pot bigger. Here's the way the hand should have gone:
Flop: You bet out, EP1 (with trips) raises you, CO calls with his open-ender, you re-raise, and the other two call.
Turn: You make your hand, you bet, they call, maybe CO can find a raise now that he's hit hit broadway, but probably not since there's a flush out. Then again, you bet on the flop, so he may just put you on trips.
River: You bet out again, and raise if given the opportunity.
I think you missed anywhere from 2 - 6 bets here. But overall, not so bad.
GB
My obviously flawed thinking:
Flop: I don't want to bet out because I want to keep as many people in as possible. If I bet out and then I'm immediately raised, everyone may fold back to me. By checking, I'm 99% sure to keep at least one other person in. Thats 2 sb.
Turn: since I check called the flop, it is not going to get checked around. So I go for the check-raise. This adds 2BB.
River I bet out, both call.
I think my way I made 3BB more than I would have your way. This is assuming I don't know what the others have. Your way seems to assume everyone made a hand.
What I prolly should have done is check called the turn and check-raised the river. This would have given me the opportunity to 3 bet if one of the broadways raised on the river.
At no point did I think it was going to get checked around.
I have turbo texas holdem , original packaging and manuals that I would like to trade for original turbo omaha hi/lo. The holdem version is just one year old I believe there has been one subsequent release since I bought it. Anyone want to trade software. THANKS.
This is legal and ethical because they are both original. It is the same as trading a CD, DVD, LP, car, etc etc.
i get pocket kings in the early position, everyone folds except the puck and the BB.
Flop comes 3HAS6D, bb bets i call puck calls,
turn is an AD, BB bets i fold, Puck calls
River is an ace BB bets again puck calls
BB turns over 67 off and puck wins it with pocket Queens
Was this the right fold? The puck was new to the table
so I was not sure what he had but I have seen the BB
play Ax couple of times, Plus in low limit you alway get people like that play Ax
Or should i have folded on the flop? how would you guys play this hand?
With only three players, and having seen the way 2/4 games go on Paradise, I would have popped BB for a raise on the flop. If you get re-raised, then you can fairly say you are in trouble. Laying down KK with three players to one small bet is not good in my opinion.
If you are not re-raised, you can figure an A with a bad kicker, or maybe a smaller pair. If BB is on some kind of draw (would have to be a lucky hit out of the blind given the board), then make him pay. If BB bets out, then you have some choices to make. If no bet - fire away.
I'm not sure how the betting went pre-flop. You should have raised BTF. And raised the flop when BB bet out. This way you can get a better read on your opponents holdings. When and the river come out aces, this only makes your hand look better - especially if your raise on the flop is not re-raised. If you're re-raised on the flop, you're probably beat when the A comes out on the turn.
Gotto play those K's fast and hard - but know when to slow down too. Things I'm still learning.
raise BTF, raise the flop, lead bet the turn. spitball
raise the flop. if they both call, it's looking good. If you get re- raised muck those losers. Your next best option here is folding immediately, followed by the distant third option of calling. When you call, you are practically guaranteeing a bet into you on the turn.
That second ace is scary, but you should be happy to see it. It increases the chances of your hand being the winning one. In fact, it's the best card that can possibly come for you because additional aces are the only cards at this point that won't weaken your hand (even a lowly 2 could give someone a set or two pair, though it isn't likely). If you had raised the flop, and there were no re- raises, and no one bets into you on the turn, then it's time to bet.
I disagree with a fold being the second option. With only three players, I'm just not comfortable throwing away KK when so many low-limit guys defend the blinds with weak holdings. I would be more worried about the other caller that called a preflop raise (assuming you raised pre-flop to get all the folds) for two bets instead of just one like the BB.
I think we both agree the failure to raise on the flop is what makes this a bad play, but without more to scare you than a lone ace, I think you have to stick with the cowboys.
Just me... and my mom dropped me as a baby! ;-)
I don't quite understand why you were willign to call a bet on the flop with an Ace there but not willing to call on the turn when the second Ace makes it less likely that one of your opponents has an Ace.
The only reason to lay down on the turn would be because the button called the flop bet. Now with two opponents the chance that one has an Ace is decent.
If you didn't think your hand was good onthe flop you should have folded, if you thought it was good (but chose not to raise) then why would you think it was bad once another Ace comes?
Raising on the flop is an option as well (as opposed to floding, yoru check is probably the worst option). If you are planning on seeing it to the river and just get check called by any Ace from that point, you save a SB checking behind the BB on the river.
(BTW, put suits in small letters, it's easier to read. ie Ad not AD)
Paul Talbot
I did raise before the flop and the button reraised, thats why I figured one of the two had an ace
On the flop, ask yourself how he plays and what he thinks of you. If he's a passive player who thoughtlessly bets every good hand he sees as soon as he sees it, fold. If he's an ordinary player that think's you're passive and might check but will pay him off, fold. In every other case I'd call.
It's hard for an ordinary player in the blind to bet aces on the flop with a preflop raiser behind him. If the raiser has something like KQ or 88, the blind will realize that a bet might kill the action but a check will usually earn a bet. And if the blind's aces are no good, he probably saves a bet by check-calling all the way. If he's ordinary but inclined toward aggression, he'll check-raise with aces far more often than he'll bet the flop.
If I would have called the bet on the flop I definitely would have called the turn. It's a double bet, but the chance of your hand being best went up a lot. The paired top card on the turn is proabably the most successful bluff in hold 'em because players unjustifiably fear being not just beaten but creamed when they suspect a bluff. It makes them feel foolish.
Since I've only posted hands that I've lost. Here's a couple of hands where I won. But I still wonder if my play was sound.
9 handed 2/4 at Paradise Poker. I'm in the BB with 6c5c. UTG calls, fold, raise, fold, fold, call, call || call, I call, call.
With 4 players already in for 2 bets and one player left to act after me (who I believe will call and not raise) I'm getting 1:12 for my call - so I call. I'm also figuring that since an early player raised and most of these opponents called 2 bets cold that they all most likely have big cards leaving the small cards to hopefully come out and keep my hand company.
6 of us see the flop.
*** FLOP *** : [ Kc 3s 9c ]
check, I check, check, original raiser bets, fold, call || call, I call, fold
4 of us see the turn.
*** TURN *** : [ Kc 3s 9c ] [ 2c ]
check, I bet, call, fold || call.
Now I'm almost certain my hand is best, but it's still vulnerable. I think the original raiser has a pocket pair (can't have flush yet). The other player has me more concerned but could have a wide range of hands that lose to my small flush.
3 handed on the river.
*** RIVER *** : [ Kc 3s 9c 2c ] [ Ah ]
Great card for my hand!
check, I bet, Original raiser folds || call.
I win 12.5 BigBets. Other player has KdJs.
Is my thinking through the hand realistic and applicable? All comments welcome.
Here's another flush with low cards -
Full table 2/4 on-line at PP. I'm one to the right of the CO with 4s2s. UTG call, call, fold, call, I call, fold, fold || SB raises (ACK!), BB call, call, call, call, I call.
6 of us see the flop.
*** FLOP *** : [ 8s 3s 9s ]
bet, fold, fold, call, call, I raise || re-raise, fold, call, I cap || call, call.
My thinking is the SB raised pre-flop. He's probably got a big pair or overcards and I have to protect my baby-flush. One more spade and my flush is likely dead, so ful steam ahead!
3 see the turn.
*** TURN *** : [ 8s 3s 9s ] [ 4h ]
check, check, I bet || call, call (I sense I'm in the lead)
*** RIVER *** : [ 8s 3s 9s 4h ] [ 7h ]
check, check, bet || call, fold
SB had 9c9d for a set.
Bad play and good luck? All comments welcome.
-Michael
I think you played the first hand perfectly. You dont want to give a higher club a free card on the turn so you don't risk checking it around. If you know your opponent will almsot always bet here you could check raise, but I like leading out. I think you will also get paid off on the river more ways by betting out than check-raising since some clueless opponents just wont believe you have the flush while a check-raise screams it.
On the second hand I think the call pre-flop is horrible, but your play from the flop on is perfect for the same reasons.
Paul Talbot
Everything is fine except your pre-flop limp with Four-Deuce suited. This should be mucked unless you are in the blinds getting a free play in your big blind or playing in a game where the small blind is 2/3 of a bet so you are only paying 1/3 of a bet to take a flop.
You said that if you have 2-4 suited in the blind and you have money to had , you will do it only if it's the third of a bet ( for exemple the SB in a 15-30 is 10 , you add the 5$ ) . When there are allready 5 limpers I will call whatever if there is a raise but fold if I donot flop at least , a open-ended straight draw or a flush draw or two pairs or triple .
#1 You should have check raise the flop !or at least , bet the flop . By this way , you make the pot bigger . And if you hit your flush , you have more chance to be call when the pot is big #2 Terrible play pre-flop that is a obvious fold except if you have tight image and you want to mixup your play when there are many players in the pot . But it's unless to mixup your play when you play online . But very well played on the flop , turn and river . You need to play that hand VERY VERY AGGRESSIVLY .
Aggressive game, only a little loose. 5- 10 online.
One right of the button with Ah7h
Three limpers to me, I limp, blinds call.
Flop: [Ts, 8h, As]
Bet, call, call, call, raise, I call, call around. BTW, I call here because there was no pre- flop raise, so i don't suspect a bigger ace. Also, because of the raggy flop, the raise could easily be a drawing hand.
Turn: [Ts, 8h, As] [Qd]
All check to me (including original raiser), I bet as not to give a free card. Three players call, including flop raiser.
River: [Ts, 8h, As, Qd] [4s]
Check, check, flop raiser bets, I fold, one caller.
Did I take this too far to begin with? Is this a good laydown with 14 big bets in the pot?
I’ll post results later.
I don't like the call on the flop. Granted, no pre-flop raise but A7 is not a lot of strength. I think calling is the worst thing to do here. Either get out or pop it again to hopefully get it heads-up. There were a lot of callers in front of this guy meaning a lot of drawing hands or others who have caught a piece of the flop. The raise represents a decent Ax, or maybe two pair. By not raising, you are letting a lot of people off the hook here. The turn check now shows some weakness, so the draw, weak ace, or second pair are strong possibilites, with the draw and second pair leading the way since those are the hands that would most likely shy away from betting out after a flop raise with so much competition (afraid of the ace or looking for a free card). Without knowing more about the players, a fold may not have been a bad play.
Based on the rest of the hand, I suspect the raiser was probably on a flush draw and caught it on the river.
Take it for what it is worth... I'm still learning.
I think the call on the flop is horrible unless you are very familiar with the raisers play and you know he doesn't have an Ace (in which case you should three bet). While it could be a drawing hand, the original better may have you beat already anyway. I think you should get away from Ace-little here.
On the river I would go ahead and call since you only have to be right a small amount of the time. you are probably dead, but the chance that a worse Ace checked the turn because you called and then bet the river as a bluff is great enough that it warrants a call. Of course you don't have to make that decision when you fold on the flop.
Paul Talbot
Your flop call was dreadful. When it is bet with multiple callers and then a raiser, you are frequently playing 3 outs at best and even the 7s cannot be viewed as a clean out. Someone could easily have Ace-Nine or Ace-Jack or even Ace-Queen and not have raised pre-flop. You could even be looking at two pair.
What really confuses me here is why the raiser is checking the turn, because if he did have top pair good kicker, why raise the flop and not bet out or check raise the turn?
I put him on a flush draw, and semi-bluff raise on the flop, he might hold something like 8sXs, where X does not equal an Ace. Probably a King?
It seems like this guy has called on crap pre-flop before, and played them aggessively. You might want to consider that when deciding to call the flop or not, IF there was less people in the pot. Because in this situation there was a lot of people in the pot, a fold on the flop would be best. Most likely one of those other guys has A-(better kicker) than 7.
original raiser has A6. i would have had him if i called. but after reading these posts, i agree that sticking around after that raise was lunacy.
thanks for the input.
-captain marlow
If he has A6 and you have A7, then with a board of:T8AQ4 it looks like you would be splitting the pot since your 7 would not play.
THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT FIGHTING WITH TOP PAIR
If you dont have the best kicker than you would rather have middle pair or even bottom pair any kicker.
Top Pair is DO OR DIE
You should be folding top pair on the flop more often than most people realize.
It looks like you fell into the ace trap.
You do have top pair with a backdoor flush draw. However, it is 2 bets to you. With a spade draw, you are going to have to put in more bets if the turn it not a spade. Because of this, I think the correct play is to fold to the raise or 3 bet in an attempt to get heads up or 3 way on
OK, here's my first post of a hand played. I badly misplayed this hand and I was kicking myself all night long about it.
4-8 game. I am SB with AQ unsuited. Preflop 6 callers including myself. Flop is QTx rainbow. I raise with top pair and A kicker. Two middle players and cutoff call, all others fold. Turn is 4 of the 4th suit. I raise again, both MP fold, CO re-raises. I take a second look at the board. No flush or straight draw. So I put him on a low two pair or set 4's, most likely the latter because he is a fair to average, passive player. I call. First mistake?
River is a Q. When I saw that, all that went through my mind was, my trip Q's beats his trip 4's! I raise, he hesitates, then re-raises. This is when it hit me. I read him for trip 4's, there's a pair on the board, that gives him a full house, you idiot! I fold. Should I have called anyway? When he hesitated on the re-raise, I figured he was wondering if I had Q's full, and should he re-raise with 4's full. This is why I folded. Second mistake?
I ended up the session with a $140 win. This was my 6th winning session in a row, after starting off at playing HE for the first time with 5 losing sessions in a row. So I guess I'm improving, but this hand really bothered me because I played it so stupidly.
Papio
According to my calculations (although Im not sure, since you always seem to lead the betting with a raise?), there looks to be $144 in the pot after his last re-raise. You need to be about 95% sure of his pocket 4's to fold here. I probably put the last $8 in just to be sure.
I also am not sure about your read of him as a "passive player" given that he reraised you twice.
David
David,
Sorry about the confusion. You can tell I'm a novice. What I meant to say was that I bet first on the flop and turn.
Yeah, he was a passive player. Very seldom raised and this was his first re-raise in approx. 3 hours of playing. That's why I was almost sure I was beat.
Papio
Tough hand.
Three ladies is a pretty tough laydown even in this situation.
I would have check called the river.
You were probably beat on the river, but in a game full of players who don't play very well, for one bet, with A-Q, in this pot I'm going to make him show me a hand.
You may want to strongly consider check-raising the flop with this kind of hand on that type of board.
My guess is that you were against q-10 or those nasty 4's, (or even q-4), so the net effect of your fold was probably negligible. It would be better to check-call than bet fold here.
Something to think about away from the table so that you know what to do when the situation arises: If you put your opponent on a hand that you can't beat even if you improve, then a card falls that presumably helps both you and your opponent, don't bet if you will fold for a raise. Once you've called him on 4th street, in some ways you've made a commitment to pay him off. You're often better off making the decision right then on 4th street as to the level of commitment you have to your hand. Otherwise, you've wasted your 4th street bet.
I'll give you an example from my play. I was playing $2-$5 spread limit hold'em and looked at J-J UTG. I just called. (This was because the button was raising very often). My plan was to re-raise and isolate him. Instead, a middle player raised. His standards for raising hands is wide enough that I thought my jacks were probably in the lead so I re-raised him. (Everyone else folded in between us). He made it $17 to go. I blinked and just called. The flop came queen high, with unrelated rags (rainbow). I checked the flop and he bet. I made a decision right then that he didn't have A-Q or an overpair. Notice that the correct play here would be to check-raise, but he is a customer and I didn't want to make him mad, so I just called. I had decided to pay him off if an over-card didn't fall. The point became moot because I caught a jack on the river, and I never saw his hand.
Although it is easier to make a decision to pay someone off when you aren't paying a double bet, the principle still holds. Either you make the right read and you win or you make the wrong read and you lose. Either way, believe in your reads and make a commitment to them. This will make it more important to make the right reads, of course!
I know in this circumstance it was a momentary mental collapse, but other occasions will arise where you are faced with the same decisions.
I don't really get this implied odds thing. Once I am at the turn it is very simple to just count my outs, check how big the pot is and know if I am getting correct odds to call a bet. It's when there are two cards to come that I find it more difficult. I was trying to figure out this one out but I ran into trouble.
Lets say I have QJ of hearts and the flop comes Kc 10h 3h.
I have a flush draw plus an open ended straight (I realize this is good to call pretty much anything, but I would like to see how the calculation works anyhow.)
Here is how I (start to) analyze this:
(Assuming if I hit I win).
There are 8 cards for the straight.
(Should I ever assume that aces are more rare than other cards?)
9 cards for the flush (2 of which are the A and 9, so really only 7 more cards).
That gives me 15 outs with 47 unseen cards. 3.13 - 1.
So to call say a $2 bet I would need $6.26 in the pot. But that is only for the next ONE card. I could make it on the river. Do I do that calculation separately or do I combine it with the first calculation which gives me much better odds, but it costs more.
Can someone show me how to do the calculation? Also please let me know what kind of assumptions I am making.
Thanks, Leafsfan
While these calculations are good to know, this is not what everyone is referring to when they write about implied odds. Implied odds consider the money you will make after you make your hand and collect money from your opponents.
The easiest way to calculate your odds with two cards to come is to consider the chance that you miss your hand on both cards and subtract that from all the cases (1). For a 15 out hand:
1-[(32/47)*(31/46)]= ~54%
Ed answered your basic question, but I feel obligated to address one of your side questions:
(Should I ever assume that aces are more rare than other cards?)
No. Ya got four of 'em in the deck, same as the other cards. On the flop, you have no legitimate way of knowing whether they've been dealt (unless you have one or two, of course).
g. ed is correct. you can also calculate this directly, as p(hit on turn) + [p(miss on turn) * p(hit on river)].
however, the question you're asking is not about implied odds. implied odds refers to the amount of money you can expect to win if you hit your hand versus your cost to call. this is not the same as pot odds. in some cases, your implied odds are better than the pot odds (opponent will keep paying off with second-best hand); sometimes they are worse (heads-up pot with someone who may miss a draw and not pay off on the end).
About the aces... say you have 5 or more callers. Say you have no aces, couldn't it be a legit thought that the chances of one or more aces already dealt out is greater then no aces at all?
I went to my local bay area casino last night with a little time to kill. I try to play exclusively 6-12, but the 6-12 list was long, so I decided to sit down on a typical no-foldem, play any two cards, 3-6 table. The table was 9-handed and I was the only tight/aggressive one there. I saw people winning hands with Q4o and 84o. It was scary. I had my reservations, but I decided to sit down and see how it would go.
On one hand, I had KK in middle position. UTG folds, next player folds, and I raise. Two players behind me call, button calls, SB calls, and BB calls. We see the flop 6-handed.
Flop: 8 5 2 rainbow (a good flop for me)
SB checks, BB checks, I bet, the two players after me fold, button folds, both blinds call.
Turn: 10 (no possible flush draws)
SB checks, BB checks, I bet, both blinds call.
River: J
SB says "Maybe my Jack is good" and bets. BB raises. I'm very sure that I have SB beat because I've been watching him play and he has no clue. However, I'm worried about the BB. He's an average player and I think he made two pairs with the Jack. I decide to fold my KK instead of calling the 2 bets. The SB then folds to my surprise. (I know they weren't in collusion because SB dropped a lot money in this game and eventually went broke.)
Now I'm beginning to think that I had the best hand. SB says something like, "I'd be embarassed to show my hand" after the dealer pushed him the pot. I'm guessing that he had something like J5 or J2. Anyways, do you guys think I did the right thing by folding or should I have called the 2 bets?
I decided to quit the game shortly afterwards and go home because I needed to work the next day. That game definitely had a lot of big fish, but I didn't feel too comfortable with everyone calling to the river with lowest pair and trying make a hand. In fact, I only played about 6-7 hands during my 1.5 hours of play. Fortunately, I still managed to leave with a $15-$20 profit.
Yes, I can understand your doubts. There exists the possibility that BB observed your tightness and made a play against you with a worse hand - but, come to think of it, if he really possessed that ability, shouldn´t his overall play have been better too? (Maybe you also gave him a tell when SB bet out?)
"I'd be embarassed to show my hand" - He could have said that so that you call the next time he makes some weird two pair/set/straight on river.
I've been on horrible streak lately. I usually play 3-6 and 5-10... In the past I've won a lot of money but in the past two months or so, I lost about 1000 playing the way i've been playing before. (tight and aggressive). The flop always seems to miss me. Also when ever I have a monster in my hand AA,AK, KK, QQ... it never holds up. I always join the tables with maniacs and high % flop players where i used to take huge pots from the fish but now it's not happening any more. What should I do??? Any comments are welcome.
Wait it out. Bad streaks will happen. What I'll do sometimes is take a notebook with me and record every hand I play. The cards, the position, the action and the result. Then review my decisions the next day. I sometimes find I'm presing a little more, trying to push thru marginal hands.
If your getting frustrated take some time off and relax. It will pass.
In the Second Edition of Lee Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold'em (2000), he recommends calling JTo for one bet from any middle position but never from a late position (except possibly to steal blinds against players who never protect). This appears contradictory to me.
In the "Playing from the middle" section, he describes how any straight is the nut straight and how there is usually a lot of action.
In the "Playing from a late position" section, he simply says to stay away from unsuited connectors unless they are big. Then specifically excludes JTo.
Each section's summary (The Blackjack equivalent of a Basic Strategy table) reinforces those recommendations.
If you can call JTo for one bet for it's straight merits from the middle, why can't you from a late position?
You certainly can.
I have problems playing a pair on the flop after I raised pre-flop. I played this hand the other night: I raised from the BB with KQo with only three limpers, thinking that this hand is strong with only three players in the hand, and I am not worried about anybody slow playing a big hand like AK, etc. The flop is Q J J (r), I'm first so I bet (I think this is correct) and I get one caller. The turn is a blank and I bet again. I have to believe that this is a mistake, because the reason I am betting is that I don't want him to think that I don't have a Jack, (witch I don't) and I don't want to show weakness. Even that I have a Q and a fair kicker the card to have here is a J, an the correct play is to check and call. So I get raised and to make matters worst instead of folding I call. I know he is not bluffing, and now I am "hoping" to catch a Q in the river. Now, I know this is no way to play pocker, and Jim Brier will tell me so. What I don't undestand in why I do it. This was my third day of playing pocker, after two days of over ten hours each day. But this should not be the reason, I am not looking for excuses, but to get to the reason of my poor play. What I like to know is why I don't play corectly when I have to. I am very happy with my overall playing these days, I know that I am improving. I checked the blank in the river. He bets and I call. He shows QJs. This was a 5-10 HE and the player was new at the table and unfamiliar to me. All comments welcome.
kq offsuit is not a great holding here.
once the flop comes, you're either way ahead or way behind, and few cards that come will change that. in fact, if you're way behind (someone has a jack), you can't improve by catching a queen.
keep in mind that typical limping hands include cards like j, t, 8, etc, so you're likely way behind.
you have no bet on the flop and no bet on the turn. i think you have to check and call all the way here.
The Club: thank you for your response. I agree with you 100%, ok? I though that betting the flop was a good idea, instead of checking, this way if no player has a hand I am not giving a free card. But you feel that I should not bet, and I accept your opinion. Also, when I said, that I was hoping for a Queen, I was thinking of both having a full house, queens full. But this is only to explain my thinking, witch is out of desperation in a very badly played hand. I think there is too much discation about bad beats in this forum. I tell you, bad beats if they come from trash hands or out of position played hands, they just don't bother me. If I play a hand right and I get beat, I don't care, but when a make a stupid mistake in a hand, I get sick about it. I know that nobody plays perfect all the time. I am just trying to keep errors to a minimum. Thank you and I hope to hear from you again. Bye.
oops. careless error in my post. obviously a q does help, but as you're aware, you have only 2 outs.
anyway, you shouldn't just accept my opinon, so i'll illustrate my reasoning. you said you were trying not to give free cards. with top two pair and an overcard kicker, the only free card you should fear is an ace. a ten would make a straight for someone holding 98, but this also gives you an open-end straight draw. if any other card makes two pair for someone else, you always have a better two pair. if a free card fills someone playing a small pair, oh well. not much you can do about that, since they probably wouldn't fold anyway. if you are against someone with a jack, you now _want_ free cards.
so: if you're already beaten, free cards will help you. if you're ahead, free cards won't hurt you very often. that's the reason not to bet the flop. whether you want to call a bet or not is a function of a number of factors, the most important of which are the size of the pot and the chances that the bettor would bet in this spot with less than a set of jacks.
nt
No one has said this but KQo is not that great hand after three limpers and out of position. Your hand is relatively of equal strength as the limpers hands. Lots of players play KQ, KT, KJ, QJ, QT, JT, (broadway cards with no ace) by limping.
I do not think raising here from the BB is such a good move. Anyhow once you flopped top pair decent kicker you end up having to see this one through; unless you have reason to believe otherwise. The only bets you could have saved was not raise KQo from BB and also check-call the turn, and river.
5-10 HE. No raise pre-flop. I have KQo, no diamond. Flop is Td Jd 5d. It is check all around, and turn is the 9d. I am in middle position, there is a bet, I fold. Was this correct? Is there a situation where I should call with this hand? Thank you for your help.
you didn't say how many players, that is important when you are posting a hand. on the flop you almost always are either beaten by a flush or against a flush draw. you do not have enough to continue with this hand. fold and be done with it.
dave in cali
I played three days in a row last week. First day I was $ 105.00 ahead. Second day lost the $105.00 plus $109.00.The third and last, I got even and was ahead $160.00 then lost $125.00. Left the place $35.00 ahead. I played 3-6 and 5-10 HE and 5-10 Stud. I didn't need more that $200.00 in chips for all this playing, but I had a $100.00 bill under my chips, just an case. I am curious to know because after years of playing, even that I am playing aggresive now, I am able to stay at the tables very even. I know that I played too many trash hands before, trying to "surprise" the oposition with silly hands, silly me. Thanks.
Three days is not enough data to know anything. You said you've been playing for years. Do you have data on all that time? You can get a good idea of your play after a couple hundred hours, but you really need a couple thousand to know where you are at.
Thank you for your response Talbo. It is true that I have been playing for years, but not very well. I have a losing record. I used to play a lot of trash hands, and I was kind of a maniac, but not a real maniac, and I would go on tilt often. If I need that many hours then I don't have a good record now. But I understand what you are telling me, and I will do that. What I hear on this forum is of great help to me. Thanks again to you and to all the advise I receive from every one.
5-10 HE game, five players in the hand. I got the button with AQo and raise. Flop: Q J 2 r. UTG bets , I raise, two players. Turn is a blank, he checks, I bet, he raises, I call (?). River another blank, he bets, I call. He shows a pair of Jacks. What did I do wrong? I have problems dealing with trips. Comments please...
The check-raise should send a clear message. There's no flush, no straight -- he won't be betting if he's on a draw. That puts him on a made set or two pair. Your top pair/top kicker might be worth raising here, depending on the other player. I'd probably fold after I'm raised on the turn.
I don't like the raise pre-flop. With 5 players already in AQo isn't a great raising hand.
The reason is that what you want to flop with AQo is top pair but if you raise pre-flop after many callers you have made the pot large enough to make it correct for gutshots to call a bet on the flop and 2nd, 3rd pairs with backdoor potential to call on the flop as well.
If your AQ were suited the raise would have been okay since if you flop a flush or flush draw you want those people in there chasing.
Of course this doesn't effect the hand as it was played, but I still think it was a mistake.
Paul Talbot
nt
I'm not shure but I don't like your pre-flop-raise that much - maybe is's no big deal ?
The rest of the hand I would have played just like you did. With any weaker kicker I would have folded.
Thank you for your response but I think that Paul Talbo is correct. I will play this hand like he said in the future, it makes a lot of sense to me. I think that raising was the major mistake in this hand, I am too much of a gambler sometimes.
This is a classic situation where you don't want to make the pot big with your offsuit high cards. Even though they will call anyway, the callers will be making a larger mistake mathematically by calling your flop bet if you haven't made the pot so darn big. Talbot's comments are right on the $$. I could only raise with AQo if there were only one or two players, but after several limpers you should probably just call and see what the flop brings. Suited raise.
dave in cali
3-6 holdem, typical lineup, probably a little tighter than your average low limit game.
Hero calls after 3 limpers with AcJc in the cutoff. 5 see a flop of Kc Qs 9h. Early position player bets out, it's folded around to hero and he raises.
Q1: Good raise? Hero believed that the raise would get him a free turn card in this loose passive game. He also figured an A would also be good.
Turn is a blank. Early position player checks, hero checks.
Q2: Any reason to bet here?
River brings the yummy Ts. EP checks again, hero bets, EP shakes his head and calls with his Qd9d.
Risky raise? Run of the mill free card play? Comments appreciated.
GB
You should often follow through with these type of semi-bluffs. However with this flop, there are not many hands that a reasonable early position player could throw away for a bet on the turn. This makes a semi-bluff less correct in this spot. The hero's turn check is reasonable.
Rob
I don't like this raise here. In fact I would not even consider it a semi-bluff because I don't think you have ANY chance to win the pot right there. The board is too coordinated and it is extremely unlikely that you will push the raiser off his hand and he coudl too easily have something like KQ, K9, Q9, KJ, KT all which he would not give up for a small bet and he might even pop you back. I think you were lucky here that you didn't get reraised or have to call a turn bet.
If you knew your opponent well enough to know that he would not play back at you and that you would get to the river for free then I think it is somewhat reasonible. Your backdoor flush possibility also makes it a little more reasonable, but under normal circumstances I don't think you should raise with a gutshot here, especially against an early position limper who almost certainly got hit by this flop.
Paul Talbot
I believe I WAS lucky that he didn't bet out on the turn again with his 2 pair, but the texture of the game was very loose passive, and I didn't expect to be bet into again. The fact that he checked the river as well should give you an indication as to how passive this game was, for the most part.
Even if the game is this passive, is this still the right play? I figured I had an ace as an out as well, but that wasn't the case here. Is 5 outs enough to make this raise worthwhile? I certainly think it's better than calling the small bet and the big bet on the turn to try and chase...
GB
I would have folded here on the flop since you are only getting 6:1 odds (to call, you are reducing it to 3:1 by raising)and you are 11:1 to make your gutshot. Even if you make it on the turn and get paid off on both the turn and river you don't have the implied odds on the flop plus he may have redraws on the river.
Even with the Ace and backdoor flush possibilities I don't like the play (I don't like calling either). I think you need a couple more bets in the pot to make playing here +EV.
I think the raise here only works against someone you can push off top pair on the turn with a follow through bet. Since it was a passive game you are not going to run this guy off and your only way to win is to make your hand and you just don't have the odds.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Ok, moral of the story, if I insist on playing, raising is the better plan, but folding is the ideal move.
Thanks Paul...
GB
For what it's worth I am not near as against this flop raise. You cannot know you don't have 7 outs. It turned out you had two backdoor shots (don't forget running two pair) and a gutshot against this player. I disagree that folding is automatic here especially against weak/passives who are apt to give out free cards when raised.
Rob
The reason I raised it I was sure it would give me 2 free shots to win the pot, and would cost me 1 sb less than just calling the whole way. Tight aggressive, right? :)
GB
n/t
does an UTG raiser have to be for you to call in the BB with QTo? On a scale from 1 to 10, say, where 1 is raises any two cards to 10 who raises only AA...
GB
Your looking for trouble if you ever call UTG with this unless you can really read/outplay him.I assume you mean everyone else folded back to you.
There were 2 callers, I think, including the SB. How many callers, if any, would make it right to make this call?
GB
If 2 call the raise you are getting 7 to 1 odds, if 3 call you are getting 9 to 1 etc. You can call if 2 or more call but be careful. This hand is dominated by most hands that may raise or call 2 cold. If you don't flop top 2 pair,straight, open end straight draw, or trips get ready to check fold to any heat at all. Where most get in trouble is a flop with a Q as top card.
Well, here's how it went down:
Flop came Q 5 x, no flushes (to my recollection). I much prefer to have pre-flop raisers define their hands by betting into them whenever possible, so I bet out my weak top pair. Raisers calls (he's beat), and SB calls with his AQo (tsk tsk)
Turn comes an offsuit T. If I hadn't hit my two pair here, I would have checked and folded to a bet from the SB. Having the 2 pair I needed to stick around, I bet out again. Raiser calls and SB calls.
River was another 5. At this point, KK, AA, and any 5 beat me. I was 90% sure none of these were out, so I bet again. Raiser mucks disgustedly, and SB calls me down.
After (and during, to be honest) the hand I questioned my pre-flop call. I didn't expect the naked queen to be good enough, but was lucky enough to hit my 2 pr and continued on.
Marginal, or a losing play?
GB
I think you played the hand well as you describe it. Sb should have bet out or raised your bet. I don't know why he check called with top pair, top kicker on the flop.
Lovely passive game that night. SB had lost a few pots in a row, I got the impression he was getting gun-shy. Thanks for the input Tony.
GB
.
no matter what the circumstances, you will not do well at all playing QTo for a raise. this has historically been one of my worst trouble hands, especially if I play it early, raise or not. I have learned though to ALWAYS fold this for a raise, and I no longer play it in early or early-middle position. I will also fold it from any position if a tight player has entered the pot in front of me. in general, I look more for a reason to fold this hand than for a reason to play it.
dave in cali
l
I'm well aware of the problems calling QTo for a raise, I was specifically interested in the position of calling a loose raiser from the BB with it.
After pondering a while on this, I'm thinking that the raiser isn't the main problem, it's the people who call two bets behind him. Many of the hands they'll call with (even in low limit) are the kind that will dominate QT. I'll now slap myself on the wrist for sucking out like I did. heh
GB
nt
n/t
Even though you are receiving better odds, it is still costing you a FULL bet. Let's say the UTG raiser were SO loose, he would raise with trash like AX or KXs or QJo... There will still be many times you'll find yourself out of position against a better hand. In addition, even loose raisers can be dealt premium hands now and then.
Rob
When it's raised and you are in the BB, you are paying a full bet to continue and you should usually fold. limping in for another 1/2 a bet in the SB when it is not raised is a different story and I would usually make this call.
I know that good players will eat me up. That is why I play small stakes. I posted a question in this forum about my problems playing a pair on the flop. Then I went to my books trying to read something about this play, I found Ken Warren's book, Texas Hold'em Poker. In page 177, How to play with a pair on the flop, he tells us everything about this play, I have read this before, but when I am at the tables I don't play accordingly. What is the problem with me?, am I playing too fast, not thinking before I make the play? Or am I not studying enough?, or do I have a bad memory?, or I don't get enough practice, or Am I a fish? Please tell me the true, I will not be offended.
1) warren's books aren't highly regarded in general, so not playing as he recommends might not be a bad thing. read the 2+2 books.
2) only you can answer the question, "am i a fish," and only you can answer the other questions. at some level, you know whether you are a fish or not, and just as you're asking us to be honest with you, you have to be honest with yourself.
becoming a good poker player is not easy. any person on this forum will tell you that. i've read a few very highly regarded books many times each, and i still do things when i play that i KNOW i should not do. many things that you should do at the table in order to win are counter- intuitive. so yes, read 2+2 books and play, play, play. also, keep a poker diary where you can closely and deeply scrutinize your play when the dust has settled and you are out of the heat of battle. i think that if you are able to develop this ability away from the table, then you will calm down enough to make the correct decisions when you are under fire. of course, i'm not there yet either, but these things seem like common sense to me.
good luck.
-captain marlow
You have asked a question that can best be answered by yourself. Only you know why you "don't play accordingly". If you KNOW how to play accordingly, but just can't bring yourself to do it, then the answer you are looking for is, yes. You are a fish and will continue to be, until you are able to resolve some inner issues.
Rob.
In the first place, Warren's book, while it has some good advice, isn't particularly well written and some of the advice is nearly incomprehensible. Other advice is wrong. His advice on playing paired flops hardly contains everything you need to know and #6 (never play a paired flop with just a few of you in the hand because your pot odds are so bad) is bad advice.
Translating text or theory into practice requires a lot of experience. Also, the real knowledge you need to succeed at poker comes from both experience and a lot of thought away from the table. The books are just starting points to help keep you alive while you go through this process. If you rely on the books as the final word on everything, you'll soon realize that they only scratch the surface. Players that watch and think while you're off memorizing charts and other stuff will rapidly surpass you.
Since I don´t possess that book and since you don´t tell us what you think you are doing wrong, I don´t know how I am supposed to help you.
Thank you for your response Greg. I am refering to my post on this forum on 13 January, 2001, at 6:51 p.m.
you will make fishy mistakes as you learn. we all did/do. earning money at the poker table is very hard. scrap the Ken Warren. pick up a copy of Theory of Poker. good luck, keep asking questions. spitball
First off, if you do not play according to the advice you have spent $$ on in buying the books, you are unlikely to improve your play by reading.
more importantly though, you should start off by reading books available on this site:
holdem poker (DS) holdem poker for advanced players, 21st century (MM+DS) theory of poker (DS) gambling theory and other topics (MM)
IMO, there are really not many other books that will help you very much. Most other available literature on holdem will probably hurt you much more than it will help. once you read these books (you may need to read them several times, especially theory of poker), you then need to FOLLOW THE ADVICE. in time and with practice you will learn whena dn what the exceptions are to the generalized advice given in the books.
dave in cali
I think you are or will be a winning player. I read your post down below and you played the hand reasonably. There are many winning players who can't fold top-pair. And never fold to a check-raise. You should get better with experience. Remember you don't have to be able to beat the players on this forum, just the drunk guy in the corner playing every hand.
Hi all,
After a couple months hiatus, I returned to the tables this weekend. All in all, the session went well, but there was one hand early on that I wanted input on.
PREFLOP
It's a somewhat loose, very passive 3-6 game. I'm in the cutoff with Ah5h. 3 limpers to me, I call, button folds, blinds call. 6 way action in an unraised pot.
6 small bets in pot.
FLOP: Ac 8c 7c
The action is checked to me, so I take a shot with my top pair, hoping to get singleton clubs to fold and to find out whether my top pair weak kicker has any hope of getting out of this alive. One player drops, the rest call
11 small bets = 5.5 big bets in the pot.
TURN: 6d
Ugh! Now I really don't think my hand stands a chance. Action is checked to me, this time I check.
RIVER: 5c
OK. There's now four parts to a straight and 4 parts to a flush on the board. I've backed into two pair, but I can't believe it's good. First player checks, next bets, folded to me.
Given the betting history on this hand, how many people call here? How many fold?
Results to follow,
Dave
I think you should have continued betting (the turn) while no one was willing to tell you your hand was not best.
The results don't matter. You're supposed to be beat. IMO- it would take an imbecile to get fancy with this many players and no club in his hand. I think you should fold.
Rob
More than 60% of the random hand beat you , keep your money for th next hands
Figuring nobody would get too jumpy without a 9, 4, or club in their hand, I mucked.
Turns out the better had pocket queens, no club. He went on and on about "the right of first steal," etc.
Oh well, I still think my muck was the right choice. Does anybody disagree? How about any other plays during the course of the hand?
I was smart enough to look at the results before I posted. Generally, in these spots the most important thing is to try to take into account the size of the pot versus what you think your chances your hand is good. This is also opponent dependent.
So in this spot I would usually fold unless the opponent was prone to try to steal on the end. Part of the reason for this is that the pot is protected. On the other hand no bet on fourth street gives away a lot of information and encourages a bluff. I'll let others elaborate from here.
Hi Mason (and others),
Thanks for the input. I guess I should have titled my post "Timid Turn Play," huh? I'll eventually learn ...
Dave
"Figuring nobody would get too jumpy without a 9, 4, or club in their hand, I mucked."
This is wrong. The bet came from early position. Betting on a straight with four clubs on the table and three players still to act? Get real. Even with three clubs on the table still, betting on the low straight would make no sense at all. Rule out nines and fours here.
Now, betting on a flush lower than ten here with three players still to act? Nah. Clear check-call situation. The action on the flop could easily indicate someone playing jack of clubs or queen of clubs (though not so likely king of clubs).
The bettor is either betting for value or trying an outright pot steal. He may actually, incidently, be trying it with a straight himself, as even that is unlikely to be the best hand, but nevertheless, unless he holds K or Q of clubs, he's not betting for value, he is betting in hope that he won't get called and your two pair could actually beat him.
What of course is absolutely neccesarily here is that noone else calls him, and by calling here you are also possibly isolating the first player who checked into NOT calling with mid/low-club or straight.
What beats you here is the bettor holding K or Q of clubs, 'stealing' on a straight or the guy yet to act calling, which he'd only do here with 9 of clubs or better, IMHO.
I think I'd do pretty much the same as you, muck faster than you can say fold, but in hindsight, there may be reasons to make a monster call here.
Lars
I think that if you bet the flop and no one raised, you pretty much have to bet the turn. no one has indicated to you that you are beaten, so you should probably assume you have the best hand. although it might not always be good (especially the butt-end), you did pick up an open ended straight draw as well, thus giving you extra outs if no one has a flush. on the river, I think you pretty much have to fold given how many players are left to act.
dave in cali
You should fold here.
I haven't read the results yet, but I guess your hand was a winner, or you wouldn't have posted this.
You absolutely have to bet the turn here. You hold medium strength and have draws against hands like bad two pair or good ace which are checking and calling because of the flush on the board. You must avoid giving a free card to the draws, so bet the turn and fold to a checkraise. That way, people aren't tempted to take a shot at the pot on the river. Check the river if it is checked to you. If it is bet on the river, you have a tough decision to make. The pot is bigger now because of your bet on the river. This call comes down to whether you think your opponents have the stones to attempt a steal here. There will be anything up to 10 big bets in the pot so you only need to be winning 1 in 10 times.
Given the way you actually played the hand, the fold on the river is correct.
Chris
You are in the cutoff and the button folded so you are the last to act. When the flop came you had 5 opponents, both blinds and 3 limpers. You bet the flop and only one player dropped so now there are 4 opponents. On the turn you checked. I think you should bet here. No one appears to have anything and if they do they will let you know about it. I would bet. You might win the pot outright and you have some straight outs if no one has a flush and you get called by a better hand. At the river, when the fourth Club arrives it is bet and called to you. I would fold since between the bettor and the caller someone should have a Club. Your poor result might have been due to not betting the turn but who knows?
If that's your toughest decision during the night I'm guessing you had a good night. It's a clear and easy fold. If it turned out you had the best, oh well.
Some will say you should've bet the turn, but I think that would have been a mistake. Anyone who flopped a flush would probably wait for the turn to check raise. And a tricky player may raise you with the Kc only. You played the hand fine. With A-5 you're hoping to make a flush or 2 pair. You took a stab at it on the flop and then backed down when called multi-way. Well played.
I think you have to call. I reads like an invitation to steal was presented on the last round.
One thing I think about when a fourth club comes on the river: Would this player bet if he had a medium club or only a hard to beat high club? Many players will not bet a 4 flush out of fear of the higher flush raise, I suppose being content with the current pot if wrong. But a player may try to steal when he ain't got shit.
I wonder if some would advise a raise here? Sort of like raising with AK when you have no pair and you suspect the bettor is bluffing.
Hi all,
This hand was played by my buddy during the same session as I described below. (A somewhat loose, very passive $3/$6 game.) He was roundly criticized by some of the other players after this hand, but I don't think his play was all that bad. So I'm posting it here for other opinions.
(As an aside, my buddy Jason is a beginning Hold'em player who still plays a few too many hands, although he tries to play well.)
The basics of the hand are as follows. Jason is in the BB with Kd 7s. There are four limpers, and he gets a free play.
The flop comes with three small (no paint) diamonds, with no straight draw. Jason checks, awaiting further developments ... it gets checked around.
The turn brings the four of diamonds. Jason checks again, and once more it gets checked around.
The river is the ace of clubs. Now Jason leads, and is raised by a "Grumpy Old Man." The rest of the field drops, and Jason puts in an 18-shot. Grumpy calls.
Grumpy, of course has the Qd, which he figured was good. After the hand, he told Jason that he shouldn't have raised, since "my raise was telling you I had the Ace!"
I don't think the play was all that bad--Jason would presumably have heard from the Ad on the turn if it was out there. (This is $3/$6, noone is clever enough to set up a trap like that...) On the river then, he has to figure his hand is good.
Now, were I playing the hand, I may have bet the whole way ... on the flop as a semi-bluff, on the turn and river for value. (If raised, I'd just call and pay-off if needs be.)
However, what do you think of the way Jason played it?
Thanks for the input,
Dave
n/t
I think he played too passively early in the hand. I don't think three-betting the river was terrible given the action so far. The GOM's play was awful.
David
I would have told the GOM that he should have folded to my river bet since I was "telling him I had the ace" with my bet. Or that he should have folded because "my reraise was telling him I had the ace". Or more likely, "I misread the board, you should have won. Nicely played...sorry that I got lucky".
Complaints from bluffers is one of the best things about low limit.
I would've bet the whole way and just called the raise but the re-raise with the 2nd nut flush wasn't bad.i think we know why the old man is grumpy.
The play wasn't bad. The biggest mistake made during the hand was Grumpy giving poker lessons during the game. I make it a point never to say anything intelligent during a game. While grumpys comment doesn't really qualify as intelligent, why try to minimize mistakes.
And you posters wonder why you can beat 10-20 and 20-40 but not 3-6. Leading on that flop is atrocious at the majority of low limit tables I have played at. Those bets get called by the whole field. You have a good chance to be drawing dead to a flush and a king may not be good. In which case you could give up one and a half bets with no EV, a cardinal sin. And worse yet, you might pay two bets for the draw when someone raises, then do you piss call? Along the same lines. How many times am I going to see a "good player" bet out into a five hand field after raising preflop with A-K when the flop comes 2-9-10. The person played the hand perfectly in the post with the raise on the river being debatable.
I didn't say he should have bet the flop, but I wasn't real specific so I can see how you might have taken it that way.
I do however think that he should have bet the TURN. Not betting the second nuts here is insane. In a 3/6 game you are about 50/50 or a little better to have the best hand, but you will routinely get called by worse hands and people trying to "keep you honest."
The GOM not re-raising on the river with the absolute nuts is beyond insane.
David
The GOM didn't have the absolute nuts on the river, just the third nuts (which lost to Dave S.'s second nuts). That is, unless a SF was possible with the four low diamonds, in which case they had the 4th and 3rd nuts, respectively.
You are right of course. I mis-remembered and thought that GOM had the Ad. And we don't know whether a straight-flush was possible.
But betting the second nuts on the turn is still right. Giving a free card to any straight flush draws, two pairs, or passively played sets is not a good idea.
David
"Leading on that flop is atrocious at the majority of low limit tables I have played at. Those bets get called by the whole field."
When you are drawing to the second nuts, that would potentially be a reason to bet, not to check. getting called by the whole field = getting value for your draw. The same thing would apply if you check-raised with a draw in the SB when the BB bet and everyone called to you and you have 9d8d and the flop is Ad 7d 2c. Getting lots of callers is GOOD when you have a draw!
"You have a good chance to be drawing dead to a flush and a king may not be good. "
You would only be drawing dead if the ace is out there, and it is NOT always going to be out there. I would bet and SEE IF the ace is out there, as you will usually hear from the person with the ace in this situation.
"And worse yet, you might pay two bets for the draw when someone raises, then do you piss call? "
If there are lots of callers, then this raise helps you instead of hurting you. Even if you get raised, you will still be getting more than enough odds to call it.
"How many times am I going to see a "good player" bet out into a five hand field after raising preflop with A-K when the flop comes 2-9-10. "
This is not even close to the same situation described in the original post and does not apply here.
"The person played the hand perfectly in the post with the raise on the river being debatable. "
The only part of this statement that I agree with is that the river reraise is debatable. Checking, checking, checking is the mark of a weak player who is feeding the pockets of good players who are willing to bet when it becomes apparent that no one wants the pot.
"And you posters wonder why you can beat 10-20 and 20-40 but not 3-6. "
Are you saying that you can beat them all? I suppose you are giving lessons as well. If you think that Dave Shaw's buddy played perfectly then I doubt it.
I realize my comments are not likely to be well taken here but I have publicly posted them on the forum for all to differ with if they choose so fire away.
Dave in Cali
Yes, I have beat all thos games. No, I do not give lessons. Betting is not a good idea at 3-6. You are likely to be raised. Now lets say you bet the flop into four people and your precious one card flush is good. Then you are getting value, and the raise increases your value since you are 2-1 to make the flush. However, the in a four handed or five handed pot the value you get from betting this is small. If the Ad is out then you are giving 3 small bets with no chance to win. What I meant by the king being dead is that someone already holds a pair with a king or a king with a better kicker. While it depends on the texture of the 3-6 game you are playing this bet is a mistake at the majority of tables I have played at. You not that check/calling is the mark of a weak player. Of course. Does that mean you should bet/raise every hand to river? Of course not. This just happens to be one of those hands you shouldn't bet.
Another argument for playing this hand this way is that you will get paid when you make your hand. While there is no value now in betting the second nut flush draw, there is value when any random diamond is paying you off. Now you are collecting bets when your opponents are collecting 0 EV.
A lot of good players I know, wonder why they can't beat a terrible low limit game. And it is because they make mistakes by pushing hands that should only be bet is there is a reasonable chance of winning the pot right there. For example, you don't have to bet the flop just cause you raised pre-flop. Out of position betting the one card second nut flush draw is a cardinal sin. It hard to make money paying the maximum for a draw that is likely to be no good.
the primary reason I disagree here is because of all the total trash that people will call you with in these games. bet the draw and likely get called by second pair with a 3d, a lone 8d, two pair without getting raised, two overcards and no draw, a gutshot straight draw with no diamonds, etc.... I am not saying that you should always pump it every time in this situation, but to say you should never bet is just as preposterous.
by the way, even though I knew you would probably not like my post, I like the fact that you responded with arguements and reasons for what you were saying rather than just trash talk. despite the fact that we are disagreeing here I still have to give you some respect for that.
despite your unavailability though, I am not in need of lessons.
dave in cali
I certainly would not have waited till the river to start betting! I think I would lead the whole way and if the ace is out there then too bad for me. In low limit games you will often get calls from the queen, jack, ten, nine, etc... down to the duece sometimes!!!!! Maybe I throw caution to the wind a bit too often but the semi-bluff value of the hand would entice me to bet. I think he would have won a much bigger pot had he bet the whole way rather than check it like he did.
Dave in Cali
Semi-bluff should be taken out of the 3-6 players vocabylary. I can't think of one time where someone folded to my turn raise. So, I just make sure that when they call it, they are making the wrong decision not the right one.
By the way, I play in the midwest, all the games are ripe. The 3-6 games are out of control. Maybe it is different of the coasts.
the games are out of control everywhere, not just the west coast.
semi-bluffing in a 3-6 game can be profitable but you need to know your opponents or be betting with a good draw those times when the chance of winning the pot outright is low. still though, there is almost always some chance of winning outright, and even a less than 10% chance can add a lot of value to your bet when you factor in the chance of making your draws.
I've recently been playing in a game in my area that is extreamly loose and consistantly filled with bad players. More oftin than not I'm seeing 8 or 9 players paying to see the flop, and then many bet's called after. It's been extreamly nice to me. My question is, are there any way's I can alter my playing to maximize my profit?
People here can give you quite a bit of good advice, but you may also want to check out the essays, "How to Play in a Loose Game" and "Why you lose in a Good Game" in Sklansky's "Getting the Best of It!"
One thing you should clarify for people to give advice--is the game passive or aggressive. Many players seeing the flop unraised is a little bit different than if there are lots of raises and reraises in a communal pot. The passive game, where you control the raising pre-flop allows you to play a lot more hands and do some nice pot-size manipulation, things you can't do in rasied and reraised pots.
But check out GTBoI. It's worth having on your poker shelf (assuming you already have several other books).
Regards,
Paul Talbot
In those game Ace-X suited are gold at any position. AA , KK , and QQ is shit if you do not improve . Never bluff .
Thanks for the advise, was just in Vegas last week and was going to pick that book up, opted for Super/System and Caro's book of tells though, I'm in Ohio and not sure if I can find the book around here or not.
It's an agressive game, but many raises are made on basically nothing, just to drive the pot up. I did figure I would be told that the big pairs would be weak if they didn't improve.
I've been thinking about it for a while, and was thinking Axs, Kxs, Qxs, all can be justified to be played in this game. Also another thing was after the first 20 minutes I never bet unless I had the absolute nuts, and manage to double my buy in in about 5 hours.
Never bet until you had the absolute nuts? Is that possible?
3-6 at the Commerce, 3 limpers, I call with 66, button calls, small blind calls, big blind checks. flop comes J42 with 2 spades. checked to me, I bet, button calls plus 3 others. turn is 3d, checked to me. I check. I figured: a) button who played almost every hand could have had J with a weak kicker b) I could very well be facing 77-TT with 4 callers of my flop bet and no one in this group folds an apparent secondbest pair c) someone could have hit the gutshot planning to checkraise, something I'd witnessed several times and not just on the turn d) if the button checked I would get a free shot at my gutshot. anyone dispute my thinking here?
river: 3 of spades. checked to me, I checked, button checked. I'm thinking in retrospect that I should have bet because 77-TT would have folded fearing the flush. on the other hand, there were 4 callers of my flop bet and I was especially wary of the button who hadn't after all acted yet. your thoughts? results to follow.
You played it right. Save the moves for higher stakes games as they just don't work often enough in LL to make it profitable.
Unless this was not a typical 3/6 game I don't see how you could of expected everyone to Fold to your Bluff on the Flop. In a game like 3/6 (where people call too much) you should hardly ever Semi-bluff hands with almost no outs.
I would have checked the flop and left the bluffing to the losers. Yes, you could have had the best hand, but your pair was so small that you could have been easily drawn out on even if you were currently in the lead.
CV
I don't know, Chris. when I stop betting when I'm fairly sure I'm best, well, that's the time I should quit playing poker.
when I bet on the flop, there was only one player left so it was unlikely I was up against a pair of jacks. there were no obvious straight draws and, with the jack threat reduced to a murmur, I could easily imagine the rest of the flop (42) had also missed everybody. if I could eliminate those K7suited and Q8offsuit type hands with a bet on the flop, then even if paint appeared on the turn or river, it might miss the remaining hands. and with $21 in the pot, even if what you deem a "bluff" got everyone to fold a mere 15% of the time, then a pure bluff was the correct bet.
Since I wasn't at your table I can't tell how loose the players were, but in all the typical 3/6 games I've played in, a bet on the flop against 4 to 5 opponents will never win 15% of the time.
I think you may benefit by reading Sklansky's "Horse Race Concept." In loose games there are times you should check the best hand if it happens to be a medocre hand that is easy to beat, there are more cards to come, you are against many opponents who will call your bet, and you don't have many outs to redraw to a better hand. To me that sounded like the situation you were in.
CV
I don't know how I could have expected to get many callers with that flop, even in California.
one of the blinds had called my flop bet with 94offsuit; the others mucked and my buff pair of 66's brought home the bacon.
Loose 5-10, 4-6 players seeing the flop. There are perhaps 3 or 4 players playing A2C if no raise, a few loosies who could recognize when they had good hands and raise, and a couple reasonable amatures.
Here's a situation which came up several times for me: Big overpairs in late position, Raised BTF, and flopped uncoordinated garbage. Checked around, I bet, called. Turn Blank. Checked around, I bet, lose maybe half the field, and get check-raised along the way. Should I call?
The chance of this being a CR bluff is effectively zero. So its either a set or 2p. Lets say the pot is about 12 Big Bets by the time it gets back to me. I have 2 outs to a set, at 23 to 1, and 8 outs to beat 2p (2 + 3 + 3), at 5:75 to one.
So lets say there is a 70% chance of a set, and 30% chance of 2p. This is a strictly Wild-A** Guess. (WAG)
On river, I raise if I get trips, call else. (I know I could fold, as I really doubt the guy would CR with Top rag and Good kicker, but it happens often enough with the total yahoos, that I justs can't lay down the rockets. I think the turn has the only off ramp.)
.7 * ( 1/23*(15) - 22/23*(2)) + .3 * ( 1/5.75(15) - 4.75/5.75 (2) ) = -.6
So, clear fold? Note that if 2p vs set was a 50/50 prop, it would only lose .15 a BB.
I never did fold any Big Pairs, and left the table thinking I may have found a leak in my game.
What sayeth the chorus?
Best,
Zooey
You didn't say who checkraised you. I would be more scared of a blind's checkraise on a ragged uncoordinated board than a limper's.
However, I think your assumption of a set or two pair might be a bit too hasty. If your opponent puts you on big cards. A check raise on the turn on a board that obviously hasn't hit you is a decent play. It is more likely for you to have overcards than an overpair. I would just call him down from here.
You are getting 9:1 odds (if I added right) at this point so I can't see folding even if you are against an unsophisticated opponent who will only checkraise here.
Paul Talbot
In a multi way pot, you could fold, but heads up, against pre-flop raiser i sometimes check-raise with a small pair or even as little as 2 overcards thinking the small board completly missed the raiser. But only if the raiser is somewhat resonable.
Paul:
"However, I think your assumption of a set or two pair might be a bit too hasty. If your opponent puts you on big cards. A check raise on the turn on a board that obviously hasn't hit you is a decent play."
Steve:
" ... heads up, against pre-flop raiser i sometimes check-raise with a small pair or even as little as 2 overcards thinking the small board completly missed the raiser. "
I totally agree, that if you think you think their is a reasonable chance of your opponent making this play, calling becomes automatic, if for no other reason than to discourage its use.
But, I was fairly certain my opponents weren't capable of this, and only checkraised with what they felt were fairly big hands. This scenario happened 4 times in an 8 hour session, with my opponent having a set 3 times and 2p once. And I think only one guy was capable of a CR with "only" 2p.
I still think its a close decision even with this info, but I'm leaning towards fold. Taking my assumptions as correct, do you guys still think it's worth a call?
Zooey
If your read is good enough that you know you are beat here then just dump your hand.
One of the additional problems is that if you call here on the turn trying to improve it becomes very hard not to make the crying call on the end for one more bet and you end up losing two big bets. If you are pretty sure it is two pair and not a set (given the cards and the position your opponent came in at) and you can throw it away on the end if you don't improve then a call would be more reasonible, if only so that other players see the checkraise wont move you off your hand immediately.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
5-10 game. I have AsKc on the button. All fold to the cutoff who limps. I raise, both blinds and cutoff call. Flop comes Kd Qh 2h. All check to me. I bet,SB folds, BB raises, cutoff folds. I reraise with it now heads up putting the BB likely on a King worse kicker, possible a flush draw(Comments?).
BB caps. I've been playing for twenty minutes and have no read on BB. I think that BB could have KK, or QQ but probably would have re-raised KK pre-flop and maybe QQ. My gut says two pair or a set of QQ, 22. I call.
Turn: 7c. BB checks!? Now I'm confused. It's infrequent when someone caps the flop out of position to get a free turn card. Now I think it's likely BB is going for the check raise or is on a flush draw. I check. (Comments?)
River: 6h. BB checks!? If turn check was an attempt at a check raise that failed BB would bet out. If he was capping the flop with a flush draw I'm beat. But if he made a flush, why would BB risk me checking behind? Check or bet? Results to follow.
Thanks in advance
Jamie Collins
whatever he has , he has play it terrible . MAybe a semi bluff on the flop for an open ended with JT . o must check on the river , if he has JT , he will fold , and your hand isn't strong enough to call a check-raise .
No three six player has the screw play in there bag. I would bet. No three-six player has ever screwed played me. Capped the flop and check-raised the turn with a hand like two-pair. Full house maybe, two pair never. I believe your main fear on the flop is K-Q and his check eliminates that since most 3-6 player don't have that stick in there bag.
(n/t)
This is one of those situations where I say to myself, "Either BB has played his hand awful or I have played my hand awful." The situation definitely leads to much confusion. With all the action on the flop, my guess is that BB has KQ, 22, flush draw, or JT (open ended straight draw). When he checks the turn, I too would be worried about a check-raise. I might be tempted to bet anyways, but I think your check was ok. On the river, a heart falls and BB checks again. At this point, it's very tough to read his hand. I'd play it safe and check and hope that AK is good enough. You're absolutely right about his capping after the flop and then checking the turn: Why would he make it 4 bets without position and then check? I'd be curious to see the results.
I don't think he would try and check raise the turn after capping the flop. I say bet and eliminate him from getting a free card that might complete his possible flush or straight draws. If he does check raise, then I would say fold.
Bet the turn. He is most likely on a str8 or flush draw. If he raises the turn you can be fairly certain your beat and determine if it's worth it to take one off.
If you checked the turn, I think you should check the river. If you didn't think your hand was strong enough to bet the turn, it sure didn't improve.
I checked the river figuring I couldn't call a check-raise with only one pair and fairly happy with the money put in on the flop. BB turned over J10, no flush.
you did what i would do. when confused about opponent or his/her action, i'm conservative. sometimes the wheels go round and round in your head only making circles. when in doubt play safe. better to miss 2 bets than lose 4 more!
I'd bet the turn and if I didn't bet the turn I'd probably bet the river, although checking the river is better than checking the turn because of the chances of him not having a calling hand or trying to trap. The principle here is that when your opponent's play make little sense, go for value. Once he checks, I'd figure that he was looking for a free card more much more often than he'd be trying to trap. Also, players that trap for the sake of trapping (and give up bets trying) tend to be rare and easy to spot.
its a very clear decision to check the river here.
Given his play, he most likely has a straight draw, and he's not going to call anyway if you bet.
In fact, the only reason he would call your river bet is if he is misplaying his two-pair, set, or flush.
When the only hands he would call with are ones that beat you, there is no reason to bet the river, whether you think you're winning or not.
~DjTj
8 players in an online 2-4 game. utg folds. 1 next to him calls, fold and 2 more callers. I call in the small blind with 9Ts. Big blind checks. Flop is J5Q rainbow- none of my suit. I bet. Big blind calls, next player raises. 2 others fold, big blind and I call. Turn is a 4. I check, check, bet. I call the turn bet, big blind folds. River is a King. I bet and get raised. I call. He turns over KQ for two pair and I win with the straight. I feel like I probably made at least a mistake or two- the main one being not reraising on the river after I realized he only could've beat me with AT and probably wouldn't have raised me on the flop if that's what he had. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks- Mark
yes, you should have reraised on the river for exactly the reason you mention. everything else was O.K. although I suspect some would argue that checking and calling that flop was slightly preferable. as for checkraising the turn, maybe at the 30-60 limit but not at 2-4.
Pre-flop of course you call with Ten-Nine suited from the small blind to see a flop. But once the flop comes my preference is to check having 4 opponents and only an open ended straight draw. There are too many opponents to have a decent chance of winning the pot outright and the risk of having to call a raise is too great. I would check and call. Your turn play is fine but you should 3 bet at the river because you have the second nuts and it takes specifically AT to beat you. There are numerous two pair type hands and even sets that you can beat.
fairly mild 3-6, just got into the game...my first hand
i have JJ in middle position, raise, button, blinds, under the gun call.
flop is AcAhKc.
first person bets out, i fold...
results later
what i'm really wondering is if the fold was correct in terms of number of ppl left to call and that this guy bet into a pre flop raised pot...
thanks, jon.
i folded away the winner and the flop better had two low clubs, betting his flush draw...
There is definitely often something fishy going on when a someone 'ignores' the 'check to the raisor' tradition in Hold'em.
This interesting hand took place in a £2-4 table at Paradise Poker:
I hold pocket Queens in BB with two limpers. I raise, both call. Flop is A-7-5. Just about the tenth time I held pocket Kings or Queens only the get an ace on the flop. Ready to bet, get one or two caller, check on the turn and fold to a bet, as is usual procedure in this situation...hey, SB (limper one) bets out!
Hmm...two diamonds on the board. Is he value betting on the flush draw, hoping to get two calls? Well, with my queens and a runner-runner second-nut flush draw, I call as well as limper two.
Turn card is another 5, not diamond. Check all around. River card is... A QUEEN. Then the action gets going. Limper TWO suddenly bets out. Pre-turn bidder raise. I reraise. Limper TWO cold-call us both. Him out, then. Limper one caps it. Whether I'd raise again here if I could have, is a question I'd prefer to leave unanswered. I call, limper two does too.
Showdown: Limper two: Two pair 6 & 5 (pocket 6's) Limper one: Sevens full on fives (pocket 7's) Me: Queens full of fives (pocket queens)
The interesting thing here, apart from how limper two managed to virtually hand me $16, is that I was spot on with the flop bet being strange. This is no situation to bet on your usual pair of aces with jack or ten kicker. His bet, representing clearly something else tempted me to call, when in fact, the difference was in strong favour of his hand.
What should also be remembered is that even though I was a huge underdog, it was still better to call here than against a usual ace because of my magnificent implied odds.
Infact, as the pot shot up to $71 in the end, I'd even have close to fair odds on calling a turn bet, chasing one of the last queens, if I could know what sort of action I'd get at the showdown.
Lars
Your narrative is a little confusing to me. Pre-flop I gather a guy limped in under the gun and you raised. The button, both blinds and the UTG limper call. You take the flop 5 handed. Now on the flop did the both blinds check and the UTG bet out? Given your hand, that flop, and four opponents I would fold every time. It looks like you are playing two outs.
Call the flop and if it's head-up call on the turn and river. The chance of him having an ace is less than 5%, a bit higher with a king, in which case he probably won't lead all 3 rounds. There are far too many players in 3-6 that can't resist leading into scary boards with underpairs and gutshots or worse for you to fold. It's obviously a bit trickier if you're overcalled or raised or if the game were any higher.
2-4 on Paradise
Typical loose low-limit game, 9 handed
I raise UTG with AKo, middle position player (MP) calls it cold, BB calls, all else fold. See the flop 3 handed.
Flop: AQ6r
BB bets, I raise, MP folds, BB reraises, I call
Turn: K 4th suit
BB bets, I raise, BB calls
River: 8
BB bets, I call
BB shows 66 to take pot.
The results are not as important as to my thinking involved in this hand. I am really trying hard to improve my game and I'm wondering if I gave away a bet or two.
Before I begin my thought process, I would like to say that I have no read on BB yet, I just sat down.
Preflop: pretty straightforward
Flop: Looks like a nice flop, and when the BB bets into me, a raise is automatic IMO.
when MP folds, I am really liking my hand heads up with position.
When BB reraises, I am concerned about AQ or A6, but just flat call with the intent of going to the river because I have seen so many of these players overplay weak aces.
Turn: The King hits and BB bets into me again. I think my raise may be a little out of line here. Granted, the King helped me but he must have had something to be betting into a preflop UTG raiser with AKQ all on the board.
River: After being bet into on the blank, I make a crying call. Raising would not be good of course, but no way, no how am I folding top 2 pair on the river in this game.
1) How did I play? I think I may have gotten a little to excited when the K hit the turn.
I outdrew A6, AQ
I got outdrawn by KK, JT. KK is not reasonable and I doubt players on this level would 3 bet a gutshot on the flop.
Other than that, I'm either further ahead, or still a big dog.
I still can't afford not to raise the BB if he has say AT, AJ, or any other lone J or T.
2) How did BB play?
I thought he played it well but I was surprised he didn't pop me again on the turn.
If I were in his shoes, and it so happened I was up against AA, KK, or QQ, even to an UTG raiser, well... so be it. But I would have kept firing on the turn.
Was I too agressive, or just destined to lose that much?
Thanks to all replies.
BB played well until the river. betting into you with that flop enticed a raise which not only allowed him to reraise but discourage the other player from calling with something like JTsuited. when BB bet into on the turn with AKQ on the board, I think you should have inferred he was ahead. when you raised on the turn, there were 7 ways for you hold AKoffsuit and 6 ways combined for either AA or QQ. secondly, your play on the flop was appropriate had you held either AK or AA or QQ. most importantly, he knew that you knew he bet with AKQ showing. he was correct to infer you weren't afraid of a small set and, therefore, should have just checked and called on the river.
for me once i'm reraised, i must respect the other player and fall back on my knowlege of him. would he reraise with 2 pr?????? dont think you did anything wrong. knowing other player (and respecting his move) helps throttle back aggressive play. better sometimes to pass up a bet than lose more. my humble opine, what's so wrong with calling out?????
You played fine. Your opponent made a mistake not re-raising you on the turn with his set. You are far more likely to have two pair than a bigger set.
"Your opponent made a mistake not re-raising you on the turn with his set. You are far more likely to have two pair than a bigger set."
in low-limit, there are many players who will not raise UTG with AQ but who will raise with AK. and there are plenty who don't raise with AKsuited from early position in order to coax a huge pot into formation (I'm in this latter category). 7 (two-pair) versus 6 (trips) is on one end of the spectrum; 16 versus 6 on the other. but those odds are not conditional. the betting sequence has to be examined as well. with that board, why would the opponent bet into an obvious two-pair possibililty unless he had a better hand than that? would he bet KQ there? AJ? he would bet AK, but so what? that's why Squirrel (always in pursuit of the nuts -- I just got the joke) should have inferred he was no better than tied and just called. but once he raised, then his opponent should have inferred that Squirrel wasn't afraid of a low set or top two-pair and retreated to his neck of the woods.
The typical loose and quite passive £2-4 game at Paradise. Holding 8-9 of spades in mid-position, with three limpers already. SB, BB & everyone call.
Flop J-8-x, one spade. Check to the button, he bets, limpers call. I check-raise! It was a bit of an impulse really, but I figured at least some of the callers here were in worse shape than me, and even though SB might have an overpair, I'd get value for a raise here. Well, SB re-raise, still lots of callers, including me.
Turn card is Ace of Spades. SB bets out, four callers including me. Should I have raised here again? I might have as many as 14 outs of 46 (Spade, 8 and 9).
River card is 10 of spades, all check to me, only BB call, and it's enough of course, and I take down $80 of 20 BB.
Comments?
Lars
I don't like your check-raise on the flop at all. You have middle pair/no kicker and a backdoor flush draw. This is a tenuous holding at best. Your goal should be to take off a card as cheaply as possible not pay mutliple bets to continue and ruin your odds. Unless you are playing in games where they pay for second place, driving out weaker hands hurts you and helps the guy with the best hand at your expense.
Nice catch!
I wouldn't play that way too much though, as you might burn up your bankroll pretty quickly.
I would think that the checkraise on the flop might be a good play if you think your opponents might fold right there or on a scary turn card. I highly doubt that was the case here. It turns out your opponent correctly reraised, meaning you put in 3 bets on runner runner draws that might not be good.
I don't usually like to do that on backdoor draws that might not be any good. Check that, I never want to pay three bets on backdoor draws that could very well end up second best!
I also think you overestimated your outs a bit here. Against 5 opponents, there is a good chance your spade draw is no good, and there is also a chance that your 9 for two pair gives an opponent a straight. There is no hand that costs you more money than one that is second best.
I think you have a pretty easy call on the turn, but I would not have gotten there, I would have folded on the flop.
This is exactly the type of play that has them bitching and moaning about robot players and people who can see what cards are coming. See..real people make plays like this. See???
I was playing 3-6 yesterday, and there is one hand that really troubles me. The game was a semi-loose 3-6 game with some decent players.
I'm UTG with AdKh and just limp. Players have been calling raised flops with very marginal hands, and I just didn't like my position.
Question 1: Was limping a really bad decision here?
Two other players limp behind, button calls, and both blinds call. We see the flop 6 handed.
Flop: Ks Qd 3d
SB bets, BB folds, I raise, 1 middle player (MP) calls, other middle player folds, button folds. SB then 3 bets, I call, MP 4 bets, SB calls. I think for a while because both SM and MP are pretty good, strightforward players. I put one of them on a flush draw (maybe KdJd) and the other one on 2 pair. I believed that I wasn't too far behind and I have the nuts for a backdoor flush, so I call the 4 bets.
Question 2: Was I correct to call, or should I have folded after the raises? This was tough because I was only calling one more bet each time as opposed to calling a several bets a once (in which case, I may have foleded).
Turn: Ks Qd 3d (Kd)
SB checks. I have trips with top kicker, and nut flush draw. I take a chance and bet. MP raises, SB calls, and I call. I'm putting MP on a made flush.
Question 3: Should I have bet the turn? Should I have called the raise? I'm thinking an A is definitely a safe out, and maybe a 4th diamond.
River: Ks Qd 3d Kd (8s)
SB checks, I check, MP bets, SM calls and mumbles "I have a small full house". That was his mistake because I think I would have made a crying call. I believe what SB says and fold.
MP turns over KcQc for nut full house and SB turns over 33.
Was there any other way that I could have played this hand differently? All comments are greatly appreciated.
In regards to question 1 (about raising preflop), I'm absolutely positive that both MP and SB would have called a preflop raise from me given what they were holding.
Wow. Nightmare hand.
For better or worse, I would not have played it any different than you. I would always bet the turn here, because I know if my hand is good, I can't give the diamond draws a free card.
I know I won't be up against full houses the vast majority of the time, and the times I am, well, I lose some chips.
I also find nothing wrong with mixing it up a bit with AKo, especially considering in a loose game, no one will let go of their hand anyway.
Pre-flop you should raise every time with slick. Whether your opponents call or fold is up to them. You have an excellent playing hand and should make them pay to play. You should welcome calls from KQ. If you feel the urge to "vary your play" do it by raising early with a medium pocket pair like Eights or Sevens once in awhile which is only a small mistake. Failing to raise with your good hands is a big mistake.
On the flop, I think you have to call the raises since you got stuck on the installment plan. You are probably up against at least two pair from this betting and maybe more. The capper may be juicing it up on a Diamond draw. Based on the strong betting action on the flop, I don't like your turn bet at all. It is too easy for someone to have a full house reducing you to 3 outs although a Queen at the river might allow you to split the pot. I would not bet but check and call.
Q1) Limping was probably a bad decision. Against players who do play this badly, as is frequently the case in $3-$6, you are probably giving up a little too much by limping.
Q2) You should definitely call. Some players will sometimes just throw in the fourth bet in these spots, so there is some chance you have the best hand at this point, and considering the size of the pot, your hand is too good to throw away.
Q3) This bet is close given the previous action. By the way, even if raised (as you were), you may still have the best hand.
To counter the rest of the replies a bit, I don't think a fold here would be a disasterous move. You could easily be up against a set in a situation like this (and you were) and then even getting super-lucky on runner-runner flush draw could see you beat.
I think it was at the Small Stakes section of this site that someone recently posted that getting out of big pots early is an absolutely crucial move which is often either about losing 5BBs or winning around 25 (of course, your first 1.5BBs invested can't be critizized at all, based on the lack of information you held at that point.
Your part in 'big pots' often comes in when you hold a hand like AK. 33 too, but then you'll more often be on the winning side (though not this time) when the going gets tough, or out at the crucial early stage. It may seem that you're trapped in a pot like this, before the flop, on the flop and particularly after the turn. However, whereas 1.5BBs were invested correctly, you could've saved THREE BBs obviously invested incorrectly here (No card would've given you the upper hand on the turn, just three aces will save you on the river). No matter how peachy the situation looks after your dream turn card, getting in a messy situation like this on the flop seemingly ends in tears all the time.
Apart from maybe missing out on a raise pre-flop (then again, by not raising, you'll be mighty paid off on flops like 2-5-K or even A-A-K), your there were nothing wrong with calling for flop, raising the first bettor post-flop. Plays like this will pay you off in the long run, and a raise here is absolutely neccesarily to either squeeze out K-garbage and gut-shot straight draws, or make it expensive for them to be a dog to you.
My conclusion is: - The first third of you money invested in this pot, are money making moves in the long run. - The last two thirds of your money invested in the pot, were 'losing' moves which will cost you in the long run.
Lars
This is so typical of these LL games. A flop with two face cards in it is going to hit a lot of players and nobody's lettin' go. Two suited?, more of the same. With top pair/kicker you will win a lot of these hands. And you're simply going to have to lose some of them and pay for it.
I somewhat disagree with Brier when he says always raise with AK. I think the advice is based on higher limits where players come in with a smaller variety of hands. I enjoy being in the situation of having hit AK and not having revealed my hand with a pre-flop raise. The LL guys will call you all the way.
I think your turn bet was asking for it since KQ is a likely opponent as was a flush draw considering all the betting. What could they hold and bet so much with that would not improve with a paired board and three suited?
But then, LL players are capable of anything. In some games that cap bet is a given.
Book Review: Hold Em Excellence by Lou Krieger
Hold Em Excellence (HEE) is a book for beginners playing in low limit games. This review asks the question, if you are a low limit player using the strategy espoused in HEE how will you fare when you move up to middle limit games ($10-$20 to $20-$40)? In particular, will you be able to win (you won't) but specifically how will you lose your money and what strategies in HEE will have to be abandoned or modified and what new things must you learn.
Before proceeding to this question, there are outright errors in Part I-Basic Education of HEE to correct.
First, is the idea that you can win at really low limit poker ($3-$6 and below). The introduction of Chapter 3-Essential Strategic Considerations implies that an excellent player can earn 1.75 big bets per hour regardless of the limit (up to $10-$20) or the button charge/time collection. Krieger implies that an excellent player can earn $35 per hour in a $10-$20, $7 per hour in a $2-$4 and $10.50 in a $3-$6. This is simply untrue.
Any poker game below $6-$12 (a really low limit or RLL game) in a public casino is unbeatable. Overcoming the button charge is mission impossible. A player earning $35/hour in $10-$20 is winning 1.75BB per hour and paying ½ BB in time charges ($10/hour). Without the time collection, the player is winning 2.25 BB per hour. The same player in a $2-$4 or $3-$6 game is paying a $3 button charge ($4 if there is a progressive jackpot!). If the button goes around 4 times per hour he is paying $12 per hour-more if the game is short handed. The button charge is 3BB in the $2-$4 game and 2BB in a $3-$6 game. The collection has eaten any player profit in the RLL HE game.
Any RLL HE game is strictly a recreational proposition. There is no money to be made. I suppose, this misrepresentation is understandable. Who would buy a book that tells you how to reduce your loss? What would be the point?
Second, is the idea that a couple of professionals in your game is a good thing. On page 10, Krieger writes:
"You need not be afraid of a pro or two in your game. Because they usually play good steady poker they can be a stabilizing influence in games that might otherwise be very loose. While a good player will ultimately earn more money in a very loose game, the fact that each pot has a multitude of active players in it, and is often raised and re-raised, means that the element of short term luck is stronger.
The result: Players in loose games suffer larger fluctuations along their road to success. A pro or two will stabilize these loose games, if for no other reason than they won't be betting and raising every hand. Consequently, while their win rate might not be as great in balanced games they do not need as large a bankroll to sustain themselves. And neither will you."
Krieger's idea of a professional poker player and "good steady poker" seems to be a passive predictable senior citizen nut peddler with an inadequate roll who plays predictably and only bets or raises the nuts. By definition, someone who plays like this cannot be a professional and is not good because they cannot win with this style of play.
A skilled, flexible thinking, dynamic, aggressive player, whether he is playing for a living or just for fun, is not a good thing. It is someone to avoid unless you also fit this description. If there are two such players in a game and you are not such a player, run away from this game as fast as you can. Not only will you lose, but you will lose at a much faster and certain rate.
Now let's turn to the main question. If you played HEE poker regularly in a typical middle limit Los Angeles HE game ($10-$20 and above) with two skilled dynamic opponents would you win? The answer is no.
Why wouldn't you win? Examine the above quote more carefully and see if you can identify the fallacy.
The fallacy is that in a loose middle limit game (by this I mean a game where people are entering the pot or raising with hands and in positions other than those in Krieger's tables for sound strategic reasons) and where the pot is often raised and re-raised before and on the flop is not a game where " the element of short term luck is stronger."
It is more likely a game populated with skilled opponents who are not using the passive ABC "fit or fold" strategy that HEE proposes. The skilled opponents are betting and raising a large percentage of the hands they are in and they are going to be in a lot of hands. It is a game where the opponents have identified, analyzed and adjusted their play to the play of their opponents. It is a game where the passive HEE style of play is being identified, its' weakness exploited and successfuly attacked.
The style of play advocated in HEE is contained in the following passage about play on the flop.
"Fit or fold. That is the concept. Fit can take one of three forms. (1) The flop fits because it improves your hand; (2) it offers a draw that figures to pay off handsomely; (3) or you already hold a pair higher than the biggest card that flops.
Fit or fold. If you don't improve to a big hand or a draw with a potential payoff exceeding the odds against the making your hand get out-and do it fast!"
To see the problem with the passive fit or fold HEE style of play, consider three classes of hands. (1) where you started with or flopped a very strong hand-top pair-excellent kicker or better; (2) where you have something on the flop-middle/bottom pair or a draw; (3) where you started out with something decent and flopped nothing. Ignore situations where you have flopped a good draw (Gary Carson's E-book is the best reading on how to play these hands).
Class (1) hands are no problem. Any moron can play these hands decently although a skilled player may be able to extract a few extra bets or make them hold up a little more often.
Class (2) hands are where the problems begin. Consider the example from HEE.
"If you are holding A-9 and the flop is A-7-3 you have flopped top pair but are you happy with it? If your opponent holds A-J only three cards in the deck will win the pot for you. You're drawing at a longshot, and unless that miracle nine turns, you're going to pay the price.
With second or third pair, your problem is determining whether any of your opponents holds a larger pair. Sometimes it is easy to tell. If, for example, there is a bet and a raise before it is your turn to act, your choice is simple. Throw you hand away."
The second example shows the problem with the HEE style of play. It is common (in L.A.) for opponents to bet into the field from early position with a draw, bottom pair with an ace or a small pocket pair (these plays are advocated in HFAP). Other players know this and will often respond by re-raising to get heads up on the flop with a mediocre hand or a hand with a multi-way draw.
A HEE fit or fold player who simply mucks his hands in the situation described above will be throwing his hand away too often. In fact, his observant skilled dynamic opponents, once they have identified the "fit or fold" player, will begin to bombard the HEE fit or fold player with this type of play.
In the situation described above, depending on the players and other situational factors re-raising or taking one off has to be considered as an option. If you are automatically mucking here you are not thinking enough to survive in a typical middle limit Los Angeles HE game. If you are automatically mucking you are a juicy target for your dynamic thinking, skilled aggressive opponents.
Class 3 hands are the most common and where the problems multiply. You are going to start out with a decent hand, e.g. two big cards and flop nothing more often than you are going to flop something. In many of these cases, your opponent has also flopped nothing. You must win/steal more than your fair share of these hands to be a winning middle limit player.
Suppose you have KQs, you raise from late position after 1 person limps in, the blinds call and the flop comes down A-7-3 with one in your suit. The blinds check and the limper bets. What should you do?
HEE advises folding in this situation. However, in a typical middle limit HEE game you will be surrendering the best hand frequently if this is your "automatic" response to the bet. If you do not consider raising here or on the turn, you are not thinking enough. If you automatically fold in this situation, you are going to be run over by many of your opponents. Fit or fold is not enough.
In summary, Hold Em Excellence from Beginner to Winner by Lou Krieger will not take you from beginner to winner. It addresses only about 25% of what you need to know to win real money (in the $10-$20 and up games) playing poker.
Kenneth Ng
Great review. I haven't read the book but it sounds like a waste of time and money. Will we see this reposted on rgp? btw, I enjoyed your rgp article about the 9-18 vs 10-20 games.
I did read this book and I do think the advice is weak-tight in many areas. I think also the McEvoy/Cloutier books have the same flaws.
I agree with your basic criticisms.
I'm not a big fan of the book but the idea that you can't beat "any" casino game below 6-12 is wrong. A lot obviously depends on the time/rake structure, which you suggest is universal. Your analysis also suggests that the collection-free big bet hourly rate of a strong player at 10-20 will be the same if he plays 3-6, which can't be right.
I also disagree with your contention that two "skilled, flexible thinking, dynamic, [and] aggressive player[s]" make any game so unbeatable that all lesser players will lose. This means that if 3 weak players at the table lose an average of one bet an hour each, the two pros win all 3 bets plus more from the each of four other players with middling skills, no matter how often the weakies call everyone down with junk hands. I doubt that many experienced players would agree with this.
It's the presence of weak players that makes games beatable, not the absence of highly skilled ones.
Hi Ken!
I posted a response to your review over on rgp. For the sake of completeness, I will post some observations here as well:
1. What Lee and Lou have written is primarily designed for novices. With a novice your main concern is to keep him from losing a lot of money. You want their initial experience with poker to be a pleasant one and with any luck they could win some money just following the advice in Lee and Lou's books. As they gain experience they can start to play more hands and get involved in high variance plays that may provide incremental improvements in their EV.
2. Low limit poker is very beatable. When I played low limit poker ($3-$6 and $4-$8) I averaged better than one big bet per hour. I believe that it is quite possible for a good player to beat low limit games for over 1 big bet per hour. Here in Vegas, I know of several players who either make a modest living or supplement their income by playing just low limit poker. Dunc Mills, a prominent poster on this forum, averages over $1000 a month just playing $3-$6 in Edmonton. I agree that it would be almost impossible for a player to beat a $10-$20 game for $35 per hour over several thousand hours of play and I would be surprised if Lou Krieger really believes this.
3. Krieger's books are not designed for players who want to beat middle limit games in my opinion. The only book I know of that is designed for players who want to beat middle limit games ($10-$20 through $30-$60) is HPFAP-New Edition.
4. With regard to your example of a player having KQ suited and a flop of A73 with one in your suit, by my count there is 9 bets in the pot and it costs you 1 bet to play. In the games I play in, a guy who leads into a pre-flop raiser when the board comes Ace-high will frequently have a top pair of Aces and there is no way you are getting any kind of odds to chase here. Unless you have some reason to believe that the bettor is a maniac or he is so timid that you can bet him out of the hand when he has a weak Ace, folding is usually right.
I don' thtink some of your comments are fair or correct.
You can beat low limit games. It is frustrating to do but very doable. Your saying that these games are unbeatable after the rake and/or collection is false.
Playing steady maybe boring game (as Krieger's alleged pro does), will definitely get the money in this type of game. It is unbelievealbe how bad some people play at these limits and there are some locales where the 10/20 players are only marginally better than the low limit players.
I think basically Krieger is giving a beginner a recipe on how to play tight/"solid" poker and i suspect if the reader can follow his advice he will do ok. Maybe not so in higher limit games but this advice can take you far even in some middle limit games in some places...
you wrote? I'd like to see it here. I dont do rgp....gotta get that news server setup right ...been too lazy to call my isp.
Very thorough and interesting post. I purchased this book at the Gambler's Book Store in LV three years ago and although I haven't reviewed it in a while, it was much better than my first HE book purchase, Ken Warren's book. As much as posters flame that book, it was a great help for a true beginner at the time, and it did at least put me a couple of legs up on the local opposition. Since then, I have augumented my library with the 2+2 collection, including Inside the Poker Mind, and Roy Cooke's book. All have helped me a great deal.
I can attest that LL games are indeed beatable, or else I am the luckiest guy on the planet. I play mainly in 3-6 and 4-8 games, primarily because there is just not that many options here, but I have more than held my own in recent forays into 10-20 here, and 6-12 to 8-16 games at the Mirage and Bellagio on semi-annual trips to Vegas. I will agree with you though, that the button dead drop in SoCal would make it much more difficult for a player with my style to do well there at LL. I played for 3 days in October at the Bike and HG on a trip to LA, and I noticed the effect of the button charge immediately. Plus the fact that the games are usually about 7-handed, and better dealers pushing through 30-40 hands per hour made a big difference.
Most of the LL play in Edmonton is concentrated at one casino. The action over the past year or so has picked up, and there are many new players coming to the game. Most evenings, and on weekends, I have about 3 or 4 LL games from which to choose, but to be honest, I do not often change tables. Once in a while, I will find myself in a game with 3 or 4 other decent players, and the neighboring game looks much more beatable, so I will move, but to be honest, there are not many nights when I sit down that I don't think I am the best player at the table and I have a solid read on most everyone's play. So why table hop? I actually don't mind 1, or maybe 2, solid opponents in the game to help keep things under control a bit, but while the loose, no fold'em games are sometimes hard on the variance, they are most definetly lucrative. I have been adding a few wrinkles to my play based on what I read on this forum and in the literature (no, Dave Ottosen, I'm not telling you what they are), but for the most part, I do well in these games with better than average hand selection (not counting the 32o BB hand posted above!) than the opposition, paying closer attention to what's going on around me, table image that allows some successful bluffing, and a more concentrated effort over the past while not to leave bets lying around.
The rake in Alberta is 5% to a maximum of $5 per hand, plus a $1 Bad Beat deduction on pots over $50. If I can overcome this over the past 3 1/2 years with only 2 losing months in that time, I think I can safely say that at least some LL games are beatable.
Great post, Dunc.
For the real beginner, Warren's book IS a good start. After a bit of experience a new player can move on to better texts.
The rake in Alberta is 5% to a maximum of $5 per hand, plus a $1 Bad Beat deduction on pots over $50. If I can overcome this over the past 3 1/2 years with only 2 losing months in that time, I think I can safely say that at least some LL games are beatable.
I can second Dunc's appraisal of the LL games here in Edmonton. I played almost every day for about three years; 3-6 mostly, some 5-10. "Semi-pro" as I liked to call it. I pulled thousands out of the games, but I had to spend it on rent and such, so I was never able to grow my bankroll.
That, in fact, was the death of my career (along with the fact that there was a poker decline in the city - from my perspective, at least - so that the real money fountains weren't around anymore. All that was left was the regular crowd of decent players [including Dunc from time to time] and slow bleeders).
When I do get out to play these days I still feel that I am the best player at my table (except the one time I was in Dunc's game, of course. Or if Don sits down, perhaps). There are a lot of players who talk a great game, and sound like pros, but my experiences with them aren't that good (and many of them read this forum and rgp). I suppose that the same is true everywhere.
Low limit games are beatable, and quite profitably, and it really doesn't take much to be the best at your table. Reasonable starting hand requirements can overcome the (non-draconian) rakes, and smart, aggressive post-flop play will make you money. Improve your reading skills and you will be running over the game.
Eric
After studying all of the other good books, I purchased both of Lou Krieger's books when someone I respected recommended them. I was very disappointed. I feel that I am knowledgeable enough now to learn even from bad books, but I'm growing very weary of sorting through all of the overgeneralizations and inaccuracies that Krieger makes to try and find something of value. Perhaps I will elaborate on this in future posts.
It may be that I'm evaluating it through the eyes of a middle limit player, and that the advice is more applicable to lower limits. I would not put this book in the same category as Lee Jones book, however. In fact, I may have learned more from Ken Warren. I'm not recommending his book, but at least he has some nifty probability tables.
I beat the 1-4-8-8 games over the course of several months in Vegas when I was serving my "apprenticeship." (I'd now consider myself a journeyman, although I'm easily a sounder player than any of the players I've encountered thus far at the Commerce 3-6 veldt. which is not to say superior in every game; loose aggressive types can score hugely at times.). The betting structure there is such that one can see plenty of flops with minimal investment and the pot-rake percentage is overcomeable.
That said, the LA games are proving more profitable, in spite of the rake. There are many many players who'll chase inside straight draws to the river and back, just as many who pay no attention to what someone else may have, just as many who will pay you off every time to "keep you honest," or who'll reraise with busted or vulnerable cards, or who'll play damn near every hand.
This is not to say I'm getting rich quick. That $1,000 a month figure sounds about right.
To all,
What do you think of his starting hands chart in the back of the book? He says it is close to Sklansky's. I realize one must compensate for raises, loose or tight games, etc. But is this OK for a typical HE game?
BTW, the chart form is much easier to memorize for me.
Papio
For those interested we have a link to book reviews by Nick Christenson. (Just scroll down the left column and click on "Favorite Links.") This book is covered if you want another opinion.
In addition, in the 1999 edition of my Gambling Theory I have a short review of Krieger's text. My review is not positive, but Christenson's is moderately so.
4-8 hold-em game. I have QQ in big blind. 6 callers see flop for one bet. Flop comes AKX. I Bet, nest seat raised, all others call. I fold. Then comes J10. I would have straight...but showdown proves I was against 1 ace and two players with Kings. Should I have folded, or stayed with my pair queens????
You wasted a bet by betting the flop. This is a classic example of what I posted about earlier. People not betting the best hand against people that will not fold. I would call it bluffing but most people don't see it as that. Did you think you had the best hand on the flop? Was anyone going to fold? Then, why bet? Pros work hard for 1-2 BB and hour, they make it by not throwing around small bets like candy. Your choice preflop is interesting. I would have raised. But calling has merit too. If you raise, the pot size is doubled which is going to encourage all kinds of chasing. Sklansky suggests only to check QQ,JJ, while raising AA,KK, 99-22 (for value). here since they can win unimproved but you need to be able to limit the field. The easiest way to do that is with a small pot. However, I think that most low limit players don't care how much is in the pot and you won't be able to move them any way. So, raising for set value is optimal.
You missed , keep your money for better flop , and don't fall in love with your big pair when bigger cards hit the board
For 17-1 with no chance of another raise you should peel one looking for a set. If you get a gutshot draw on the turn you've still got the best of it.
Sano, you need to rethink your strategy here. You are unwilling to raise pre-flop having the third best starting hand, QQ, against 6 limpers but you suddenly want to lead into a crowd when two over cards to your pair flop! This makes no sense. Pre-flop, you should raise with QQ against any number of limpers from any position. Having failed to raise, I think you should check and fold instead of bet and fold. Because you bet and got raised the pot is now almost big enough to play a two outer except that you will not win 100% of the time even when you make a set since it puts 3 parts to a straight on the table.
I remember reading in one Sklanksy's book Gaming, Poker, and Life, that in big fields 6+ you should just call with JJ,QQ, while raising AA,KK 99-22. He suggests that winning the pot is most important. And by keeping the pot smaller you greatly reduce people's incentive to correctly chase against your hand. Thus, JJ,QQ improves on its chance to win unimproved. So, you pick up value in this department while sacrificing some preflop. I understand what David is saying but this play must be used against decent to good players and would probably only be effective at 30/60 and up. Since, players are more inclined to chase anyway. It seems like in the above post you ignore the possibility of just calling with QQ. What do you think of this play?
You are correct and I believe Sklansky does advocate this but I thought he was talking about play from the button not the blinds. If I remember correctly he says you raise with AA or KK due to the strength of your hand. You raise with 99-22 because the odds are there to flop a set. He recommends just calling with QQ,JJ, and TT for the reasons you state. He is probably right but I have to believe that QQ is right on the cusp between raising and calling. I would definitely not raise from the blinds with JJ or TT because I am out of position with a lot of limpers. But with QQ I feel differently because most of the time I will flop an over pair to the board giving me a good playing hand.
P.S: I would raise with slick in this situation as well.
Playing 5-10. It is a kill pot and I have to post $10 so we are playing $10-20 for this hand. If it wasn't for the kill I muck my hand.
I have 97s UTG. There is a pre-flop raise and there are 5 players including myself that see the flop.
Flop is Q82 of my suit (clubs).
I bet out with my small flush. Next player raises. I decide to re-raise to see if he only has a big club. He re-raises back. I call. There is one other caller.
Next 2 cards are blanks and I check/call to see his A3 of clubs.
Should I have lost less money in this pot?
Ken
Just curious. It would be a risky play but did you think about raising pre-flop? With $10 already in you just have to put in one bet to make it $20. For $5-$10 players this may simply be too much for anything but a monster starting hand and you might pick up the blinds.
Against decent or typical opponents this would not be a good play but if the table was weak and the $20 could intimidate it might have been worth the move. I have no idea what the table was like so I'm not trying to say you should have done this or you should normally do this, I'm just wondering.
As far as the way you played the hand I think you played fine. Anything you could have done to save money here will cost you a lot more those times (the majority) when your flush is best. I wouldn't even have faulted you for betting out on the turn here.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
I didn't really think of doing that although it is hard to say if the suited ace would have folded to $20 since he was second to act after me. Certainly a good point.
Later on when the table become 4 or 5 handed almost every kill pot was raised by the kill to steal the blinds.
Ken
Nothing to be done. You played correctly. This hand is another illustration of how a flush can lose to a bigger flush. A fact that many noted authors and experts insist is a rare event in hold'em. In a typical 8-10 hour playing session I will usually see this happen once. This is why just playing any two suited cards in jammed pots with lots of opponents is a very debateable issue. You cannot assume that when you make your flush you will win 100% of the time unless it is the nut flush. The more players taking the flop, the more likely your baby flush will lose.
I would say that once in 8-10 hours falls under the definition of "rare" and given that it will happen to one specific player (say, you) even less frequently, I would think that you generally don't have to worry about that possibility as a reason to fold preflop. Of course, you may have reason to fold on later streets with a flush draw or even a made flush depending on how the betting goes.
I agree if you're just including boards with a 3-flush. it's much more common for a made flush on the turn to be overtaken on the river, especially in low-limit when Axoffsuit are frequently played from any position and backdoor flushes are pursued with a vengeance. it's these happenstances which lends more weight to Mr. Brier's position.
sorry.
I agree with that. One of the problems with a hand like 7h6h is that you need three hearts and *exactly* 3 hearts to come on the board.
My post in response to Jim's dealt with 7h6h losing to a bigger flush when only 3 hearts are on board.
"My post to Jim dealt with 7h6h losing to a bigger flush when only 3 hearts are on the board."
I count ALL losses here not just 3 hearts. This is one of the problems with playing suited connectors in jammed pots with lots of opponents. The more opponents the harder it is to get a non-nut hand to hold up. This is one of the reasons I feel that suited connectors and suited cards in general are over valued by many experts. In a jammed pot with lots of players I would much rather have Ace-Little suited than a hand like Queen-Nine suited. Drawing to the nuts starts to mean a lot in these situations and it is more important than having a marginal increase in straight making capabilities.
"If it wasn't for the kill I muck my hand."
I thought S/M advice was to play tighter in a kill pot. No criticism here, just want an answer.
Papio
I was the forced bet of $10. I could have folded to the raise but with 97s that would seem a bit tight.
Ken
I'm surprised he showed you the nutflush. I would have expected something more vulnerable the way he stampeded the flop. had he just called your reraise, he then could have raised the turn, snagging an extra small bet (at least) from you and really put the heat on two-pair, trip, or other flush draws. after he reraised the flop, you could have considered folding against a TOM or LOL. against the typical customer, you're pretty much forced to check and call him down in such situations, unless another spade comes and there's someone else stubbornly tagging along. and that's because there is no shortage of players in low-limit who'll overplay their made hands -- and their unmade ones as well.
The only question I have is your re-raise to see if he only had a big club. I'm assuming that you are thinking he will only call (or fold) to your raise if all he has is a big club. But, wouldn't he re-raise you back with any set or a big two pair? I have to wonder what the the other caller had to cold call two raises, did he stay until the river as well?
Not sure if he would re-raise with 2 pair or a set facing my bet and re-raise on a 3 flush board. The player had just sat down 30 minutes before and I had never played with him.
The other player was the classic fish. He lost $600 in an hour and a half at the table. He liked to be in the pot to the end although in this one he folded on either the turn or the river.
Ken
I don't have my copy of HEFAP21 at my fingertips, but in the section covering play out of the BB, it says that it is OK to call a raise out of the BB with small unsuited connectors (they talk about 54o specifically) if there are a lot of callers and you judge the opposition to be the types that will pay you off if you do make something. I was in Calgary a couple of days ago in a 3-6-12 HE game (see separate thread on Other Topics) when this hand came up and I would appreciate comments.
As I said, I am BB with a monster: 32o. The game is exceptionally passive, with very little pre-flop raising, but usually several limpers. On this hand, everyone calls to the cutoff seat, who raises. Button folds, but the SB calls, so assuming that none of the limpers fold there will be 9 of us taking the flop. Given the generally passive nature of the game to this point, I do not think anyone will limp re-raise. I call the raise. Is this overly optimistic, or reasonable given that I am getting what I assume will be 19:1 on the call?
Flop comes down 8-3-3 rainbow. Now I know the pot is already large, and Jim Brier will hate it, but these players don't know me from Adam (and vice-versa)and I decide to try for a check-raise, assuming that the pre-flop raiser will bet out. My strategy is to put as much pressure on any small pocket pairs that may be lurking. Plus there may be another 3 around, and if so, I am outkicked for sure. Right or wrong, I check.
A player from early position bets out. Everyone folds to the pre-flop raiser, who raises, with what I assume is a big overpair. Now both of these players had been on the wait list for the 10-20 game, as the floorperson had asked both of them in the previous 20 minutes if they still wanted to be on that list. So I assume they both have a little more experience and ability than the average 3-6 player. Haven't got much else to go on, but seems like a reasonable assumption. SB folds, and I smoothcall. I want to see what the early bettor does. He just calls, so I put him on a pocket pair, or something like A-8. I had seen him play a few A-x type of hands from early position in the past half hour. Just the 3 of us left.
Turn is a 6. I check, EP checks, and the cutoff bets. I checkraise for two reasons. One, I want to put as much pressure as possible on the EP if he does have a pair or an 8, and two, if he does now come over the top slowplaying, I get this information on a cheaper street than the river when the bets go up to $12 units. He hums and haws, says out loud, "Don't spike me." and folds. I assume he was on a pocket pair, and didn't want the river to spike him. Cutoff calls.
River is a 9. I bet, cutoff calls me down with his KK, and I win a very nice pot with a really ugly hand.
Who feels that my call out of the BB was reasonable, and who feels I just got extremely lucky? Comments about my betting pattern, and thought processes, would also be welcome. I think the cutoff seat guy got caught up a little bit worrying about the EP bettor. Did I become invisible at the table, or something? I call his raise out of the blind, and coldcall his raise on the flop into a paired board. I then checkraise his turn bet, and bet out on the river. What did he think I might have? Who would bet his hand the same way?
I think the HPFAP-21 advice is to only call here if your small connectors are suited. You really want to have two ways to win and unsuited you really only have one (except for miracle flops like the one you got).
If you have a good enough feel for the table that you know 1) everyone will call and 2) no one will re-raise then I think the call is reasonable, but if there is any doubt about the re-raise or if you think several people might fold then I think you need to fold here.
As far as the play of the hand goes I would just bet out on the flop. It didn't happen, but typically you'll get people staying in with overcards when the pot is this big and there's a very good chance you'll get raised and then get to trap some people for three bets.
I think the check-raise on the turn is fine if you are pretty sure it will be bet. Some players with an overpair might think (correctly) that they are either way ahead or way behind here and just check behind you.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
I'll have to look again tonight when I get home, Paul. I had given the hand a lot of thought after the sit, and decided to review the text to see what it said about this situation. I may be wrong, but I believe it did also address the unsuited hands as well. Obviously, suited small connectors would be a no-brainer call.
Dunc,
I like your intention to check-raise on the flop but not for the reasons you gave. Given the size of the pot, you should be doing everything you can to win it. In this vein, I think that check-raising would be the best way to win the pot, because the likely flop bettor (or raiser) is to your right. As such, you will likely be able to force everyone in between you and the pre-flop raiser to have to call two bets cold. I thus think that planning to check-raise on the flop is the best way to protect your hand, and I think that protecting your hand should be your primary concern with so much money in the pot.
-Anon
Well, I agree with your call preflop; in fact, in a family pot (or 9 way) I will call with almost anything, based on the pot odds.
I think I also go for a checkraise on the flop, but with them doing all the action, I might also just call it here.
However, with the board so uncoordinated for people who are currently in, I might wait for the river to make the checkraise; they are most likely both on overpairs and I would like them to stick around on their two outers.
As for the KK's river call, there is $108 in the pot that he has to call $12 for. I would probably call here too. I don't think he got caught up by the EP, I think he just thought he had the best hand until the checkraise on the turn, and then he was a bit pot stuck.
David
Hmmm...I would not likely call preflop.
Your checkraise plan is also a little dangerous if the late position raiser was just raising preflop with something like JTs given the multiway action i.e he may not bet the flop. In fact, when a late position good player raises after several limpers, you can probably expect him to check this flop. Many good players don't raise with QQ against a big field. Some even don't raise with AA if you can believe it on the theory that they likely will not hold up against the masses. On the other hand, these guys may well raise preflop with JTs, 76s etc. on the theory that they play well against a large field. In other words, I don't think you can be very confident that the preflop raiser wil bet this flop for you. You must bet to purify the flop i.e. to get rid of the runner-runner straight and flush draws. As well, if the late position guy does have a big pocket pair, he may give you a chance to 3 bet it.
Having chceked the flop, I think you should just forget about any deception etc. and 3 bet the flop when you had the chance. You may well have got it heads-up then which leaves you with 2 cards you want to avoid on the turn and river rather than 4 (i.e. against 2 opponents). If someone else also has a 3, them's the breaks. You have to keep playing on in any event i.e. there is no way you can fold your hand at any point given the size of the pot. Note: if the middle player has a 3, you could have 6 outs to tie on the river and 3 outs to win.
As for the late position player, I don't see that he did anything wrong anywhere in the hand.
Hmmm...I would not likely call preflop.
I wouldn't either in a normal limit game, but I don't think it's a horrible call even there, is it?
But what about the fact that it's a 3-6-12 game? It has at least the potential for huge implied odds.
And wouldn't this also make it somewhat more correct to slow play a bit later in the hand?
David
Well maybe..I don't know..I've never played in one of these games with the wacky betting structure. In fact, when I responded to the post, I did not even take the structure into account (it slipped my mind).
I think you were lucky. I wouldn't have played the 2-3 but may have put in the extra bet with a 4-5 depending on what I read the preflop raiser to have.
While I muck this same situation most ofeten as I believe it still isnt profitable in the long run(but I certainly may be wrong)I think I would bet out. You may in fact get more callers on the flop. And if they draw they draw. While I most often want the fastest way to win the pot(checkraise)I prob try for more bets in the pot in this situation. Play fast. When the overpair raises and I've got 2-3 people stuck in the middle for one bet I decide then whether I want to checkraise the turn and just smoothcall now or go for the pot and take the dead-money but 3 betting.
Generally speaking I think you still lose $$ calling raises in the blinds pre-flop with small suited connectors. I may call with say K-5s for flush potential only or the miracle K55 flop but I wont call with say Q5s as the flush isnt big enuf for me. At that I'll still only do it maybe 1-5 times for a look see. Certainly small suited connectors can be profitable in the long run out of the BB for one bet with 6-9 players but 2-3 is pretty friggin small.
Heres a hand I had at a 2/4 table at paradise. I'm on the big blind with JhQh.
PREFLOP:
UTG checks, loose player right after UTG raises, looks like he just wants to go all in. Last time he was low on chips he raised pre-flop with Ax unsuited, played them aggressively until he was all-in. Then he hit a pair of aces on the river. I figure he'll do something similiar,and I call. UTG calls too. UTG player is a calling station.
FLOP:
flop comes 3d Kh 4s. I check and it is checked around.
TURN:
turn comes Jc, giving me a pair of jacks. Since I figure no one for the king or they would have bet the flop, I bet here. One call, then pre flop raiser raises. All three of us call.
RIVER: 5h
I'm a little confused by pre flop raiser's play, and I check. He bets, and both of us call.
He shows down KK.
Anyone think I could have lost less here? I haven't seen the Preflop raiser slow play before, and usually his play is loose-aggressive, since he was low on chips.
Being a $2-$4 game it is hard to advise you here. You probably played correctly given the game you were in. In a normal game, you might have considered folding when raised on the turn. The pre-flop raiser could have been slow playing AA or KK waiting until the expensive street to pull the trigger. The pre-flop raiser might even have a hand like AJ suited and be popping you. All you can really beat is a bluff.
KJ. Suited or offsuit. I can't even begin to tell how much I hate this grossly overrated Hold'em hand. PARTICULARLY since I always find myself losing against it, when it is as it often is, dominated. Two pair vs straight, top pair and best kicker vs two pair KJ, pocket aces vs...two pair KJ.
Do we all feel the same way about this shower of shite?
Lars Vegas
Let me tell you about a recent KJo hand. I've got this nasty POS in mid position in a 4-8 game. Pre-flop, a couple of limpers, I limp, SB limps (looooose guy; saw him hit a wheel in mid position with 35o when A hits the turn with a board of 2 4 x, rainbow).
So for the KJ hand, flop is KQJ, rainbow. I've got top and bottom pair, and I'm feeling pretty good. Check around to me, and I bet, and get a couple of callers, including the SB. Turn is 2, checked to me, I bet, and then SB check-raises. Folded to me, and I call. I put the SB on pocket ducks, so now he's got a set.
River is K, so final board is K Q J 2 K. SB bets out, and now I'm feeling REALLY good with my K's full of J's. I call the $8 all-in, and I'm already drooling at the very nice pot I'm gonna drag. I turn over my cards and wait for the SB to muck. He says, "You lose!" and shows KQ !!! I was behind the entire hand, drawing dead to the 2 J's.
I've decided I really don't like KJ.
I feel as though I have made a lot of progress playing holdem over the last year or so. One of the reasons is that i seldom continue to play hands like k-jo when faced with a raise, when out of position, or when i could be dominated. I put q-10, a-9, etc in the same class...
I will make a steal raise with it from late pos. , or play it suited with a fair amount of callers.
I get a sinking feeling every time I see this hand(Although I made 4 Jacks with it today) I think it is only overated by begining hold'em players.
It is one of the classic sucker hands (at, kj, kt, qj, qt). It looks so nice but has lots of ways to lose. I still play it an unraised pot in late position. If I am first in I might raise with it from late position as well. I still see lots of players calling raises or re-raising with it.
Ken
I had AA UTG in a game the other night. I raised and then everybody folded. I hate to see this happen. Should I just call? This was a tight table and I was playing tight-agressive, like always. Comments?
What really sucks is when you get called by 22 and they spike a set. From what I've gathered, it is generally not very good to limp UTG with rockets in a limit game. One thing that I would be concerned about is the game selection. Is this game usually this tight? playing in a tight game sucks and it is probably negative EV at 3-6 limit and lower. So, I would concentrate more on finding a looser game than worrying about whether or not to limp with AA.
I routinely open-limp with AA in the kinds of game you describe (which I often have to play) and in looser ones and I can tell you that the last 341 times I've had aces they've won 70% of the time. They're not going to win much more than this in any event but I'm pretty sure I'm winning bigger pots than if I open-raised with them every time. Who cares if they suck out? Play for the earn. Aces are one of about 4 hands that are worth more than the blinds and they're worth several times the amount of the blinds. Just getting the blinds is awful, as you suspect. The idea that limping with aces is some sort of macabre dance with death is just wrong.
Other advantages of limping early if no one raises are (1) if the board is 3 low rags, when you bet near-dead overcards will put you on a middle pair and call or raise (and definitely raise if they hit on the turn, sometimes when they don't) and get raised by near-dead middle pairs; and (2) if you flop a set and check, players will often try to bluff you off the nuts.
.
What is the point of giving the blinds 3 free cards to run down your pocket rockets? How would you feel if you give the big blind a free play with him having a hand like Nine-Deuce offsuit and a flop of Nine-Seven-Deuce? You will probably end up losing close to a stack of chips on this one. The point is there is money already in the pot and there is nothing wrong with putting in two small bets and getting back 1.5 small bets. AA is a great hand but it is far from invincible. Now all that being said, if you just limped it is a smaller mistake than if you limped with pocket Queens or Jacks since these pairs are so vulnerable to over cards.
Shit happens. There is nowhere in the rules that says AA is entitled to win any pot, big or small.
If I am in this type of game, I turn up the aggression a few notches. I open-raise almost every chance I get and play aggressively on the flop.
Sometimes you can steal more than a few pots before people stop letting you push you them around. If they are all going to fold to a raise when you have AA, well they will fold when you have 9hTh also. Be careful you don't overdo it.
Very soon, opponents will react and you will get all the action you want on those premium hands.
Please note that the proper response to winning the blinds with a raise UTG in a very tight game is NOT to play more passively and start limping with premium hands - play more agressive.
I was in a 5 handed game in the SB a while back when it was folded to the blinds. I looked down and saw AA. I don't chop 5-handed (and the guy in the BB had been playing trash aggressively!), so I raised, expecting to win only the BB.
My opponenet was pissed I wouldn't chop and said "I'm going to teach you a lesson" and reraised, I 4-bet it and he called.
Flop was uncoordinated and I bet. He raised again. I 3-bet it. Turn was a blank, no flush or straights jumping out. I bet again and he called, saying "I can beat that big pair." Yeah right.
Turn was a blank, I bet (I figured he would call or bluff-raise with a worse hand), but he mucked. I did not show my hand.
If I would have just called preflop in this situation, my opponent probably would have checked it all the way down.
I don't care how many people are left to act behind me, I will always raise with AA from any position.
I agree that playing AA aggressively is the way to go. However, in a fairly aggressive game, I like the idea of limp reraising with the aces. If no one else raises, it isn't a complete catastrophe since the bullets are fairly robust, even in a multiway field. Plus the limp reraise can get you some more action when you are a heavy favorite by either pinning some players in between the raisers while still eliminating others from the initial raise.
BK
beginner -
Don't worry...that experience is a rare one at the tables I play on. Remember, the reasons for raising with bullets are to knock people out of the pot and, if anyone stays in, to get two bets from them while you are the favorite. Most of the time you will get more than one caller. I would be satisfied with winning the blinds if I was UTG...your position is bad. You should raise with AA (and probably KK) 90-95% of the time, wherever you are on the table. As mentioned, don't give the blinds an opportunity to outdraw you with trash hands.
The one time you raise with AA and everybody folds will be more than compensated by the other times you raise with AA, get callers, and take the pot (easier said than done.) I remember one time I raised with AcAh and got callers. The flop came all clubs, and the river was a club. Lucky me. One time I flopped a set with AA and made quads on the turn. About half the time I get my wired Aces and Kings cracked. It is rarely a good idea to slow-play (by CALLING) good and better hands any time throughout the hand, especially in low-limit. Sure, Aces get cracked a lot. But you just have to get used to it and realize when your Aces are the favorite (pre-flop) and when they are second, third, or fourth best (unfavorable flops and boards.)
Scott
Suppose you have one raise before you act then (in any other position than UTG, button, SB and BB - maybe even next to button). His raise will limit the field and make people with good, though not as great as your, hands pay. Meanwhile, you are probably dominating just about everyone who calls (the only really dangerous non-straight/flush flop is K & Q/J), and hiding the strength of your hand.
A reraise is also almost certain to drive out any players who has yet to act.
Is this a clear limp, non-raise situation with the aces?
Lars
Lars,
Good point, but I am rarely one to slow play. I wouldn't hesitate to reraise or cap the preflop with AA, and I'd try to go heads-up with the raiser. This would hopefully boot out the draw hands, and I'd have position on the raiser throughout the hand. He would have to catch, and even if he made top pair, it wouldn't be good. The more hands that are out of the pot, the more equity in the pot I have AND the less likely the flop is to give just one or two players a big drawing hand.
The main reason I raise and reraise with the premium hands in a low-limit game instead of slow-playing them is because of my image. I want players to respect my raises. In my games, some will drop and some will call. Either way, I have taken control of the hand. I can sometimes buy the button or button-raise with lesser hands (QQ, JJ, AK, and even lower) and use my position to compensate. Sometimes I can steal the blinds when I'm in late position and I raise. And when I do take a pot without a showdown, I can turn over what I had anyways to make players think. When I turn over those non-Aces or Kings, they start calling me more often when I do have bullets or cowboys, and I get more money in the hand.
I'm not saying that a smooth call is necessarily bad, and on a rare occasion I will smooth call with AA (maybe in a blind or if I feel someone's going to cap the raising anyways.) I think Andy Nelson suggested smooth calling with Aces when you get a specific combination (AsAc, AdAh, whatever) to mix in just enough bluffing without getting too fancy. I just believe that straightforward play in low-limit is the best play.
Scott
Yes. Cold-calling is better because it lets you win more later and you really don't mind a third player coming in.
I agree with two of the comments made: 1) If you are getting this much respect, start raising more preflop. You can win blinds often enough to make it worth your while and loosen up the table a bit. 2) Don't complain about winning a pot; no one ever went broke winning pots!
David
I generally agree with the advice to raise pre-flop with aces. However, if this is a game you play in regularly with the same players, the varying your play becomes more important. Slowplaying aces, (and, conversely, fast playing hands you might normally just call with) becomes 'more right' in this situation. In fact, aces is probably the best hand to slowplay occasionally with as it is probably one hand less likely to get run down after the flop...
I was wondering if someone could suggest a shortcut for analyzing this hand at the table.
9-handed 5-10. I open-raise 5 from the button with JsJc, a reasonably solid player 2 from the button cold-calls, fairly loose players in the sb and bb both call. My table image is untricky tight.
Flop comes 8s 2s 3c. Sb bets, bb raises, I 3-bet the overpair. I'm then surprised to see the solid guy on my left call 3 cold. The sb is then timed out all in and the bb calls.
Although I'm not too concerned with the blinds, but I can't see the solid guy calling 3 cold without a flush draw or a set. I also can't see him for cold calling an early raise preflop with something like A3s, 33, or 22. AQs or KQs are real possibilities. I don't know him well enough to know whether his cutoff point for calling an early raise with suited cards is AQs or ATs.
Turn is the 4s. Blinds check. Since the only hand I credit the cold caller with is a raising hand I can't beat, I check. The cold caller bets, the bb calls.
Now what? I'm about 99% sure that my hand isn't best but there's $107 in the pot, giving me 10.7-1 with a doubtful chance of additional bets even if I hit. If he's got a set I've got either 2 outs or as many as 10 outs for a jack-high flush, a 3.4-1 shot. If he's got a flush I'm almost certainly dead and will end up losing 2 more big bets if I call on the turn and hit. God only knows what the blinds have, but there's obviously some chance that one of them, more likely the sb, has a flush or perhaps a better flush draw.
I think the pot give me an overlay here an need to call. Agree or disagree?
I think you have the blinds beat and your fold depends on how solid is your read on the cold-caller...would he call two cold pre-flop with suited-connectors like 910s and under? If you think he is very unlikely to, then fold. Also, is he likely to play QQ with the Qs in this way? Or AKo with the As? Another spade could fall and you still would not know where you are. I don't think the pot is big enough to call here because, as you say, it isn't likely to get much bigger.
I agree with spitball...JJ is a tough hand to play, your position is bad relative to the cold caller behind you, and the river will only help the other players involved in the hand unless you get your Jack (23:1 odds against - you're drawing at two Jacks because you have the Js, and even that isn't a guarantee on the hand.) If a spade falls, you've got almost nothing, and you could be up against a made flush already. Since the pot is laying you 10.7:1, I would fold with a clear conscience.
I would fold. A Jack-high flush does not rate to win in this betting sequence with that board and this many opponents. It looks to me like you are drawing dead. If by some chance no has a flush, someone could have a straight and there could still be a higher Spade out there so you are still DOA. Even against two pair you have few outs. I think the majority of the time you are either beat or drawing dead.
I agree that folding is the play also. If your read is good on the late position player, him cold calling three bets would scare the hell out of me...
I think it's closer than you guys do but a fold can't be too bad. I came up with an +ev of about $.50 if I call, assuming the cold caller can have AQs, KQs, ATs or A9s or 88. If you take into account the chance that one of the blinds has a higher spade it might be slightly negative. Note that if my flush draw is really dead my chance of hitting it is lower and that in most cases I'll pay one bet for a chance of winning 11. You have to be pretty far behind to justify folding.
As it turned out, I was only a 3-1 dog. The turn brought a Ks and it was checked down. SB showed K3o, bb showed 99, and the cold caller won with his set of eights because I folded on the turn.
Other than the big blind, is there any situation when this hand is playable? I see so many play it in low limit, and even win with it. I always fold it except when I'm in the blinds.
Papio
A4o and above are reasonable stealing hands on the button or, if your remaining opponents are just a bit tight, in the cutoff. A9o and A8o are okay in the cutoff and button respectively against loose limpers.
Can someone define exactly what loose-passive is. I know it means alot of callers and not much raising, but how much is "alot" and "not much"? 10 handed low-limit. If there is a raise pre-flop one out of 4 hands is that "passive"? How many limpers constitutes "loose"?
Thanks, Leafsfan
It's not the number of raises or limpers which decides this, but in what situations they chose only to call instead of raising and what hands they limp on.
One excample of passive play: You are on the button with 98s. Five players have limped in, and you limp as well. Here you SHOULD raise, for value. 98s will win more than you fair share. There are also several post-flop excamples.
One excample of loose play: Call the flop with K4s (this is extremely loose) or raise with Ax. Raising with Ax, though, is not loose-passive, but the direct opposite.
lars
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant what exactly constitutes a "loose-passive" table. (As mentioned in many books). To add to that, how many past hands determines the "texture" (?) of a table. The last 20 hands maybe?
Leafsfan
I define loose as 5 or more players taking a flop on the average. I define passive as fewer than 20% of the pots getting raised pre-flop. I play in games where 2-3 players on the average take a flop and about half the pots are raised.
Leafsfan -
I tend to break down "loose-passive" into "loose" and "passive." Here's what I mean.
Loose: This player will play more than half the hands dealt to him. My friend told me about one guy who played 57 hands in a row. That's as loose as it gets. Most of these players will not consider folding against a single raise or two raises before the flop, no matter how bad their hand is. Position means nothing to them when determining whether or not to enter a pot. When they do get involved in a pot, they tend to stay in with hands I'd normally fold, such as second or bottom pair with no straight or flush outs, Ax when the flop comes K high, low-end straight draws against two suited cards, things like that. Raises don't mean much to them. They stick around and call to the river.
Passive: When one of these players does get a playable hand, they never raise. Either they bet, or they call. If they flop top pair with a great kicker, they bet or call. If they flop two pairs or a set, they bet or call. If they flop a straight, they bet or call. If they flop a draw, they check and call. Raising is not a part of their usual repertoire, and you can forget about reraising or check-raising. If they have a nearly unbeatable hand on the river, they MAY consider raising.
This combination of styles definitely describes a "calling station." When they have a hand, they don't raise you out of the pot, and you can stick around and improve. When they don't have a hand, they stick around, hoping to pair up or improve. This is the most common player I've seen at the low-limit tables, and it's fun to run rings around them when you show down your hand. Don't even consider bluffing a calling station, you'll get called. Beat them with a good hand. Even if they beat you, they won't max the hand the way a good, tight-aggressive player would. However, even these players will catch good hands. They will draw out on you more often than you will draw out on them, and that's a good thing.
That's my definition of "loose-passive."
Scott
I am a beginner and I play in very low limits, mostly online. I play VERY tight pre-flop, then I am fairly aggressive after the flop (in most situations I raise or fold, I am not a big fan of calling). If this is my style, then what type of game would I most like to play at? I figured I want it to be as loose as possible, and as passive as possible (passive being the more important factor). Is this the kind of table I want to be at? Is my style ok?
Leafsfan
3-6 loose crazy in BB with 8d7d.
UTG raises as usual. folds around for once. Good Player(GP) on button calls sb calls. I call.
Flop is 77A rainbow. I usually play my trips fast but I knew either UTG or good player would bet overcards in this situation. I check. UTG checks. GP bets. I raise. UTG calls. GP and sb muck.
Turn is case 7. I bet. UTG folds.
My question is. Should I have just called GP's bet and check raise on the turn or the river rather than check raise him out? Does anyone sandbag trips? I have always played them fast. If I wasn't sure one of these guys would have bet I would have bet it out on the flop. Is playing trips fast a mistake? I have seen alot of people check trips on the flop and that's why this hand made me think about my play.
Thanks for the input.
I like the checkraise on the flop, but I don't like the bet on the turn. I check the turn again and hope he finds a bet on the turn or river. Once you have crushing nuts, and with most of them on a terrifyingly coordinated board, let someone else try to scare you out of the pot. However, you may simply have been destined not to win any more than you did.
Always fastplay trips; they are nice, but a lot of stuff outdraws them.
I had a similar situation a few months back. I flopped a set from the SB with 2 other callers. I checked the flop. Next player bet, third player called, I called. Turn gives me the quads. I check, next player bets, third player calls, I call. River. I check again. Next player checks. Third player bets. I raise and they both call. They both had a boat.
If I didn't hit quads on the turn I would have went for the checkraise on the turn.
Ken
With a flop like 77A rainbow you are miles ahead, so you don't need to have any fear of getting drawn out on. Your aim should therefore be to extract the maximum amount of money out of hands which are going to pay you off. The only hand which will pay you off here is Ace any.
I would be wanting to keep players in until the turn with a bad ace, so I wouldn't checkraise the flop unless I thought my opponents would call down with any ace. Against passive opponents I would bet out the flop and just call if raised, then checkraise the turn. I'm not afraid of giving away a free card because people are drawing to two-outers at most. Against tough opponents I would check-call the flop, then checkraise the turn.
When the case seven falls on the turn, you should bet if you think your opponent holds an ace (hoping to be raised) and checkraise otherwise. If the case seven hadn't fallen, I would always checkraise.
Chris
i think this is a good slowplaying hand. there are no draws out, and either utg has you beaten already with aces full or is drawing thin. you can thus check and call the flop. when the case 7 comes on the turn, now an ace or pocket pair has a very strong, but still second-best hand. in other words, you can probably just call on the turn as well and jam the pot on the end.
you shouldn't just be thinking "i have a small set so i must play super-fast." you should be looking at the texture of the flop, combined with the preflop action, to determine whether you should play your set slow or fast. in this case, on the flop, you are either way ahead or way behind, and few cards that can come are going to change that. so, rather than be aggressive and either 1) chase out worse hands or 2) cost yourself money when you are beaten with little chance of improving, you should just check and call. the turn is similar in that while you have the mortal nuts, there are plenty of opportunities for other players to either have or be drawing to very strong second-best hands.
I don't get quads often enough to know how to play them but I would welcome the practice. I vaguely remember reading somewhere thay you are supposed to check here and raise on a later round.
I think you should bet the flop in a raised pot like this. Players with a decent Ace may stay with you but may not bet themselves due to the presence of a pre-flop raiser and an open pair on the table.
2/4 game on paradise. Im on the Big Blind with 10sKs.
PREFLOP:
Early players drop, 6 other people call, I check.
Flop:
Flop comes AsKhAh. I check, and it gets checked around untill the cuttoff who bets. Cuttoff is a loose player. I check raise, and two players call.
Turn: Turn comes Jc. I bet out, and the loose player folds, other player calls.
River: River comes 7h. I check, fearing the flush, but the other player checks too. He shows down A6 suited diamonds, to win with 3 Aces.
Could I have played this any better?
Yes,
Don't lose further chips in a multi-way unraised pot with this flop - you have 1 sb invested. With six opponnents, someone almost always has an ace.
Check/fold your hand to this flop. There is absolutely no future in going any further with your hand in this situation.
I think you probably played a bit too agressively with your hand. When you got a caller on your check raise, this would have screamed 'ace-weak kicker' to me and slowed me down considerably. If you were going to play this hand after the flop there is some merit to playing it as you did. The check raise probably falls under the heading of a semi-bluff as it might be the best hand and also has a chance (probably limited) to scare off any ace-weak kicker hands.
I play 2-4 on Paradise quite often so I'll take a stab at this one.
I don't like the checkraise here because there is no way you're going to knock out an ace.
Even if someone has Ace no kicker, with the K on the board, they might not need a kicker. They know there can only be one more ace out against them, and the board could easily counterfeit their opponents kicker on the turn or river.
I don't care for the turn bet either.
When the J hits, counterfeiting a lot of kickers, you are going to get called down.
If I were the A8 guy this is what I would be thinking:
I got checkraised - What are you representing? KK. no, would of raised preflop. AK. can't see it. Why pop me now when you have the nuts and can let flush draws get there. Flush draw, straight draw or both, I'm ahead and I'm calling you down. (or repopping you) AQ,AJ,AT,A9. AT and A9 can be counterfeited easily. with the K already up there.
When the Jack hit the turn, he wasn't moving anywhere with ANY ace.
Unfortunatly, with your position I think you have a check and fold on the flop.
When TWO people called the checkraise, you can be quite sure at least one of them has an ace.
Not saying I'm right, but I concede this pot.
!
this is not a spot to check-raise the flop.
this is a spot to check and fold.
even as a semi-bluff this raise is pretty worthless, as you probably have little chance to get better hands to fold, with the exception of kj and kq.
Your check-raise on the flop was a very bad idea. If you have an interest in the hand because of your backdoor flush possibility and your pair of Kings you should just call and try to take off a card as cheaply as possible. No one with an Ace is leaving although you might get a better King to fold.
Situation is this : Pre-flop unraised family-pot (meaning: the pot is small (!?)) w/ a (high) pair on flop ?
Are you really willing to pay 1 sb w/ a under/pair w/ weak kicker AND a runner/runner-flush/draw ?
I am not advocating hanging around here. I would fold. But if I did want to hang around, the last thing I would do is check-raise. I would rather just check-call for one bet and try to take a card off cheaply here.
n/t
I just got the mid-afternoon 'report' from my student, plus he wanted to know where I would be playing tonight 'cause his wife might let him out of the house for a 2nd session.
"You've gotta listen to this hand...."
Hero is on the button with the black 9's. Everyone limps in. So I say to him, "So you raised, right?" Now I know that my generally weak-tight unimaginative friend would never dream of raising in this position, so I'm just trying to get a point across to him here. He says he wouldn't raise because there are so many people in the pot, and I tell him that's precisely the reason he should raise in this situation, at least occasionally. Anyway, he calls, and the whole Addams Family takes the flop of Kc-9h-6h.
EP bets out, 5 callers to Hero, and he raises. Blinds fold, everyone else calls; EP does not re-raise.
Turn is 6s!! "How do you like my hand so far?" chirps our boy. EP bets again. Two limpers, Hero raises again (What? Didn't you hear me raise the first time?) EP calls, limpers fold.
River is Th. EP bets again! Student raises one more time, and now EP comes over the top. Our boy just calls.
EP turns over the 'you guessed it' 8h-7h for the str8 flush, which reduced my boy's profit for the 3-hour sit to $210, his best day in 3 weeks.
Too bad Student didn't have pocket 6's instead of 9's. He would have taken down 50% of the $15K jackpot, but that's not the point of the post.
Question #1: How many posters would routinely, or at least fairly often, raise on the button with pocket 9's, into a 9 or 10-man family pot?
Question #2: A couple of the TOM's in the game told my pal that he shouldn't have raised on the river when the guy bet into him for a third time. I told my friend that that's the typical "looking for snipers behind every tree" syndrome that these guys have that leaves countless bets laying around waiting to be picked up. Yes, he doesn't have the nut full, but he shouldn't fear KK (no pre-flop raise, betting pattern) or TT (betting pattern). And quad's are so rare that he shouldn't get overly concerned about them, IMO. I think the river raise is called for, and when the guy 3-bets, call him down and make him show you the nuts. Too aggressive?
1. In a typical LL game, I don't see much point in raising because if you hit a set, they'll chase regardless of the pot size. They'll also tend to check to the raiser and you often won't know where you stand if you don't flop a set but there's one overcard(although with a family pot like this your hand probably isn't good). You also have a better chance of winning the pot if undercards flop because you can raise a late flop opener. With a bigger pot the overcards are much more likely to call. In a tougher game I'll sometimes raise to keep them from folding when I make a set and because I think nines have more power in these games if everyone just limps.
2. I'd raise with the full house every time.
x
You are right that "pot size manipulation" is not a good reason to raise in a low-limit game, b/c they will chase you anyway. That's a good point. But I still think that a raise is correct. A raise is correct because it shows an immediate profit. You will likly be called by at least 8 (and more likely 9) players. You are 7.5:1 to flop a set. While there are some ways that you will flop a set and still lose, there are more ways that you will win without a set. The bottom line is that if you can get 8 or 9 people to call your raise, you should show an immediate profit by raising and therefore should do so. (There are other reasons to raise as well, but this is sufficient)
"You are right that "pot size manipulation" is not a good reason to raise in a low-limit game, b/c they will chase you anyway."
backdoor,
You wrote ”A typical pot manipulation technique (a Sklansky move) is to not raise to keep the pot small,”
Actually S&M advise raising with this hand for pot manipulation and EV. The hand they might call with is JJ and QQ, which may be more likely to win as an overpair if you keep the pot small. I'm not sure they are right in not raising with QQ and JJ.
”In this case, a raise is clear in my opinion and my fulcrum is much less than 8 limpers. The profit is indeed immediate and indeed sufficient.”
What about these fulcrums?
22 thru 66 = seven limpers
77 thru TT = six limpers
I always raise with JJ and above.
”There are also good fundamental theory reasons that would help pot size considerations in your favor after the flop.”
The big thing is to get those drawing dead or near dead to take cards off or get jammed up on the flop and on. Making the pot big helps.
Regards,
Rick
Rick wrote: "Posted By: Bob Ciaffone In Response To: Re: Pot manipulation- Important Reply (David Sklansky)
I think pot manipulation is an important poker concept. For example, I teach my hold'em students to not raise on 10-10 or 9-9 when there are already several people in, because this creates a pot big enough to suck nearly everyone in after the flop, really hurting the chance of your hand to win without hitting a set. (But maybe I should mention that someone who tries to extend this idea to A-A or K-K is misguided, because those hands have much better chance to hold up than an intermediate pair.) " "On the other hand, getting them pot stuck is a reason TO raise with a small pair, thereby resulting in the counter intuitive advice to raise with small and very big pairs but not medium ones. "
I think this is an important idea, and I figured such a title for the post would catch some readers' eyes. I meant no offense.
I am aware of this counter-intuitive advice (read backdoor's post if you haven't already), and I have seen it espoused in various forms on this forum many times. I contend that it is wrong. I contend that the logic it rests on is fundamentally flawed. I do not have the time right now to give a lengthy explanation of why, but I will provide a brief sketch. Perhaps next week I will have time for fuller elaboration.
David Sklansky is arguing essentially that one should not raise with middle pairs in these multi-way situations b/c it will bloat the pot, which will in turn cause more people to chase you, which will inevitably lower the chance of your middle pair holding up if you flop an overpair. These assumptions are of course all correct, but his conclusion is incorrect. Your ultimate goal with middle pairs (and poker in general) is not to have the greatest chance to win the hand but to have the highest possible EV on the hand. While the increased number of people chasing you will lower the chance of your winning the hand, it will also increase your profit on the hand if you do win. This point is completely overlooked in David Sklansky's argument: it is not a trivial one, but it is instead the fundamental flaw in his argument.
All responses are welcome. A response by David Sklansky is of course especially welcome.
Respectfully, Anon
"Your ultimate goal with middle pairs (and poker in general) is not to have the greatest chance to win the hand but to have the highest possible EV on the hand. While the increased number of people chasing you will lower the chance of your winning the hand, it will also increase your profit on the hand if you do win. This point is completely overlooked in David Sklansky's argument..."
This and related questions have been discussed in great detail here in the past. The short answer is that David did not overlook what you say. His argument is, in fact, aimed at increasing EV, not merely your chance of winning the pot.
Both pot size and chance of winning the pot directly affect EV. DS is saying that, with respect to EV, increasing the latter with these hands may sometimes outweigh the associated sacrifice in the former. But that may not always be so, and judgement is required in assessing the lineup, game conditions, etc. that you're facing. (On occasion one may even opt for the smaller pot at the cost of a bit of EV, in the interest of holding down variance.)
I haven't read all these posts, but when David Sklansky talks about raising in late position on the button with a hand like a pair of fives after many players have limped in he is thinking of a game where even though most of the opponents may be playing too loose, they still have some playing skills. Thus the need to manipulate them a little.
In many low limit games, where most of your opponents come automatically, these type of plays aren't necessary.
Furthermore, suppose you are in a low limit game, hold something like a pair of tens which I assume qualifies as a middle pair and many players have already limped in and you are on the button. If you raise, since it is 7 1/2-to-1 to flop a set you aren't gaining anything by raising since they will come any way (on the flop).
But what happens if you raise and an overcard comes? Here you have just cost yourself money.
On the other hand suppose the cards are all smaller than a ten and it looks like you may have the best hand. Your preflop raise has hurt you in the sense that everyone may now check to you. By just calling someone may bet, now you raise and knock players out who may have five or six outs and you do prefer that these players not get in for one bet.
The overall conclusion is that you do increase your ev given the conditions that I have addressed are accurate.
Mason,
I understand your and David's thinking about small pairs and agree with all aspects of it. That was not the point of my post.
My point of dissention is the middle pairs. You wrote,
"Furthermore, suppose you are in a low limit game, hold something like a pair of tens which I assume qualifies as a middle pair and many players have already limped in and you are on the button. If you raise, since it is 7 1/2-to-1 to flop a set you aren't gaining anything by raising since they will come any way (on the flop)."
I disagree with this statement. Your argument is appropriate for small pairs, but there are TONS of ways to win with a pair of tens other than to flop a set. Your odds of winning are much better than 7.5:1. Getting 7.5 limpers to call a raise when you have pocket tens in position is FAR from an even money proposition--it is a large overlay.
You went on the write, "But what happens if you raise and an overcard comes? Here you have just cost yourself money." I can't believe that you are serious when you write this. I will elect not to respond to this point for the sake of politeness.
The only reason to not raise with a hand like TT is because you think that you it would hurt your value in future betting rounds to a sufficient extent. This is where David and your argument about keeping the pot small so that your overpair can hold up comes in. My point is that it does not really hurt your value on those future rounds, because they are still paying to chase you.
Anyway, thank you for responding. I appreciate it.
Sincerely, Anon
"You went on the write, "But what happens if you raise and an overcard comes? Here you have just cost yourself money." I can't believe that you are serious when you write this. I will elect not to respond to this point for the sake of politeness."
Of course I'm serious, and I suggest that you not be polite and address the point. This is just one of the possibilities when the flop comes. That is you may be drawing to a maximum of two outs. When this happens, I would have preferred not to have put much money in the pot since I will usually fold.
The reason why you don't raise with a hand like TT is that you have a higher expectation playing your hand this way. You need to consider those cases where the flop is favorable to yopu as well as those cases where the flop is not favorable to you.
Mason,
Consider the following gambling situation. I am going to flip a fair coin, and if it comes heads, I will pay you $1, and it comes tails, you will pay me $1. This is an even money proposition. We now change the payoff scheme to the following: if it comes heads, I will pay you $2, but if it comes tails, you will pay me $2. Would you object to the 2nd scenario because "you'd just be costing yourself money if a tail hit"? Let's now change the situation slightly. I am going to roll a die that has 8.5 sides (yes, a theoretical die). If it comes up on one particular side of the 8.5 sides, I will pay you $7.50, but if it comes up on any of the other 7.5 sides, you will pay me $1. This again is an even money proposition. If we change the payoff scheme to my paying you $15 if it comes up on that special side and your paying my $2 if it comes up on any other, this is still an even money proposition. Would you object the second situation because "you would cost yourself money if one of the other 7.5 sides hit"?This is in essense my objection to your statement, "But what happens if you raise and an overcard comes? Here you have just cost yourself money."
(Of course, I don't think that 7.5:1 is an even money proposition in the situation under consideration, as I argued before; the above is simply meant as a response to that particular statement)
-Anon
Anon, I am not saying that I agree with you but I think you have another argument you can use with Mason here. By raising pre-flop, you make the pot bigger and if an over card flops you might be now getting the right odds (mainly implied) to chase your two outer. Therefore, one might argue that by raising pre-flop you have actually manipulated things to your favor in those situations where an over card happens to flop since you are getting correct odds to chase which would not have been the case had you just limped.
I disagree. If you make the pot large enough that it is now correct to draw for a two outer you have already paid the price on the earlier round. In addition, that two outer is frequently a one outer if there is a two flush on board.
Mason,
With all due respect, your reasoning in rejecting Jim's point is flawed. I don't really care to debate the importance of Jim's point but instead the type of reasoning that you used to reject it. If we were talking about raising preflop for the purpose of creating a pot large enough to justify continuing with a longshot draw, that is obviously stupid for the reason you gave. That is not the case here, though. In this situation, I am advocating raising because it is immediately +EV. The fact that it may as an indirect consequence allow for potentially +EV decisions on later streets that would not have been possible without the raise is just a side benefit. I'm not particularly interested in debating the worth of the side benefit Jim mentions (though I do appreciate his mentioning it!), because I don't think it's very large. Nonetheless, the type of reasoning you used to argue against it is fallacious.
On a separate note, can I understand your non-response to my prior post to mean that you have come to agree with me on that point?
-Anon
Anon:
There's no question in my mind that you have a way to go as a poker player. Just because a play may have positive ev or increase your overall ev doesn't mean that it is the best play. You see, there may be another player that you can make further along in the hand that will give you even more ev. Furthermore, it might be correct to make a play that reduces your ev on an early round if it significantly increases your ev on a later round. You need to look at the Loose Games section in the 21st Century of HPFAP.
My non-response to your other post simply means that I haven't had time to get back to this thread.
Mason,
You should learn to debate with your ideas and not personal attack. "Ad hominem" does not constitute legitimate argument. If your ideas are not good enough to stand without personal attack, you should develop better ideas.
In response to the content of your post, I will paste here what I reponded to John in another post... My point is not that one should always maximize immediate EV (and the fact that Mason has tried to reduce my comments to this is insulting), but simply that I do not think keeping the pot small will increase EV later on.
If you dont see how keeping the pot small can increase EV later on, then you need to read Theory of Poker a little closer.
If you raise pre-flop with TT and the flop comes 8 high, then anybody with an 8 has odds to draw out on you. If you didnt raise, then these same people with 8s are making a FTOP mistake which gains you EV.
This same thinking applies to inside straight draws, overcards, a backdoor flush draw and an overcard, and pretty much any pair. Mason makes money by raising the flop (or maybe even waiting until the turn when he can really punish them) and punishing these people making FTOP errors. If you raise pre-flop, all these draws aren't mistakes anymore. For two reasons: (1) they now have odds to draw, and (2) they will check to the raiser and when you bet they only have to pay one bet instead of the 2 or 3 Mason would get in with a raise.
So for you to say Mason is wrong shows a lack of understanding of the FTOP to me.
As I said in the post above, the better player post-flop you are the more inclined I would be to not raise.
Both you and Mason are right. You are right in that you gain EV by raising pre-flop, but you give EV back when the draws don't fold ( their draws don't violate the Fundamental Theorem of Poker). Mason sacrifices pre-flop EV, but gets it back when these same draws don't fold (ie because the pot is smaller, they are making a FTOP mistake).
Who makes the most money? It depends on the conditions.
I favor the pre-flop raise, but that is just my style. I like to push hard when I think I am getting the best of it. Mason, being a better post-flop player than I, can make a lot more by not raising pre-flop with TT than I could. So I like to take my EV pre-flop by raising since my post-flop game is not as polished as a lot of peoples on here.
I think you need to read The Theory of Poker a little closer and you will realize both of you are right.
I wasn't going to comment any more on this thread but I think you make a very good point. The worse you play from the flop on the better your raise before the flop. It's sort of like no limit. You put all your money in and then you don't have to worry about playing on the later streets.
Of course, in limit, the real experts excel on the later streets and they really seperate themselves here from the merely good players. Thus in many situations they are right to give up some equity before the flop because their post flop play has the ability to make it back with some extra thanks to the strategic advantage they gain by not raising.
Mason wrote: See if you can find the flaw in the following argument:
I give you 2:1 on the flip of a coin. You win on heads. I give you two choices: 1. I allow you to risk $5 to win $10 2. I allow you to risk $10 to win $20.
Your argument sounds a lot like: see the problem?
rob
Your analogy is close, but it is off by enough to negate the validity of it. If, in the poker question, it were a case of being all-in after the call or raise, then your analogy would be much better. However, I think Mason might raise if it would put him all in.
Eric
Eric, you are way off here. You are right that Rob's (and my above) analogies basically treat the person as all-in, but your pointing this out does not in any way support Mason's comment. With a pocket pair, you will want to have money to bet if the flop is favorable, and you will just bail if the flop is not favorable (this is in contrast to suited connectors; see the medium stakes forum for an excellant post by Rick N. on this topic). Thus, if the flop is favorable, you will make more on average than if you were all-in, and if the flop is unfavorable, you will lose the exact same amount as if you were all-in. Eric, you were correct that we made a simplification, but your understanding of its implications is way off.
-Anon
"You are right that Rob's (and my above) analogies basically treat the person as all-in, but your pointing this out does not in any way support Mason's comment. With a pocket pair, you will want to have money to bet if the flop is favorable, and you will just bail if the flop is not favorable... Thus, if the flop is favorable, you will make more on average than if you were all-in,..."
True if you flop a set, and often if you flop an overpair.
"...and if the flop is unfavorable, you will lose the exact same amount as if you were all-in."
This more or less holds with small pairs. But with medium and bigger pairs there are many gray area flops (e.g., you flop a pair in between the top two cards) where you may be forced to continue with the hand when you would rather there be no more betting. You may even be losing money from the flop on.
John,
This debate has definitely gotten sidetracked. What began this tangent was Mason's comment...
"Furthermore, suppose you are in a low limit game, hold something like a pair of tens which I assume qualifies as a middle pair and many players have already limped in and you are on the button. If you raise, since it is 7 1/2-to-1 to flop a set you aren't gaining anything by raising since they will come any way (on the flop).
But what happens if you raise and an overcard comes? Here you have just cost yourself money."
Do you care to defend Mason here?
-Anon
"This more or less holds with small pairs. But with medium and bigger pairs there are many gray area flops (e.g., you flop a pair in between the top two cards) where you may be forced to continue with the hand when you would rather there be no more betting. You may even be losing money from the flop on."
I had this exact hand last night in a $30-$60 game. Two weak players limped in and I raised with two tens. Both blinds called. The flop came Q94, three different suits, and it was automatically checked to me. Of course there was a queen out, but I don't know that and so I must bet since betting will now increase my chances of winning. If I had not raised, there might have been enough action before it got to me that I would have been able to throw my hand away. So at least in this SPECIFIC example, my preflop raise cost me money.
John and Mason, your argument here is ludicrous. When it checked to you, Mason, you have two choices: bet or check. You pick, as I'm sure you did, the option with the higher EV. The fact that you choose to bet says definitionally that it has +EV. The fact that you lost money on that particular hand is COMPLETELY beside the point. EV is a LONG RUN concept. If betting has a +EV, then it WILL make $ in the LR. And if it doesn't have +EV, then you should have check. I am frankly getting tired of having these falacious modes of argument thrown at me. I will try to keep my tone respectful, though, and I hope you do the same.
-Anon
What if one option simply has less -EV than the other?
We are looking now at the EV of the flop in isolation, because you and Mason have essentially said that raising may create a -EV decision on the flop. The answer to your comment "What if one option simply has less -EV than the other?" is Not Possible. The EV of folding on the flop (again, we are talking about the flop EV in isolation now) is 0. Betting will either be +EV or -EV. You choose to bet if betting has an EV>0. Both decisions cannot have negative EVs.
I Worded that incorrectly. I was referring to the fact that you can be losing money from the flop on, though still profiting on the hand because of the preflop money.
You said, "With a pocket pair, you will want to have money to bet if the flop is favorable, and you will just bail if the flop is not favorable... Thus, if the flop is favorable, you will make more on average than if you were all-in,... ...and if the flop is unfavorable, you will lose the exact same amount as if you were all-in."
It was THAT with which I disagreed. You may well do better in some cases with a pair on the flop if you were all in and could just run the cards out.
John,
Of course you would rather be all-in if the flop contains an overcard. Being all-in would have a (very) slight +EV from that point on, whereas folding would have EV=0 from that point on. Sorry for overstating that point slighty. Nonetheless, getting the chance to bet when you have a favorable flop has a hugely positive EV, which swamps the very slight EV you give up by not being all-in when an overcard hits. You might want to check out Rick N.'s post under "Izmet on suited connectors" in the mid-limit forum for a discussion of this. Basically, I'm just saying that it's better to still have money to fire with these hands in the LR. Of course, this whole discussion is pretty far from the main point.
Let me try to reframe the issue. The only time this problem of people chasing you after you have bloated the pot with a raise is a concern is when you've most likely flopped the best hand (namely an overpair). Why don't you generalize your statement and say, "I don't like having lots of dead money in the pot when I have the best hand"? I realize that I am using the rhetorical technique of "reductio ad absurdum" but I think that it gets my point across.
-Anon
"The only time this problem of people chasing you after you have bloated the pot with a raise is a concern is when you've most likely flopped the best hand (namely an overpair)."
When you have flopped a reasonably likely best, but very vulnerable hand.
"Why don't you generalize your statement and say, "I don't like having lots of dead money in the pot when I have the best hand"? I realize that I am using the rhetorical technique of "reductio ad absurdum" but I think that it gets my point across."
I think this gets complex. Things like the "race horse analogy" and Morton's Theorem come to mind. Not all that money is dead, and those opps whose money may be closer to dead may take away from your EV, giving EV to those who are more live, etc. You probably want those chasers OUT of there. I've noticed in my study of poker that that is usually a fairly safe assumption in hold'em. You don't often err by much, and often do the right thing, by knocking people out when you don't have a monster. Anyway, I was just alluding to what I noticed in my calculations - that it was easier to show calling to have a greater EV when comparing it to raising with a subsequent tie-on effect. That probably had a lot to do with stipulating the smallest chance of winning the pot in the raise/tie-on condition. Not a big deal, just something I tossed out there.
Btw, I read Rick's post and agree with it. I should really mention too, that the same basic thing about the kind of opponents the small pair and the suited connector want is described in HPFAP. So the poker literature hasn't completely ignored that! :)
I'm going to try yet one more way to frame my argument--see how you like this one. :) Go back to that premise I established in another post. The sum of the EV for each player at the table on a given hand must equal zero (ignoring rake or time charge). Anything that decreases your opponents' EV necessarily increases yours, and anything that increases your opponents' EV necessarily decreases yours. We can all agree that raising decreases everyone else's EV preflop and increases yours, but the question is what happens postflop. I recognize that by bloating the pot you may have created a profitable gambling situation from the flop on for other player sometimes. In other words, they can now sometimes get a +EV from chasing their outs, whereas they would have had to fold and get EV=0 before. So could this +EV for them outweigh the -EV they incurred preflop? You are essentially saying that this is possible (I think that your argument can be correctly reduced to this), but the answer is no. These opponents have already overpaid for their draws preflop! It doesn't matter when the money goes in: odds are odds, and money is money.
"We can all agree that raising decreases everyone else's EV preflop and increases yours"
This is wrong. By raising, you can increase many peoples EV. Lets say you have QQ and somebody else has AKs. If there are many people seeing the flop, both of you increase EV at the expense of the rest of the table. In fact, if there are enough people in the hand, 3 or 4 hands can increase their EV by you raising.
Joe,
You missed the point. I am referring to my opponents in aggregate. My EV increases if my opponents' aggregate EV falls, and vice versa. The fact that one particular opponents' EV increased is meaningless, b/c it is more than offset by the fall in EV for the other opponents.
Your entire argument is wrong. Lets say 7 people see the flop, and one guy has KJs against your TT. He is not losing any EV by you raising. In fact, he gains EV by you raising pre-flop. If another guy has AQ he also gains EV by you raising pre-flop. (If you dont believe me, run some TTH simulations).
Now lets say the flop comes down 654. Both of these hands gained EV pre-flop by you raising, now because you raised they now have odds to draw to their overcards.
So not only did they gain EV by you raising, they now gain EV post-flop by you raising.
Now lets take the non-raise argument. Now they KJ and the AQ dont have the odds to draw to their overcards. So not only do not gain EV by your pre-flop raise they now lose EV (which you or somebody else with a good draw pick up) if they choose to draw to their overcards instead of folding (again, a FTOP error).
here is another example. You hold TT, another guy holds A9s and 9 people see the flop. Both of you gain EV by a pre-flop raise. So now the flop comes down 9 high. Now he gains EV by calling even though his top pair is no good.
Now if you dont raise pre-flop, he doesn't pick up any EV by you raising. Also, he is making a FTOP error by calling your raise (or bet) when he has top pair (even though if he knew what you had he should fold according to the FTOP). This FTOP error is +EV for you and -EV for him.
(I see that Joe Medwick has summarized some of this more succinctly. But I don't want to let this stuff that I wrote earlier go to waste. So here it is. Some of it sounds repetitive, but I wanted to hit it from different angles.)
"We can all agree that raising decreases everyone else's EV preflop and increases yours"
Okay, at first I interpreted that the way Joe Medwick did, but you say you're talking about your opponents in aggregate. It also appears that you're talking about "immediate EV", which I think can be a misleading term (see below). I'm not sure, but the horse race analogy, for instance, just might contradict your statement. Maybe not. Anyway, if you look at the total EV of the hand (played to the end) the idea is that raising, while +EV, may actually do less for your total EV on the hand than the +EV play later in the hand which is enabled by not raising. I think in "immediate EV" terms we would usually say that you do gain EV on the raise. But when you look at the total EV of the hand you might say that you lose EV on it.
"by bloating the pot you may have created a profitable gambling situation from the flop on for other player sometimes. In other words, they can now sometimes get a +EV from chasing their outs, whereas they would have had to fold and get EV=0 before. So could this +EV for them outweigh the -EV they incurred preflop? You are essentially saying that this is possible (I think that your argument can be correctly reduced to this), but the answer is no."
I don't think anyone's saying that. That would be the same as saying that your preflop raise is ultimately -EV because of your opps' +EV situation postflop. No, it's just that you can at times gain MORE total EV by not raising preflop, IF that will allow for sufficiently +EV play postflop.
Btw, it looks like you're trying to refute David's well known pot size manipulation idea (with regard to keeping the pot small). But, though what I've been saying in this thread is similar, I'm not sure it's exactly the same. Nevertheless, before I try further to clarify my point, I *think I can clarify something about DS's pot size manipulation idea.
He's saying that you can sometimes make a temporary sacrifice of EV on an earlier round (not raising), IF it will lead your opps to make subsequent mistakes which more than make up for your earlier sacrifice. So, again, I don't think it's saying what you said above. It's not that if you raise, their reduced EV preflop is more than made up for by their increased EV on the flop. It's that the EV you gain from raising preflop, forcing them to overpay for their draws, may be less than the EV you would gain from their subsequent mistakes if you did not raise preflop. Raising preflop is +EV, but sometimes calling is even more +EV.
Now in the present situation that can certainly be a factor. And maybe I've just been arguing a certain facet of it. But I've been emphasizing that not raising may sometimes give you a much better chance of winning the pot when you don't flop a set. This is partly because you give yourself more opportunities to pull off plays that will help you win the pot after the flop. Related to this is also what Paul Talbot pointed out. Your not raising (as well as the smaller pot) will often make your opponents easier to read after the flop, allowing you more strongly to outplay them.
IF not raising can SUFFICIENTLY increase your subsequent chance of winning the pot without a set, then that HAS to outweigh what you give up preflop. [1] The same could of course be said for increasing your opps' mistakes and your ability to outplay them postflop. (I am not making any claim about how often this will be the case in the specific situations we've been discussing. It depends on your postflop skill level, the skills and styles of lineup you're facing, etc.)
You can gain EV by raising preflop. But sometimes by not raising you can gain even more EV later in the hand.
[1] It looks to me as though you're overlooking the contribution made to EV by one's chance of winning the pot.
John,
First let me thank you for your continued efforts in this thread. More important than whose right or wrong, I'm sure that we have both learned a lot from the debate.
Ok, enough Mr. Nice guy, back to the battle.... :)
I have a thought as to what may be our basic point of tension. I don't know that it is, but it might be. My argument is about the validity of the theory of keeping the pot small in a game theoretic context, basically assuming that players play rationally. Is your argument based on some assumption that your opponents play less than optimally? We really should get this out of the way before continuing, because we need to make sure that we're talking about the same thing.
Also, please educate if you will about the "horse race analogy" and also Morton's Theorum. I have heard of the latter, never the former, and I am not familiar with either.
John, Joe, Anon, Everybody,
It there any way this arguement can get restarted? The thread now has so many levels that the message index is all jammed up against the right side of my screen. I'm having problems following who is responding to whom.
Regards,
Rick
I don't know Rick. This ship has shoved off and is churning through the water. Maybe someone can restart it above or something? But I gotta post my latest response right now! Here goes...
I do not vouch for the validity of this post, however, check it out: the thread can be found in recent General Theory: A more intuitive wording might be better for you and I will look for it on RGP. Regards.
"Posted By: DaveW Note: I originally wrote this in response to some discussion here about Morton's Theorem, but I don't think I ever got around to posting it. Since Morton's Theorem has come up again in a discussion over on rec.gambling.poker., I'm posting it now in both places.
Let's back up for a moment and look at some general theory of multiway pots. I've long believed that pot equity analysis is one of the most useful tools for understanding the FTOP, Morton's Theorem, and a bunch of other theoretical issues. So let's take a look at the theory behind a single opponent's call-or-fold decision in a multiway pot.
For this analysis, we will assume that everybody but one will be all-in after the opponent makes his or her choice, so that there will be no further betting and no implied odds to worry about. We will also take the God's-eye perspective of the FTOP where we can see everyone's cards and ask what is the theoretically correct play given that knowledge. To apply this result to real poker decisions, you would need to average these results over the opponent's possible holdings and adjust for implied odds and further opponents' decisions, but it is important to fully understand the simple case first.
There are three probabilities that are important to understanding the implications of this case: x The probability that you will make the best hand
y The probability that your opponent will make the best hand
z The probability that you will make the second-best hand given that your opponent makes the best hand
For example, if x=.32, y=.12, and z=.8, that means that you expect to win over all the opponents 32% of the time, your opponent will win 12% of the time, and you will make the second-best hand in 80% of those 12% cases (9.6% overall). If split pots are possible, we actually want the equity fractions rather than the simple probabilities, so you would include half of the 2-way splits, one third of the 3-way splits, etc., in these probabilities.
Now look at what happens to your and your opponent's pot equity for each of the two possible choices your opponent may make, as he faces a bet of size B with a current pot size of P. By facing your opponent with a bet, he either has to contribute an additional bet to the pot, which gets distributed as equity to all players (including him) according to their current equity percentage, or he has to surrender his present equity in the pot, which is redistributed to the remaining players in proportion to their chances of having the second-best hand when he would have been best. The key point (and the foundation for Morton's Theorem) is that in a multiway pot, there is no particular reason to expect your share of these two equities to be the same.
More specifically:
You Gain He Loses
He Calls xB (1-y)B
He Folds zyP yP
Now from his perspective, he should call when (1-y)B <= yP, or in other words, when P/B >= (1-y)/y. Since P:B are the pot odds that he faces and (1-y):y are the odds against him making his hand, this is just the conventional pot odds wisdom that says he should only call if the odds offered by the pot are at least as great as the odds against him making his hand.
But your perspective is different. You want him to call when xB >= zyP, or in other words, when P/B <= x/(zy). If x/(zy) is not the same as (1-y)/y, then there will be some range of potential pot sizes for which your interests overlap - either you will want him to fold correctly or call correctly. The possible existence of such a range of pot sizes creating exceptions to the FTOP was noted by the late Andy Morton in what has become popularly known as Morton's Theorem.
Let's look at this a little more closely. In order for the FTOP to apply across all possible pot sizes in a multiway pot - in order for there to not be a Morton's Theorem exception - we would need to have (1-y)/y = x/(zy), or in other words, z = x/(1-y). If z < x/(1-y), then there will be a range of pot sizes where you want your opponent to call correctly; if z > x/(1-y), then there will be a range of pot sizes where you want your opponent to fold correctly. What does this mean? Well, z is the chance of your having the second best hand when your opponent is best, and x/(1-y) is your chance of winning when he isn't. So in order for there to not be a potential Morton's Theorem exception to the FTOP, you would need your chance of having the second best hand when your opponent is best to be equal to your chance of winning when he isn't. Or rephrasing this one more time, for the FTOP to apply to all possible pot sizes, your chance of beating the remaining opponents has to be independent of whether or not this particular opponent manages to beat you. (Note that this is trivially true for heads-up play, when there are no remaining opponents.)
With that last rephrasing, we can finally appreciate the true applicability of Morton's Theorem. If every player was drawing his or her hand from an independent deck of cards, then your chances of beating each opponent would be closest to independent of what was happening with the others. (It still wouldn't be exactly true if you are all drawing: if you were drawing to a low 4-flush in independent-deck draw poker against a pair of aces and a pair of jacks, you are likely going to either beat both of them or neither. But it would be exactly true if you had the best pat hand and all the opponents were drawing to beat you.) With games like draw poker or seven-stud, there is a weak correlation between the chances of different opponents making their hands, but it may be ok to treat them as approximately independent in many situations. But that is emphatically not the case in community card games such as Hold'em, Pineapple, or Omaha. Here the community cards create strong correlations (and anti-correlations) between the chances of different players making their hands. Here we can expect Morton's Theorem exceptions to abound.
To take the numbers cited earlier, if x=.32, y=.12, and z=.8, then his critical threshold for calling/folding would be 7.3 bets in the pot, but you would want him to fold unless there were less than 3.3 bets in the pot. If, on the other hand, x and y were the same but z was .05, then you would want him to call pots of up to 53.3 bets. For your decision threshold to be the same as his would require z = x/(1-y) = .363636.... "
From Abdul Jalib's website, posev.com: "....Similarly, it is an S&M myth that you should raise with baby pairs like 33 after six (or fewer) limpers, even if you know the blinds will call. Although you will flop a set more then 1 in 9 times, you will win the pot less than 1 in 9 times.."
"My argument is about the validity of the theory of keeping the pot small in a game theoretic context, basically assuming that players play rationally. Is your argument based on some assumption that your opponents play less than optimally?"
This may indeed be a part of our difference. i.e. if your opponents play "perfectly" then they will not making the postflop mistakes and you will not be "outplaying" them postflop. So you won't be gaining all that postflop EV. (However, it's unusual that they would be playing extremely well if the whole table is capable of limping in.) But while I'm not sure, I don't think assuming perfect play on their part would necessarily be enough to eliminate all instances in which not raising preflop might create a better total EV for the hand. There would still be some pluses for it. It would still often make opps easier to read than when they're all just calling because of a big pot. It would still often make it easier to maneuver certain plays such as check-raises that might help you win the pot. But it would eliminate the factor of inducing them to make bigger/more mistakes later in the hand.
Just how all these elements are weighted it a tough question. You might (and have) hypothesize that when you raise preflop you sacrifice those pluses, but make up for it with the bigger pot, more chasing, etc. I don't know the numbers on that, and don't know that anyone really does. There's a tradeoff.
The horse race analogy and maybe Morton's theorem might shed some light on this. They do both point to the frequent importance of thinning the field postflop. And that is often made more possible by not raising preflop in the situation we're discussing. But on the whole, I'm not sure to what extent they apply to a hand like JJ versus many limpers.
The horse race analogy is described in Sklansky's _Getting The Best of It_ in the essay, "Another Gambling Paradox". It's also in 7CSFAP-21. It's usually discussed in reference to a decent, but not great hand without much chance of improving to a very strong hand (perhaps a one pair type hand such as AJo) versus several lesser hands that have some potential to turn into big hands (such as 65s). The idea is that a horse (hand) may be the favorite to win against another more erratic, but occasionally stronger horse. Using Sklansky's numbers, let's say the favorite will win 60% of the time against this erratic horse. Now you throw in another erratic horse, also with a 40% chance head up against the first horse. The first horse, now with a 36% chance to win a three way race, remains the most likely horse to win. But now throw in a third of these erratic horses and, paradoxically, the first horse is no longer the most like likely to win the (now four way) race. In fact, it has only a 21.6% chance making it the LEAST likely to win. As you add more of those pesky erratic horses it gets even worse for the first horse, though it's still a favorite against any one of them head up. DS points out that against 5 opponents it actually becomes a 12-1 underdog.
A primary implication of this for poker is that when you have a hand that's reasonably likely to be best at the moment, without much chance of improving to a very strong hand, and you have several hands drawing to beat you, it is to your great advantage to be able to knock players out. And your chances of doing this on a later round are usually quite a bit better if you didn't raise a bunch of limpers on the first round. But this applies more strongly to stud than hold'em since opponent's draws overlap more in hold'em, such that if one opp misses, another does too.
Morton's theorem has to do with the presence a lesser draw (e.g., middle pair drawing to it's 5 outs) taking EV away from the current best made hand (e.g., top pair) and giving it to a better draw (e.g., a flush draw). It leads to much the same implication about thinning the field. But I won't go into more detail about it, as I haven't looked at it in some time. I'm sure Morton's original rgp post on it is currently unavailable on deja.com, but maybe someone can provide a link to where it is contained on someone's website.
I also stumbled on a related post by Dan Hanson:
Pot Manipulation and EV Posted by: DanHanson Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 2:17 p.m. (General Theory Forum)
All of these things do add some support, I think, to the idea of not raising preflop with CERTAIN medium-biggish pairs in SOME instances, so as to preserve a better chance of winning unimproved. But it's not as clear as with a hand like AJo.
John,
I am glad that I may have found part of our source of disagreement. It is clearly not all of it, though, so I will now respond....
You have strayed from the main argument! You have begun defending the call (as opposed to raising) on different grounds; your arguments are not those of pot size manipulation. Indulge me in the discussion which centers around optimal playing opponents. This case is simpler (not simple, but simpler), and we can then argue about whether or not a more realistic model would have different implications.
Basically you are arguing that just calling will induce your opponents to potentially to make a large "fundamental" mistake on a later street. In order for this to be the case (assuming rational opponents), your just calling would have to mislead your opponents about your holding. Given that my strategy advocates raising with a very wide variety of hands in this situation, it does not give anything away. The argument for deception is not a very good one when tons of the hands I would play in this situation I would play for a raise. Second, and more to the point, this whole argument about deception is not the pot size manipulation argument!!! I of course agree that deceception is sometimes worth giving up some immediate EV (as in Mason's heads up AA example), but that is not an argument about pot-size manipulation.
I have to go take care of something else right now, but I will study your explanation of Morten's theorum more closely tomorrow, and I will look up that Dan Hanson post as well tomorrow afternoon (thanks for providing the info!).
"You have strayed from the main argument! You have begun defending the call (as opposed to raising) on different grounds; your arguments are not those of pot size manipulation."
Anon -- I thought I strayed from it in my first post! :) I probably should have been more explicit about that, but these ideas overlap, and I'm no expert on the pot manipulation concept or exactly where it leaves off and some of these other ideas begin, so I didn't want to speak too strongly about it in isolation. Also, in your first post in the thread you disagreed with Chris Alger's rationale for not raising, which wasn't really DS's pot size manipulation argument, but was based on the idea that nor raising would help you read your opps better and increase your chance of winning the pot. You were also saying, as far as I could see, that DS was wrong in any advice not to raise in this spot, and you supported your argument at times with references to his pot size manipulation argument. To set the record straight I pointed out that he never actually recommended not raising with 99 in the spot described, and stated the reasons he did recommend not raising with JJ and QQ in the BB versus 8 limpers. These reasons (only six sentences in the essay I referenced), seem only partially to involve the pot size manipulation idea. You said you still disagreed with that. So we continued. Now here we are.
Okay, well, the idea of not making it correct for opps to draw postflop by not raising preflop (the aspect of the pot manipulation idea that I think you're focusing on?) is, IMO, only one of several interrelated reasons why you might opt not to raise with a pair like JJ and a bunch of limpers. I'm not sure you can really separate it from the other pieces, but they were my emphasis.
But let me try briefly to address the rest of your post with regard to "optimally" playing opps. I'll try to differentiate between the pot manipulation argument and others as well.
"Basically you are arguing that just calling will induce your opponents to potentially to make a large "fundamental" mistake on a later street."
This is the nub of the pot manipulation argument. (More specifically, they make a mistake that you won't make under the same circumstances. Thus you do better than they on the later streets.) It is ALSO made possible by not giving your hand away (deception of a sort), AND by the greater ease with which you will be able to read your opps hands postflop, thereby outplaying them. [1]
Also, I have been arguing that not raising will enable you more easily to knock players out postflop. This is partly because you can work in things like check raises more easily, and partly just because they'll fold more readily with a smaller pot. And as some those other concepts show, you probably want them out EVEN IF THEY ARE CORRECT TO FOLD. Thus you increase your chance of winning the pot, which is a big plus for your EV.
"Given that my strategy advocates raising with a very wide variety of hands in this situation, it does not give anything away. The argument for deception is not a very good one when tons of the hands I would play in this situation I would play for a raise."
In that case, no, you would not be giving your hand away, especially if you play with opps who are familiar with your play. A quick comment and caution though: If you are in a spot like on the button behind multiple limpers, you can play a lot of hands including those like 22, 64s, even Qxs. So I wonder if the percentage you would routinely raise with is really that big. If you are in the camp that would automatically raise here against decent opposition (certainly our hypothetical optimal players) with AQ and worse offsuit hands because they win more than their "fair share", then I just caution you that you might be making things hard on yourself. Some tough Abdulian mothers do advocate those raises, but I'm not a big advocate of making them so readily for reasons such as those mentioned in the Dan Hanson post I referenced, as well as several others.
[1] Maybe I should include a caution, since I found an old post of DS's in which he said that aspect really applies mostly to great players playing against good players. As I recall, he implied that it was less of an advantage for most other players.
P.S. I may not be able to do anything more in this thread tomorrow, as I'll be playing. But I'm not sure there's much more I can say anyway, and maybe others can pick up the ball.
John, I'm going to be out for most all of today, but I will certainly reply to your above comments as soon as I get a chance. I already know what I want to say, I just don't have time to write it right now. Per the request of Rick N., I will post my response in a new thread on the general texas hold'em section of the website.
John,
As I indicated in a post below to Joe, I am going to stop with this argument. I gave the reasons in that post (basically diminishing marginal utility).
Nonetheless, I did read that article by Dan Hanson. And I do want to comment on it. I will put my comments in a new thread in the general texas hold'em forum when i do. I hope you choose to comment on it when I do.
Thanks again for all of your efforts.
-Anon
Morton's theorem has to do with the fact that FTOP doesn't apply to many multiway pots. Sklansky mentions this in his Theory of Poker book, but doesnt go into much depth. Basically, if you have the best hand (such as top pair) then when weak draws violate the FTOP by calling, the EV goes not to you but to the best draw. In fact, some of your EV can go to the best draw by the weak draws calling. So if you have a vulnerable hand, you want the weak draws to fold even if they are violating the FTOP when there is a strong draw out. He actually goes into much more depth such as talking about optimal pot sizes and such stuff. Its really very intriguing.
All of the +EV in a given round does not have to go to one person. Your EV has to equal the negative of the aggregate EV of the rest of the table, but it is possible for more than one person to have +EV in a given round (assuming there are more than 2 opponents of course).
If there is money in the pot, then everybody left in the hand can have +EV.
I am looking at the EV of individual streets (and later summing them for total EV).
Rick suggested that we move this discussion so that it won't be crammed on the side of the screen. I wrote in my post above to John that I would place his response (which I haven't gotten around to yet) in the genral texas hold'em section. Someone just wrote a thread in the medium stakes section though that is VERY similar to what we are debating. Shall we move the discussion there?
I am looking at it on individual streets also. If your on a draw, you have 3 options on the turn when bet into. You can fold (0 EV), you can call (can be +- EV depending on how much money is in the pot) and you can raise (which has -EV unless you can drive some players out of the pot which makes your chances of winning higher).
So if there is enough money in the pot, everybody in the hand can have +EV on the turn. This is just simple mathematics.
If you have TT and your opponents have KJ and AQ and the board is 7654 and you bet. The KJ and AQ can take the 0 EV choice by folding or they can call, which if there is enough money in the pot has +EV and if there isnt enough money in the pot has -EV. They can also raise, but this is a -EV move (vs calling, it may still have +EV vs folding) unless they think they can get you to lay down your TT.
Everyone can have +EV on their decision to continue b/c of size of pot from prior rounds, but everyone can't have +turnEV. Let me try to be more clear with an exaggerated example. There's a million dollars in the pot. There are four players in the hand. You bet $1, the most you're allowed to bet, with say top pr or whatever (doesn't matter what, just for point of illustration). Some guy has a gutshot. Of course he has odds to continue and so calling is a +EV decision for him (as opposed to folding) overall on the hand. So he calls. He has -EV on the turn in isolation though!!! Look at it this way. If the other guys call to, he is getting 3:1 on the turn for a 10.75:1 gamble. While he is correct to continue, his total EV on the hand is being hurt by having to call the $1 bet. He has -turnEV. Am I being clearer now?
Yes, that is clear. But then this has nothing to do with Morton's theorem. I was just explaining what Morton's theorem is.
The reason Morton's theorem is so interesting is that its conter-intuitive. In almost all cases where people violate the FTOP, you should gain. But in some select cases you make money by people doing the RIGHT thing.
This is conter-intuitive in that you only make money at poker when your opponents make mistakes. Yet, in these select cases you make money when they play right.
As far as this thread goes, we are re-hashing the same things over and over. Your making the answer to hard. In some cases, raising gives you more EV and in some cases not raising gives you more EV. It depends on how much EV you gain pre-flop and how much EV you make up post-flop. And I'm not talking about deception, I'm talking about mathematics. By making the pot to big, you are allowing the draws the odds to continue, thus taking away your EV (maybe all the EV you gained with your pre-flop raise). And in this case Morton's theorem could apply, taking even more EV away. If you keep the pot small, you can make this EV up by either winning the pot right there or by having people violate the FTOP, which they wouldn't have done if you had raises pre-flop. Which way gives you more EV? It depends on the conditions. What cards you have, how many opponents, how well they play, etc, etc. If you raise pre-flop, just be aware that you will be sacrificing EV later on in the hand.
You need to read or re-read The Theory of Poker. All your questions should get answered. Whether you understand it or not, pot manipulation is valid and it can increase your EV.
I agree that we are beginning to rehash. As they'd say in economics, we are experiencing diminishing marginal utility.
I think I've had enough of this debate for now. We can always "raise it" at another time if it seems necessary.
Thanks for your thoughts.
-Anon
Anon -- Thanks for the thought provoking interchange. I hope I was clear that I was not insisting I was right about everything. As I mentioned, I do not feel the concepts we were discussing to be an area of expertise for me, so I was thinking a lot and learning as we went along, and partially just playing devil's advocate. I am also wondering if we set the "record of rightness" (posts shoved to the right) for a thread here. I think we might have. :-)
John,
If nothing else, the "record of rightness" has got to count for something. :) Your attitude was very clear, and I thought that it was highly conducive to productive discussion.
I must admit, though, that I am still very unsettled and unconvinced about the whole matter. I looked earlier tonight at that Dan Hanson post you mentioned. Thanks a lot for that info. I have a bunch of problems/questions regarding Dan Hanson's post, and I will put them up sometime in the coming week on the texas hold'em general forum. I really hope that you will choose to comment on them when I post that. Given the "leftist" tendencies of the new post, it may encourage others to join in as well.
Great debate, and I hope to have many more with you in the future.
High regards, Anon
I believe Mark Glover and myself set that record a while back on the "dealer tipping" thread which ended with me stating that I would not read any more of his posts. He posted a reply which I did not read.
Your missing the point. Morton talked about cases in multiway pots where the FTOP didnt apply. That weak draws could be violating the FTOP, yet be costing you money. So that even though the weak draws were violating the FTOP, you want them to fold. And in fact, there are certain pot sizes where you want them to fold, and certain pot sizes where you want them to stay.
Here is a snippet from his Theorem:
The mathematics of Morton's Theorem shows that there is a range of pot sizes when it is correct for the player holding second pair to fold, and you make more money when he plays correctly and folds than you will when he chases.
This apparent inconsistency with the Fundamental Theorem of Poker stems from the fact that the pot is not heads up, but multiway. When the pot size is in the middle region, a player holding second pair is paying too high a price for his weak draw, but you are no longer the sole beneficiary of his mistake. The player with the flush draw will take some of that money whenever he hits his hand.
So, you are saying that you agree with my second sentence, are not necessarily commenting on my first sentence, and think that my third sentence shows that my thinking is off-base?
I'm not saying that you are wrong in your analysis of my post (I may do that later). However, my point (made while being up too late and so expressed poorly, perhaps) is that the poster must justify using his analogy when it is not an exact one.
you were correct that we made a simplification
And I think that what everybody would like to see is your justification for using the simplification, preferably expressed mathematically.
For the record I will say that I would raise most of the time. I just do not think that it is as clearly cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.
Eric
The analogy is also wrong because in poker there are many possibilities and the raise on the early round also affects the expectation on the later rounds. With a coin flip that pays 2-to-1 on a head you will still get the same 2-to-1 no matter how much you bet. But suppose I told you that if you bet more you would now be getting less than 2-to-1. This might change things depending on "how much less." Poker is much more complex than just looking at your opening round results. This is also why those of you who put too much emphasis on the opening round and don't learn how to play well on the later streets don't do that well.
Interesting argument.
I tend to agree with Mason on this point, especially if you're in a low limit game. It makes more sense to me (and to Lee Jones) to call with middle pairs and see the flop for a single bet. If you flop your set or flop overpairs, then you can come out swinging. However, this will be the exception (I'm not counting straight and flush draws because these are inherently weak with middle pairs.) Flopping a full boat or quads is rare and I really don't consider it as a reason for calling with middle and low pairs.
Let me picture a few situations in my typical 4-8 Hold'em game.
1) I'm on the button and I catch wired tens. Some guy up front bets, he gets four callers, and I call. The flop comes K 9 3. I took my shot, and I can fold if anyone bets (any flush draw I may have is no good.) How many times has this happened with middle pairs? Even if you flop your set, it may be no good unless it's top set.
2) I'm on the button, same hand, same betting, and I call. The flop comes K 10 3, and I catch my set. The original bettor bets, two people call, and I raise because I have position. The raise gets called by everyone and the original bettor, who calls. I drive the hand, and I'm in charge. It only cost me four to get my set. What a deal!
3) Same situation, except when it comes to me, I raise. The blinds fold, and the original bettor reraises. He knocks out everyone inbetween us. Great. I call (raising won't do much except cost me money.) We're heads up, and I NEED to catch my set or I just spent twelve dollars to fold. Flop comes K 9 3. He bets. I fold, just as in the first example, but now I spent twelve on the hand instead of four.
4) Same situation, same betting, I raise, people call. Flop comes 8 5 4. I've got the overpairs, but that necessarily provides some interesting straight draws since my pairs are in the middle. It gets checked to me, and I bet. They all call. Turn's a 6. Someone bets up front, someone else raises. Guaranteed that one of them has a 7, and your overpairs aren't worth squat.
Yes, raising with middle pairs on the button can be an occasional variance play. It can also be used to steal the blinds if no one else has called. However, most of my opponents don't pay attention to anything I do, so what's the point. For all I know, they don't even recognize the fact I'm raising. In my limited experience, any pairs Q and under are actually drawing hands...you have to flop a set at least. That's why I simply call with them (for fear of being reraised preflop by a bigger hand, if nothing else.) You can be guaranteed that single Aces and Kings are calling, just hoping to catch. And if an overcard comes without your set, you have to fold (even though I haven't in some hands like that.) Another reason to only call preflop with middle pairs is that if you catch trips, some other players may catch a pair or two pair, and they will pay you off huge because of your disguised hand.
Raising/reraising with AA or KK preflop is different because it's not a drawing hand. It's a bully hand. You will have overpairs on the flop with AA and usually KK, and you raise preflop to knock out weak drawing hands and other trash and/or make them pay for staying in the hand with you. Let the single Aces and Kings stay...if you have AA and a King shows up, the guy with the King pair will pay you off. Of course, it doesn't hurt to flop a set with these guys either.
Just my take on pairs QQ-66.
Scott
"The only reason to not raise with a hand like TT is because you think that you it would hurt your value in future betting rounds to a sufficient extent. This is where David and your argument about keeping the pot small so that your overpair can hold up comes in. My point is that it does not really hurt your value on those future rounds, because they are still paying to chase you."
I thought I addressed this above, but it appears you are assuming that what is contributed to EV by increased pot size is always exactly equal in value or greater than what is taken away by a reduced chance of winning the pot. I believe that's incorrect. i.e., the idea is that the change in the chance of winning the pot may sometimes be enough (not a simple one to one inverse correlation with pot size) that it's affect on EV is greater than that from the change in pot size.
John,
I understand what you are saying (and understood what you were saying the first time), but you have given no defense of it. You have asserted that
"the change in the chance of winning the pot may sometimes be enough (not a simple one to one inverse correlation with pot size) that it's affect on EV is greater than that from the change in pot size."
While I respect you (and the man whose theory you are defending), you will not convince me of the above statement by merely saying that you think it is so. Some more rigorous form of defense is required IMO.
-Anon
I'm lazy, and work I did on this stuff in the past crashed along with my hard drive. But let me put it back on you. You post some EV calculations, and then we can discuss them. I can tell you, though, that to a large extent it comes down to what you stipulate for the assumptions that go into the calculations (e.g., the change in the chance of winning the pot as a result of raising). But if everyone can agree on those, then everyone can agree. But it seems obvious that if you stipulate, for the sake of clarity, a HUGE increase in the chance of winning the pot, then it can be enough to more than compensate for a smaller pot. Then the only question is where the cutoff is.
...I went ahead started doing some quick and dirty EV calculations (doesn't appear to be too hard to tweak the results in either direction, but that's just a minimal first impression), but had to stop short as I've got two kids clamoring to "go somewhere", with mom away for the weekend. I may not be able to participate further in this thread for the time being. I'll try to get back to it when I can.
...and I'd just like clarify something. Reviewing this thread a little, I see that it appears to be a bit off course. I'm not sure, but I'm not aware that DS has ever recommended this "not raising" tactic for 99 versus tons of limpers in late position. As far as I know, he mentions it ("Call or Raise?" in Poker, Gaming and Life) specifically with regard to QQ and JJ (from the big blind, btw, versus 8 limpers), as Rick said. The stuff about the better chance of winning the pot when the flop is undercards is a big piece of the logic behind it. But as the pair gets smaller that chance becomes too small to be worth protecting, so you go ahead and raise purely for the set value, since you're getting better than 7.5-1 already.
It appears from "backdoor"'s post that Bob Ciaffone was the one who suggested the tactic for 99 and TT. David just didn't object in his response. Mason did mention TT, and clearly, within the little argument DS weaves in the essay, it would be on the borderline. There might be occasions when the "not raising" tactic would make sense with it. But the idea should apply there less often and make less difference when it does because of the smaller chance of winning unimproved. I'll let Mason deal with TT if he wants to, and Ciaffone can deal with 99. ;-) The argument is easiest to defend with regard to JJ and QQ, I think.
Anyway, I just want to point out that your "David Sklansky is wrong" post may actually be challenging a straw man unless you disagree specifically with his description of QQ and JJ in the big blind, or unless he's said something about these smaller pairs that I haven't seen.
John,
My argument applies to JJ or QQ as well. Moreover, my arguments says that failing to raise with QQ or JJ is a larger mistake than failing to raise with TT or 99. Sklansky/Ciaffone say that certain pairs (I don't care to argue about what specifically those pairs are, because it is completely beside the point) should be played differently from the really big pairs. I see no point in distinguishing between QQ vs. 99, because I am saying that Sklansky's or Ciaffone's argument for not raising with any of these hands in the given situation is incorrect. It is not a specific hand that I am challenging him/them on; I am challenging their entire mode of reasoning in the given situation.
-Anon
You would clearly be right if there weren't any additional betting rounds. But you need to consider how your bets or raises impact your results and expectations later in the hand. If you are having trouble doing that you are a long way from expert play.
Let me give a simple but somewhat different example. Suppose you raise with two aces. Another player reraises and it is only the two of you in the pot. By your argument, you should always reraise here. But almost all top players will only call and trap their opponent for additional bets on the later street. They play the hand this way because not reraising gives them a higher overall ev even though reraising does have positive ev.
Now suppose you raise (before the flop) with two aces, get a couple of callers, and now someone makes it three bets. You should almost always make it four bets since the gain in deception probably does not overcome the immediate gain of the much larger starting pot.
This will be my last post on this matter.
Man, I wish I could have just put it that simply.
Of course I would play AA just as you described in all the situations you described.
The reason for not making it 3 bets heads up with AA is b/c you are only getting in 1 extra bet by doing so but will probably be costing yourself more bets in later streets by revealing your hand. THIS IS INAPPLICABLE HERE, b/c raising would not give away your hand (it gives it away even less b/c of the greater # of hands I want to raise with in this situation) and I actually think that there is more than 1 SB of profit in the raise. Finally, the importance of deception is inversely related to the number of opponents.
I am insulted by your analogy, and the connection to the situation at hand is practically non-existant.
Anon -- I think Mason was just showing that there is nothing sacred about "immediate EV". Your emphasis has been on raising NOW because a raise has immediate +EV. But the EV of a hand involves it's play from start to finish. (One problem with your coin toss analogy is that it has only one "betting round". If hold'em had only one betting round your argument would obviously be correct.) And a sacrifice of some EV on one round in order to create greater EV for the hand is not unusual. In fact I think that observation points to the possible validity in some instances of the "just calling" idea more clearly than my half baked EV calculations.
You are misunderstanding my complaint with Mason's analogy.
One sacrifices EV immediately b/c it can get him more EV later on. This much is obvious. My point is not that one should always maximize immediate EV (and the fact that Mason has tried to reduce my comments to this is insulting), but simply that I do not think keeping the pot small will increase EV later on.
The question is what would allow one to get more EV later on. Mason brought up the example of "deception." This is a true example. Keeping the pot small is not a form of deception, though, (neither of you has argued for it as such anyway) so it must be defended in some other way. Mason's analogy does not do this; it is invalid, useless, and tangential; it shows only that one should sometimes sacrficie immediate EV, which is obviously true, and which was obviously not my point.
David's argument for just calling *is seeing it, in part, as a form of deception, or at least "not giving your hand away". Though it might not give away the hand of a player who raises with a lot of hands in that spot, many opponents will tend to interpret the raise (from the big blind) as indicating a very big hand, such as a big pair.
Then there's what appears to be the problem of any tie-on effect if you don't flop a set. It's tricky though, as shifting the numbers (assumptions) around can easily change things in either direction.
Ultimately, much of it comes down to how *much you can increase your chances of winning the pot by not raising. That is certainly a debatable question, and one to which the answer is not obvious, to me anyway. Clearly if it went form 5% to 100% by not raising, it would boost your EV tremendously. But the reality is somewhere in between. Maybe sometime David will pull out his original calculations on this. Better that than my scratchings. :)
"David's argument for just calling *is seeing it, in part, as a form of deception, or at least "not giving your hand away". Though it might not give away the hand of a player who raises with a lot of hands in that spot, many opponents will tend to interpret the raise (from the big blind) as indicating a very big hand, such as a big pair."
Furthermore your preflop raise with TT has the effect of disguising your opponents hands on the flop!
Say someone has QJ mid position, it gets raised behind him, he calls for one more bet and the flop comes Q73. Many players in this situation would be quiet tempted to check to the raiser. The TT now faces a situation where he has no idea where he is at. He has created deception against himself by raising pre-flop. With TT now you may be best, may be way behind and facing a check-raise or you may have a Q who will be just calling along.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Okay, well, I'm not going to champion the idea too strongly; it's not something I've looked at in great depth. But I do think you may be discounting too easily the reasoning DS gives in the essay, which (IMO) is essentially what I touched on in previous posts.
Also, from the point of view of DS's argument it does matter what pairs we're talking about. It seems to me that the very essence of his argument is that pairs with moderate, but not great, chances of winning without flopping sets benefit greatly from preserving these chances.
Anyway, below are some quick hypothetical EV calculations for JJ in the big blind with eight limpers. (I did most of this last night, operating on four hours sleep from the previous night, so I take no responsibility for errors or anything goofy that tumbles off my keyboard. . But if anyone spots some obvious egregious error, I'll try to fix it. :-/) They are just looking at those times when you do not flop a set, but do have an overpair to the flop. They further ignore spiking sets on later streets. Of course I had to make assumptions about the chance of winning the pot in each case and the number of bets that opponents would put into the pot. These values were pulled from thin air, just to see if some numbers that were at least remotely plausible could show not raising to have the higher EV. I look at three scenarios: (1) Raising with no tie-on effect, (2) Raising with a tie-on effect, and (3) Checking.
Note that even without a tie-on effect, you should still often have less chance of winning the pot following the raise due to having given your hand away (a probable big pair), thereby making it tougher to pull off certain maneuvers that might otherwise help you win the pot. There may also be some additional "legitimate" callers as a result of the bigger pot. (I talk about this a bit below.)
Obviously the analysis is partial and simplistic, just some initial info to consoder unless someone wants to get much deeper into it. (refining the EV figures with factors mentioned below, etc.)
1.RAISE/NO TIE-ON EFFECT
I'll assume the following for the this scenario:
--You win 23 small bets when you win (bets opponents contribute preflop, on flop... = 16+4+2+1).
--chance of winning pot is 25%.
EV = (.25 * 23) + (.75 * -1) = 5.0(small bets)
2.RAISE WITH TIE-ON EFFECT
I'll assume the following for this scenario:
--You win 27 small bets when you win (16+5+4+2).
--chance of winning pot is 20%.
EV = (.20 * 27) + (.80 * -1) = 4.60
3.CHECKING
I'll assume the following for this scenario:
--you win 15 small bets when you win (8+4+2+1).
--chance of winning pot is 35%.
EV = (.35 * 15) + (.65 * 0) = 5.25
So as compared to either raising scenario, just calling can have a higher EV.
(For the sake of simplicity I equated the number of bets going in after the flop in the two "no tie-on effect" scenarios. Depending on how you define a tie-on effect, it will not always happen this way, as you could (but won't always) have additional players drawing correctly, but not incorrectly "tied on", in the "raise/no tie-on effect" scenario, thus putting some additional bets into the pot. I ran it this way too, and was still quite able to obtain similar results. It just didn't look as clean, as I couldn't use the same nice round numbers for some assumptions.)
However, a next step is to come up with something closer to an overall EV estimate by accounting for, and adding to the equation, the respective EVs for the case of flopping a set under each scenario. (And there are other necessary steps.) That's important, but is also where I sign off, as it's starting to become a lot of work. I'll just mention that an initial look at it (again, using various assumptions about number of callers, percentage of the time the set holds up, etc.) hints that the greater EV for not raising may realistically hold upon refining the EVs to account for flopping sets under both the "no tie-on effect" scenario and the "tie-on effect" scenario. It just depends on what values you plug in. But I've tried to use values that seem more or less within reason. And again, my purpose isn't to argue that just calling is right, but just that the logic behind DS's argument makes some sense, and that it's not unreasonable to suspect that that calling could at times be right. Of course I could easily have overlooked one thing or another. So maybe you can still convince me that the just call argument is fundamentally flawed.
(This may get posted twice as the first didn't show up when I submitted it.)
"The only reason to not raise with a hand like TT is because you think that you it would hurt your value in future betting rounds to a sufficient extent. This is where David and your argument about keeping the pot small so that your overpair can hold up comes in. My point is that it does not really hurt your value on those future rounds, because they are still paying to chase you."
I thought I addressed this above, but it appears you are assuming that what is contributed to EV by increased pot size is always exactly equal in value or greater than what is taken away by a reduced chance of winning the pot. I believe that's incorrect. i.e., the idea is that the change in the chance of winning the pot may sometimes be enough (not a simple one to one inverse correlation with pot size) that it's affect on EV is greater than that from the change in pot size.
You might be right, but the problem I have with this theory is that it doesn't compare actual expectation, and that can't be done without making a lot of dubious assumptions about how the hand will be played and how large the pot will get. Obviously, your ev with 99 in an unraised family pot is huge due to the possibility of a set, if nothing else. Your ev if you raise is almost certainly positive as well, but is it necessarily greater? I doubt it, although I admit I'm not sure. A specific problem is that you need a much bigger pot by the end of the hand to justify the raise, but in a loose passive game the pots don't get that much bigger after the flop, regardless of the raise, whereas in a tougher game they get leveraged into monsters.
In short, when you limp you are guaranteed a healthy ev but if you raise you're gambling that your ev will be actually higher and therefore risking a chance of something lower.
Chris,
With all due respect, I fear that you may be missing my point. You wrote that "A specific problem is that you need a much bigger pot by the end of the hand to justify the raise." This is simply not true. My whole argument was that the raise shows immediate additional EV (above that of a call) once the expected family of players call. While you will surely pick up extra bets if you flop a set, these extra bets are not at all factored into my argument. I agree that the general issue of raising limpers with middle pairs is complicated and filled with some potentially dubious argumentation, but the case of 99 against a family of limpers is relatively straightforward IMO. Regardless, I insist (and hope you will come to agree) that my analysis is independent of any future betting action and thus any questionable assumptions.
-Anon
P.S. I was surprised that skp agreed with you, and if skp is reading this, I do encourage him to respond and elaborate on his thinking.
Whether you have a positive expectation based on the preflop money depends on how often your set or better wins. If it's 90% of the time your ev is higher if you raise, but if it's only 80% of the time it's lower if you raise and you have to make up for it with more bets (I think at least 5 or 6) postflop without suffering any greater prejudice from the larger pot.
Perhaps the additonal bets or the higher win rate are highly probable, in which case you're right, but I'd have to see more numbers to be convinced.
Looking back on your original post I noticed that your assumption of positive ev through raising is also based on the chance of winning without a set. Since I believe that your chance of winning without a set is higher if you don't raise, this component of ev might also be higher with one preflop bet.
Just thought I'd add a few points here...
This whole pot manipulation idea can work either way depending on the type of game you are playing. If you are playing with some of the typical unaware of their surroundings players who live at the low limits, raising to encourage poor draws to stick around after the flop just isn't going to work. In this case the rationale for raising is to build a larger pot in case you flop a set (or win somehow else, like top pair or top two pair).
On the other side of the pot manipulation coin is the idea that by not raising, players will be less inclined to stick around with overcards and flukey draws for the smaller pot. Again, for this to have value the players must be adjusting their play for the pot size, something not present in all low limit games. This would sopposedly help the nines win without making a set.
Personally, I find that while pot manipulation does not always work well in low limit, the nines set possibility added to the chance of winning unimproved or barely improved makes it worth a raise. However, I don't agree with the HEPFAP advice to raise with all small pocket pairs here, as the chances of winning unimproved go way down, and the odds of making a set but still losing require more than 8-1 odds on your bet. I think my breakpoint here would probably be around a pair of 7s. Sorry for the long response, but this is an idea i've been kicking around for some time now.
BK
Anon,
I just realized that my post below added nothing that you did not already cover ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Chris,
Let's say you have to flop a set. Forget about the extra bets you get post flop when the pot is made bigger by a raise. Maybe you lose it back when double runner draws stay in to beat you. Maybe the players drawing dead will stay in anyway.
You wrote: ”Obviously, your ev with 99 in an unraised family pot is huge due to the possibility of a set, if nothing else. Your ev if you raise is almost certainly positive as well, but is it necessarily greater?”
Of course it is greater. If there is a pre flop overlay with one bet in per player then the pre flop overlay should be about twice as great with two bets per player. (Note: This logic may break down for unforeseen reasons with four or five bets per player.) The only thing that could hurt EV a little is if the blinds fold where they would not to a limp.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
What you are saying is true about the value of an overlay, but it is debatable whether all of these small pocket pairs rasing vs. many limpers have an +ev overlay or not.
BK
about the possible free card. You also forgot about deception: People might think that you´ve hit your liner/ace and will be comfortable because they think they know what they need to beat you and raise you when they´ve got two pair so that you can reraise now.
Interesting hand.
1) With 6 or 7 limpers (not including the blinds) I most likely would not raise with 99. Since it is unlikely you will get a low flop or hit a set, it is very likely that an overcard will hit and one of the many callers will have that overcard. It is also very unlikely you will have anyone fold to your raise. Cut that number to 4 or 5 limpers then I raise 1/2 the time.
2) Hopefully I notice the straight flush but then I would still raise. It is not guaranteed that he has the straight flush based on his betting pattern. He could have 96s or k6s and bet the same way.
Ken
okCanada,
I think four or five limpers is worse for a raise. You can't bully this many and usually must flop a set. One or two limpers can be bullied when one overcard flops. With six or seven limpers you start to get into the situation where tying on is a factor. With eight or nine limpers you get immediate positive EV.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I now understand that based on the odds of flopping of set, you are making +ev if you raise for value in this situation. Would you raise with any pocket pair in this situation?
I did have a situation playing 15-30 a few days ago when there were 6 limpers with me having 33 on the button. I called and took down a huge pot when I flopped a set and turned a boat.
I agree the situation is fairly rare.
Ken
okCanada,
I might not raise with baby pairs because it is close in terms of expectation and it is the type of play that increases standard deviation. Besides the original bet, you often make the pot big enough to take one off when you miss and have position.
The other problem is that games are rarely that loose at mid limit and we only seat nine in Los Angeles. Factor in the player away from the table smoking or whatever and it just doesn't come up often.
Regards,
Rick
With everyone in, raising here with any pair is a raise for value since you will get more callers than the odds to make your set, plus if you don't hit it you may get checked to and get a free card to make it. I think you raise here with 22 unless you have reason to fear a limp reraise.
With 99 and below there is extra value here because when you hit your set the pot will be so large that overcards will stay in throwing money your way when they are almost drawing dead.
Paul Talbot
I think Talbot is on the right track here. Once again, it bears noting that low limit games in Edmonton aren't the A2C variety you get in California. 10 handed flops are fairly rare up here. At least, when I'm playing, anyway. Hmmm...
People here generally have half a brain when it comes to betting their hands. That being said, when most of them see a 20 SB pot on the flop, they'll definitely see another card, to see if they can catch their Ace. If they do, they're along for the ride, only improving your pot.
GB
I disagree with this assertion fairly strongly. While it is true you only need 8-1 odds to flop a set, the mistake is in assuming that all flopped sets will win. Against many limpers, the set will not actually win one out of every eight times. Therefore, you may actually not be making money on this play with really low pairs. With the medium pairs, the added equity of possibly winning in other ways could make this raise correct.
BK
Okay, sets will not always win, but when they do, they will almost always win far more than the 8 small bets you are raising for value with pre-flop giving you the edge you need for those times you get beat.
I think I'm right, but maybe I can be convinced, BK. Maybe some sims are in order.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Paul,
I have seen some turbo sims done on r.g.p that in fact suggest that the baby pocket pairs are not valuable enough for raising here. I think they were done by Abdul Jalib- try to find them if the deja archives are up now. I believe his cutoff was somewhere around sixes, again I'm not sure about this. Now if your game is so passive that your raise can get all 8 players or so to check to you, then the free card here probably makes a raise with any pocket pair good. However, even the with low level meekies I play with usually one person out of 8 will bet in front of you.
Your other point is true- you are getting tremendous implied odds if you flop a set. But on the occasions when you do have a set cracked it is going to cost you dearly. I would love to see some new sims on this since this is a play and a discussion that seems to arise fairly often.
Ben
Dunc,
If I ever had the chance I would raise but I really don't get that many limpers often. But I think you can add value with six limpers or so since you pick up a blind and I like the pot manipulation factor.
Your friend had an easy raise on the river but no reraise given his image.
Regards,
Rick
Not raising with 99 against 10 opponents is unbelievably insane! Do you know how much EV your leaving on the table?
Not to mention your going to get paid off big time when you hit your hand.
Your making money just on the set possibilities. Not to mention the overpair and straight possibilities.
ok, paradise, 2/4 game. I have KK on one away from the button. I think this was a pretty straight forward hand, but just to be sure...
PREFLOP:
Early position player calls, and two more after call. I raise, three middle position call, and the blinds fold.
FLOP:
Flop comes Qh 8h Kh. Its checked around to me, and I bet, one drops, and the rest call.
TURN:
Turn comes Ad, checked to me and I bet, everyone calls.
RIVER:
River comes 3d, checked to me, I bet, one fold, one call.
Caller shows down 88 for three eights.
Pretty staight forward or what?
s
(n/t)
If you flop trips I'd say you bet every chance you get unless something jumps out at you and kicks you in the groin.
If you flop trips and lose, you better lose a lot of money or you played the hand wrong.
Hate to say it but the 88 played the hand wrong and you SHOULD have won more money!
Typical passive $4 game at Paradise.
By me winning more money, you that if the 88 played his hand fast, which he should have, I could have won more money, but not otherwise, right?
Ckim -
Funny you're talking about KK. As mentioned, if you flop a SET and get cracked, you should lose a lot of chips or you didn't play it right. I think you played the hand as well as you could have, which is FAST FAST FAST. Bobby Baldwin said in Super/System that when you flop a set, it's "full steam ahead." I definitely agree. Last night in a 4-8 game, I played small pairs (22 and 33), flopped sets with both of them, and cracked the same guy twice (he had KQ and caught top two pair in one hand...he was a little upset.) Later on in the session, I was dealt KK three times in less than twenty minutes. Here's what happened...I was in the 8 seat.
First hand I had KK near the button, it's called to me and I raised...the SB dropped, the BB called, and I got two other callers.
Flop J 8 5 rainbow - BB checked, 4 seat bet, 5 seat raised, I reraised, BB dropped, others called. Turn J - all players checked to me, I bet, they called. River 3 - they checked, I bet, the 4 dropped and the 5 called. I turn them over, and she couldn't beat them (!) I was pretty sure that if someone had a Jack, at least they would have raised me...but when people check to me and I have a decent hand, I bet. I probably should have checked the hand down in retrospect, but oh well.
Second hand I was in the middle with KK, again. Three callers, I raised and knocked out everyone between me and the button. SB and BB called, two other callers.
Flop Ah Jc 10h - SB and BB checked, the 5 seat bet, and I folded. My reasoning: anyone with an Ace has me beaten at this point. I didn't have the Kh, and if I make my set, a single Q beats me with Broadway. The hand winner had Aces.
Third hand I was in the BB with KK (AGAIN!) The 10, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (on the button) all call. I raised, and EVERYONE called.
Flop A 9 6 - I bet, thinking that if someone had a single Ace, he would raise me, and I'd be done with the hand. I got four callers (I think the 3 seat dropped.) Turn A - now I thought there may not be another Ace out there. Surely, if someone did have an Ace, he would raise me now. I bet, trying to represent the Ace (usually a bad idea in a loose-passive low-limit game,) and three players called. River K - well damn...now it's a whole new ballgame. I bet my Kings full, and I got two callers. I showed the KK for the full boat, one player mucked her hand and the other guy showed me an Ace (??) I took it down, but I got VERY lucky.
My reasoning behind leading with the Kings in the third hand was so that it wouldn't get checked around and players won't draw out on me for free. If someone had the Ace, he should have raised me (I would have folded.) I usually don't bet with anything less than top pair or a good draw, but I guess I overestimated my opponents willingness to raise with top pair or trips. I remember one guy who would slow play anything he caught on the flop...and I think he won one hand out of five playing that way. Checking shows weakness, in my opinion, and it just encourages people to stay in with weak draws.
What are the reader's thoughts on my play? I realize it probably was not perfect...maybe I should have checked and folded on the flop in the third hand, just to be on the safe side. My position was bad, and any Ace should have beaten me. I just feel better when I'm being aggressive in a hand, especially when I flop a set. Flopping trips (pair on the board and you have one) is a different situation in my opinion. The hidden value of a pocket pair making a set is much more dangerous than the board pairing with everyone thinking "who caught trips?" I LOVE flopping a set, and I rarely play it slow. The any time I would play a set slow is if it was top set (especially Aces or Kings,) and there were no apparent draws on the board. I may let people try to catch a pair or two on the turn, and then I would bet into them. However, this situation rarely comes up, and I'm forced to bet my trips all the way.
Scott
6-12 HE. Bay 101.
This hand has been bothering me a little bit. Typical, friendly game. I am on the button with A8d. It is passed to me and I raise. SB folds and the BB calls. I have played with BB many times. He is a nice older man who generally plays weak-tight. He could have called with AK to 45o.
Anyway, the flop comes AJ8 all clubs. Checked to me, I bet, and he calls. Turn is a 6 of clubs. Checked to me again. Having played with him before I didn't put him on a big club because I was sure he would bet it out. My plan was to bet the turn and check the river if I didn't improve. However, I get check-raised and I am sure 100% sure he has the K of clubs (he may have flopped a K high flush for all I know). I muck my hand without calling the raise.
Question: How was my play and could I have called the raise on the turn to see the river?
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
If you are certain he has a flush, then the odds are not there to play a 4 outer which is almost 11:1 against.
I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation. I am curious if you would raise in this spot everytime with Ax when passed to you on the button.
Some "Ax"'s are better than other "Ax"'s. I would raise with Ace-Eight offsuit but probably fold Ace-Deuce offsuit. The bigger side card makes the hand better especially in a shorthanded pot. Forget about the increased likelihood of making a wheel since this is negligible.
v
Thank you.
Hi all,
I am a low limit Paradise Poker player, infact mostly $.5/1, though on occasions both $2-4 and $3-6. In less than two weeks since I started, I've won $620, in other words a crazy number of 620 BBs in about 50-60 hours.
We all know that $.5/1 players are usually poor. In fact, very poor.
But I'd like some comments on the way I played AQ offsuit at a ten-men $.5/1 table a few days ago. Three or four limpers to me before I raise in button position. BB and all limpers call.
Flop: A-A-5 (think it was rainbow, though not excactly sure as I knew pretty fast that I wasn't up against a flush draw).
BB bets out, rest fold to player right before me, who raises. I re-raise, BB fold. Now, the raisor four-bets it. I'm starting to get a sinking feeling, and call.
Turn card is a black 7, definitely no flush possibilities out there. He bets, I call.
River card is Q. Ok, now it's definitely settled, he bets, I raise, he calls. Of course my AQ holds up, they are the nuts now.
However, my opponent chooses to let me see his cards: A6 offsuit! I am truly amazed. AK, sure. AJ, ok. Even AT, I'd mostly ignore. A5, definitely. 55, same. So basically, there are two hands here that I beat, that I reckon he could be playing. Three hands he's more likely to play this way, that have me beat until the miracle river. He's playing the fourth worst trip one could possibly have here (plus beaten by 55) this tough. So obviously, this is definitely a guy to raise at any opportunity when you are even close to the nuts, but could I really play this hand any stronger permanently in situations like these (against different opponents), even at these limits?
Lars
You played fine. Against opponents with half a brain, you should respect the 4 bet and just call like you did. A 4 bettor in this situation is supposed to have a full house.
'Flop: A-A-5 (think it was rainbow, though not excactly sure as I knew pretty fast that I wasn't up against a flush draw).'
You can get a Hand History send to your E-mail with all details including all calling hands not shown.
Ok, heres a hand I thought I played well, but again, just to be sure, I'm on the small blind with AcQs. (Is this a raising pre-flop hand?.
PREFLOP:
Two early position callers, and one late position caller. I call and the BB checks.
FLOP:
Ad 7h Kc. I check, because a player down the line always seems to bet the flop. So, the player after me folds! Well, maybe he hit the wrong button. The player after bets, and call, and I raise. I get a fold and three callers for the turn.
TURN:
4h. I bet out, thinking that these guys would probably check around if I check. One more folder. This is the way I normally think. That most people won't let me check raise twice. Should I have tried a check raise here?
RIVER:
6s. I bet. He calls, he shows me As 9c. I win with the kicker.
Pretty good play? By the way, this is a hand that I play a lot. Where I hold top pair high kicker. If the board is uncordinated, I'll check raise, and re-raise if popped. Cordinated, I'll still check raise, but if re-raised, I fold. Is this the way its done?
On the first hand, Ace-Queen offsuit is not a raising hand out of the small blind normally unless you have only 1 or 2 limpers. On the flop, I think you should bet your top pair/top kicker into this field since you do not want this to be checked around. On the turn you should lead when a blank comes because the turn may not get bet after you showed all this strength on the flop.
I think 3 betting even with top pair/top kicker is usually over playing your hand but it depends upon how many opponents and other factors.
P.S.: Where is the second hand?
I’ll take a wild guess: this is $2/4 on Paradise - right ?
... AcQs. Is this a raising pre-flop hand?
Sometimes – not this time ! I would only raise w/ AQ/o when on the button or 1-2-3 of the button w/ no limpers or one weak/loose limper - and on BB vs SB (whenever that happens).
FLOP: Ad 7h Kc
On Paradise on blinds allways – repeat allways - go for a check/raise - good play !
TURN: 4h. I bet out, thinking that these guys would probably check around if I check. One more folder. This is the way I normally think. That most people won't let me check raise twice. Should I have tried a check raise here?
C/R twice ?? No of course not !!! Are you kidding ?
RIVER: 6s. I bet. He calls, he shows me As 9c. I win with the kicker.Pretty good play?
Yeap – but nothing more – just straghtforward good poker.
If the board is uncordinated, I'll check raise, and re-raise if popped. Cordinated, I'll still check raise, but if re-raised, I fold. Is this the way its done?
Good idea ! As Jim Brier stated be carefull not to overplay top/pair w/ top/kicker. Rule of thumb: I will only lose 9-10 small bets with this type of hand – check the hand history to evaluate your game. 3-bettet to me with anything but top/kicker (and nothing else) I really would like to fold.
By the way, this is a hand that I play a lot. Where I hold top pair high kicker.
Surprice: I also like to play top/pair w/ top/kicker ;-)
10 handed 4-8 game. Player 2 seats to my right (Rush) is on a big rush and exploiting it, playing hand after hand, raising on many, winning many hands with everyone folding after he raises. He seems like a solid player, but another player at the table made the comment he (Rush) bluffs about 30% of the time. I am new here and don't know anyone, except I have been playing about 4 hours now.
I am the Cutoff with 77. One limper to Rush, he raises, fold, I call, Button calls, SB folds, and BB and limper both call. 5 see the flop.
Flop is 665 rainbow. Check to Rush, who bets. I call, others fold. Now heads up.
Turn is 8. Bet to me, I call.
River is another 8. No flush possibility. Rush bets. What to do here?
Results below.
I made a wimpy call. Rush showed JJ and took down the pot.
Afterwards when I thought about this hand, I think that if I had raised on the river, showing possible full house, there is a good chance that Rush would have folded. Also, if I had raised on the flop, I would have at least gotten a free card on the turn.
Any comments?
Papio
I think you definitely need to call because Rush could just be holding two big cards (unfortunately he had JJ). I also think that raising him on the flop or the turn would have been a good decision to see where he's at. Tough one here, but if I had your hand, I definitely would have called him on the river, but not raise.
I don't think you played this one that badly at all. I may have raised on the flop to get more information, but a player on such a rush may choose to reraise you with big cards, not believing you called a raise pre-flop with a 6. I call a bet on the turn and make your crying call on the river in case he is overplaying big slick or some other such hand.
Jeff
You have to call the river bet at this point because of the size of the pot and the fact that you can beat the board including any big Ace your opponent might have had. However, you should not cold-call a raise with pocket Sevens pre-flop in this situation. You need pocket Tens or better usually. Once the flop came you should raise your opponent's flop bet with your over pair. He could be leading on over cards like AK, AQ, or AJ suited. On the turn you should have considered raising since you have picked up an open ended straight draw and you could have the best hand anyway. He might well fold a big over pair here given the open pair on the table out of fear that he is playing two outs if you have trips. If he calls your turn raise you have outs and if you miss you can at least get a free showdown.
As I suspected, it seems that I didn't play this hand aggressively enough.
I really think Rush would have folded if I had raised his bet on the river. It would have been a semi-bluff for me, because I put him on either high pairs or high non pairs. He had folded earlier in the evening to my drawn str8 on the river and to other 3 card flushes or threatening cards on the river, after having led the betting all the way. Course, I had no idea what he held at those times. Also, I think I have the image of a tight player (but not aggressive enough).
Papio
I don't think you played this hand badly. I think you got caught in a very tough situation. Of course, as Jim suggested, you could have folded the 77 pre-flop, especially with an overly aggressive opponent. But I don't think a call here was the end of the world.
You got a pretty good flop for your hand and the turn was even better. Whether you should have raised at any point really depends on how likely he would folded. I think if you were going to raise at any point it should have been the turn ( since most players tend to raise on the turn with trips) to represent trip 6s. Forcing him to call another big bet. If he simply had overcards he probably would have folded and if has an overpair he has a tough decision. Also, even if you are called down, you are leaving a message that you are not going to be run over.
However, that being said, you probably saved yourself a big bet by not raising. You stated that this player was on a big rush. It has been my experience that players who are "hot" cannot be easily bluffed. He probably would have called your raise with the overpair and he might have even called you down with overcards. He probably wasn't thinking too much that night.
Better luck next time.
Very loose most passive game, I get dealt 7d6d in the cutoff. UTG raises and everyone calls to me. I call. I did not expect the button or either of the blinds to raise because they were so passive you could kick them in the shins and they wouldn't even say "Ow". As expected, the button and both blinds just called and we had a family pot with nine way action.
Normally I fold just about all suited connectors below T9s for a raise from any position except the BB, even then I must have some decent odds to play (probably at least 5 way action). In this case, despite the raise, I figured nine way action in a raised pot was more than worth putting in two bets with small suited connectors. I would fold any offsuited connectors, fold KTo for fear of domination, and would also fold any suited connectors less than 45s. The texture of the game (mostly calling stations and any two card players) made me decide to see the flop here.
Flop came garbage without any diamonds, sixes, or sevens. I folded to UTGs bet who won the pot with AA (it's a MIRACLE!).
It should be noted that suited connectors such as T9s, JTs, QJs, etc are not in the same category as 76s and I might play each one differently depending on the situation. In this situation I would have called with any of them though...
Question though: how many would call? How many would fold (Not including you, Rounder!). What would the cutoff be in terms of # of players before you would change your mind? Also, this question is meant for the cutoff or button seat, any earlier than that and I would have folded. Anyone who would call earlier than the cutoff or button please do elaborate.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
If nothing else, your position relative to the raiser makes this call automatic. The middle card flops you want will encourage the players between you and raiser to call the utg's bet on the flop, allowing you to raise the field. With a big overpair he's pretty much forced to 3-bet and you're home free.
I agree with your analysis and I would call. I would call with Six-Five suited as well. I believe the dividing line is somewhere around 3-4 players because I would assume that one or both blinds will usually call meaning that the flop will be taken 5 or 6 handed.
If the game is loose and passive, I might be able to draw to my flush or straight reasonably cheaply post flop. So in this type of game I like about four cold callers of a raised pot. Note that I expect to pick up one blind and end up with about six opponents. I should flop a draw or other decent hand (trips or two pair) about 25% of the time (this is from memory of old work I did, correct me if I'm wrong).
If the game is aggressive post flop or the connectors are something like 54 suited, look for one more caller. If the connectors are JT suited, one less is OK.
Without looking, my guess is that I am looser than Jim and close to Chris on this.
Regards,
Rick
Sometimes I just got to play those suited connectors. They just look so pretty. If I'm given good odds I'm in there playing with them. They always get a silly comment from someone when they win too, and that's icing on the cake.
CV
you will make a flush with 87suited that will stand up about 4-4.5% of the time. that's about a 22 to 1 shot. against a large field, both the 2 pair and 3-of-a-kind hands you can flop are problematic and the made straights are vulnerable to higher straights (with the board showing 9TJ, you lose to Q8 and QKand even AK if a Q falls) and every lame flush in the book.
I think limping from early position when there's not too much raising but usually lots of limpers is more justified than coldcalling a raise from late position no matter how many others have already called. I also think you need 5 previous entrants minimum to justify a call with 67, 78, 89suited, 4 previous entrants to call with 9Tsuited, 3 to call with JTsuited, 4 to call with JQsuited, 5 to call with KQsuited.
You are sort of the minority opinion here but your comments are OK. I think that the position factor combined with pot odds made this call pretty automatic. And the early raiser preflop helps me if anything, because when I do get a good flop for my hand it is likely that I will get to raise, either for value, free card, or both. While some of the situations you mentioned are in fact problematic, you should be able to recognize the difference between a good flop and a bad one. JT9 is NOT a good flop for 87s because of all the redraws and possibility of drawing dead. Sometimes you might make a flush and lose to a bigger one, but this is really fairly rare and I don't worry too much about it. If it happens, it happens.
Good responses from all.
Dave in Cali
I am showing up way after the race here, but here are my thoughts on this hand fwiw.
Assuming, and this is a big assumption, that everyone is playing more or less according to position, it seems intuitive that the big cards are pretty much limited from the deck and the flop should favor smaller holdings. That being said, a flush draw looks good.
There are straight possibilities too, but the same intuitiveness that makes suited connectors look good, makes a made straight a poor prospect.
Of course I would have to weigh in with how standard deviation is treating me at the moment. Some days three betting 23o is a sure winner against the toughest players, and other days trip Aces heads up against a ragged flop is a sure loser.
your point about the high cards likely being out and the flop favoring small cards makes me more willing to call in this type situation.
Hi and thanks in advance. 6 to 12 limit, average rake, tight agressive solid player. In my lifetime, what can I expect to make per hour. This would include all games that you might encounter excluding cheating. Thanks
Let's put it this way: You'd make more working at 7-11, and you'd have benefits.
I don't think that's true unless 7-11 employees are making more than double minimum wage. Plus working at 7-11 for a living isn't something to take pride in. At least playing good Poker makes a person think.
CV
P.S the reason I didn't answer wannabee's first post was because this has been discussed so many times that the Archive should be full of win rate disscussions. I did think the 7-11 comment was worth talking about though.
I would estimate $12-$15 per hour. It would vary depending upon how bad the players were, how much pre-flop raising there was, and I am assuming a typical rake of 5%-10% up to a maximum of $3-$4 with maybe an extra $1 taken out of the pot for a high hand or jackpot bonus. However, if you are playing in a 9-handed game with a $4 dead button charge like at Commerce in Los Angeles then I doubt that you could make even $12 per hour when averaged over many thousands of hours of play.
Jim,
I would never advise playing for a living at that level but you can do better in a Commerce 6/12 than you think as long as you stay in very loose games without too many walkers. The button charge chases the vast majority of better players out of the game. I know several who keep records that have averaged close to $20 per hour for several years now. The magnitude of the mistakes is unbelievable at this level. Unfortunately, you don't develop the semi-bluffing, hand reading and other skills needed to beat the bigger limits.
Like I've said before, drop that button charge in a typical day game in Las Vegas and the regulars will scatter as if you put a bottle of anthrax on the table.
Regards,
Rick
What makes this more interesting than most "how much can I win?" posts is that we should decide at what point a person would do better playing 6/12 than flipping burgers. Most college types are in this situation because they need a part time job for spending cash. In fact that is my situation right now. I go to school and play any cash game I can find in my spare time.
I much rather play low limit Hold'em than work at McDonalds. I admit that most people would do better working at McD because they don't have the brains or discipline to win at Poker.
I hate to end on a down note here but I'm tired.
CV
I concur that averaging 1BB - 2BB per hour at the lowlimit games is doable in So. Cal. of course the rollercoaster ride can be downright disorienting at times with so much action.
down below a bit on this forum there was a subthread on counterfeited flushes beginning to get some attention from forum notables skp and Jim Brier. in the interest of fanning the flames of discourse, I'll provide some preliminary computations:
Hypothetical Hand: let's say I hold 87clubs in late position and there are 6 other limpers who see the flop including both blinds. the flop comes QcJd2c. UTG bets (KQd), there are 2 callers, I call, blinds fold. turn comes 6c. let's say UTG would bet out two thirds of the time and, when he does, one sandwiched player (Ac4h) of course calls (I suppose a raise is possible but let's discard that possibility for simplicity's sake -- would only benefit me anyway), and I raise. now where I come from, UTG will call this raise 75-95% of the time (assume he does) and Ac2h of course 100% of the time. given this scenario, then, the pot consists of 23 small bets (6 from me). now at most there are 7 clubs out of a total of 44 unknown cards which can help Aceyducey. that's only 16% (15.9% actually). so out of 100 hands, I will lose my 6sb 16 times (96sb) and win 4sb 84 times because of Aceyducey's continued participation (336sb), a net gain of 240 small bets or 2.4sb per hand.
if UTG checks the turn as does Aceyducey (not automatic), and I bet my flush with both players calling, then the pot would consist of 17 small bets (4 from me). now out of 100 hands, I will lose my 4sb investment, owing to Aceyducey, 16 times (64sb) and win 2 sb 84 times (168sb), a net gain of 104 bets or 1.04sb per hand.
since I'm assuming the first scenario happens about twice as often as the second, the 2 figures will average out to about 2sb per hand.
[notice that Aceyducey could improve to a hand that still loses to me and that this would likely result in at least two more small bets of profit a fraction of the time.]
approx. total profit for 100 hands = (84 x 14.5)* + (100 x 2) or about 1400sb (14 per hand). [*includes a single big bet collected on the river].
preliminary conclusion: without the straight potential, calling with a hand like 87 or 98suited with six other limpers is about a breakeven bet with light-to-moderate action after the flop. also: calling with 92suited and the like with 6 limpers from anywhere but the button and the small blind (for one small bet or less) is not recommended.
sidebars to the above:
the above contrived hand was much more tidy than realworld play but it got me thinking about all the possibilities. I think if I had substituted Kxclubs for 87clubs, it might be advisable to FREQUENTLY raise on the flop against 2 or 3 opponents in order to dissuade someone with Ac,x(nonclubblank) from calliing from, say, the button or blinds and to charge the maximum when someone already has. however, while it might behoove someone on a flushdraw with 87suited to raise for value against a large field and to raise for the above reason against exactly 2 opponents, it might be better to just call against 3 opponents because a) if a flush is made on the turn, one of the three is likely to hold a high club by accident or intent and b) you won't get as much action when you do make the flush because everyone will be inclined to infer that's what you have.
it may be possible to approximate a fulcrum hand against typical opposition to give one an idea of what to expect over the long haul. I think the above is not such a hand because there aren't enough callers. when there are lots of callers on the flop, it's a virtual certainty that one is holding at least one club higher than the 8, so that when the flush is make on the turn, one can expect at least one opponent hoping to see the fourth suited card fall on the river.
in a very loose game, one, I think, should be seeing more flops than normal but dumping middling hands ASAP. in my hypothetical hand, had there been no clubs on the flop but one 7 or one 8, and a backdoor straight OR flush possibility, the hand should be dumped because 88 & 77 will not hold up often enough.
From reading this Board ,I know Cutoff is before the button , but how close? and what is TOMs?
Thanks
The "cutoff" is the seat just to the right of the button. This seat is called the cutoff because the player in this seat can raise and frequently fold the guy on the button thereby allowing him to be the last to act on each betting round. I believe poker pro Bob Ciaffone coined this term.
A "TOM" is a Tight Old Man (TOM). TOMs play in a tight, passive style. Whenever they bet or raise they have a good hand. They like to slow play. They don't semi-bluff and they won't make moves on you. They are easy to play against but you will not win a lot of their money. They are usually on a pension and they tend to play low limit poker.
xx
...... between TOM and LOL ?
I know they look diffrent. My guees is it is much more pleasant to play with LOL ?
But their playing style is pretty much the same (tight/weak) - right ? - or what ?
Tell" beginner" about thinking maniacs, who chase along in the packs knowing you dont make your hand most of the time then are always on the steal from you.
I don't know. The LOLs I've run into tend to play way too many hands and are much more likely to stick around with middle pair/low kicker than any of the TOMs. This is in A.C.; it might be different in other parts of the world
Oops. Should've been under foemerly known as Jack's post. Sorry.
LOLs are very different from TOMs. LOLs don't like to check-raise since many of them think it is impolite. A TOM will check-raise you if he thinks he has the best hand but will never check-raise you on a come hand so the check-raise semi-bluff is not a tool in his arsenal. LOLs love to check and call because they wonder what will happen and who will win. A TOM will frequently check and fold if he thinks he is beat. A TOM is usually a decent winner in a low limit game and is much better poker player than an LOL.
I've seen a lot of discussion on this board about slowplaying various hands (AA preflop, top set, flushes, etc.) I'd like to explore this some more, because slowplaying is not something I do very often. I usually don't get the hands I would consider slowplaying. More often than not, slowplaying costs me money. An example I can remember most is I had KK up front, and the flop came K Q 4. I checked, fully intending to checkraise, and it got checked around. I won the hand, but I'm positive I would have gotten callers with that flop had I bet. Having said that, here are some hands I MAY consider slowplaying.
- Flopping top set, preferably Aces or Kings, with no straight or flush draws on the flop. Even doing this may cost me a bet if it gets checked around.
- Nut flush without a pair or a straight flush possibility on the board.
- Aces full, especially if I have AA and I flopped it.
- Quads, especially if they're high quads (tens or better.) I remember a hand, I had 66 and the flop came 6 6 3. That I slowplayed, but it seemed to me as if I may have missed some bets. Very few players at my game are scared of calling bets if they have any sort of hand. Of course, one hand I had AhAs, and the flop came Ac 9d 5d. I checked, and it got checked around. The turn was Ad, giving me quads. I bet, and one guy called. I probably should have checked, but the guy's a total calling station, so it probably would have been checked around again anyways. The river was a blank, I bet, the guy folded and said, "well I missed my flush draw." He showed me the Kd. I said, "that's too bad," and I turned over the bullets.
- Any straight flush, even though playing back at the active flush draws isn't a bad play either (they'll call a single raise or reraise themselves.)
Here are some hands I would rarely slowplay.
- AA or KK preflop. These are raising hands 95% of the time for me. Only exception may be if someone else is doing the raising, and there's a lot of money in the pot without my having to raise. MAYBE if I'm on the button or in the blinds, I'll smooth call with these to throw people off when I start raising on the flop.
- Straights, especially when I flop a straight. It's just not worth it to slowplay and let the flush draws stay in for free.
- Non-nut flushes. I'll never give the single Ace or King a free card.
- Flopped open-end straight draws (without unfriendly flush draws) or four-flush draws to the nut or second nut flush. I like to raise with these hands if I'm getting four other callers, as a free card play in case I miss on the turn.
- Trips of any kind, especially middle or low trips. One hand I got in, I had AK. The flop came K 8 2. I came out betting, and one guy just called, called, and called on the river. I didn't improve my top pair with a bullet. He turned over 88 for a set. I said "good hand," and I whispered a thank you because he could have taken me for at least $20 more.
- Two pair. I hate flopping top and bottom or bottom two pair, but slowplaying any two pair is out of the question for me.
- Top pair. Just a bad idea. I don't want some Ax guy pairing his kicker for free when I have Big Slick.
My point is that, in a low-limit game, slowplaying sucks. My friend told me about a hand he played. He had AA, and the flop came A 10 10. He came out swinging, and he got callers to the river! He also said that half these callers couldn't have beaten a single Ace for two pair, let alone Aces full. Lucky for him, the other tens were active in different hands. So instead of slowplaying a nearly locked-up hand, he bet it all the way and won a lot more money than he would have if he had slowplayed it. Thoughts, anyone?
I'd never ever slowplay a set. ram and jam! same with a nut flush.
Personaly I'll never ever slow play unless you WANT the other guys to get a better hand, and if you d that you better have an unbeatable hand.
Rod, even in MONSTER hand situations, like Aces full or quads on the flop, there is the question: Does the action you may get if someone eventually catches a 'playable' hand pay back what you lose on not making the dead draws and even moreso dead 2nd rate hands pay all the way through-out?
I haven't slow-played quads (with just a pair on the board, of course) a single time. What's it gotten me? Opponents playing pocket kings, with A-5-5 on the board (someone else actually laying down their Ace before the pocket kings), opponents playing straight draws and top two pair. This is a case of hoping they hit, but still charging them while they have excactly them same chance of getting there. And because my play is so straight-forward here, I am getting all the action I could dream of if someone gets their monster. They simply won't know what hit them, because they're so used to people playing their super-monster sloooow.
Lars
The only time I've ever slow played is when I have a great hand and I KNOW if I bet everybody will fold. So I slow play for one round and bet and everybody STILL folds!! :-)
One play I think is over-rated, is check-raising. Yes, it has it moments and times where it probably is useful. But I think there is far too much check-raising in Hold'em.
I like doing it on nut flush draws to get two small bets from several players, though I might be isolating someone, depending on who opens the betting (in this case, if I am first to act, and last to act opens the betting, I'll just call). I think this is a fine way to play a flush draw.
Another situation I like to check-raise in, is with a probable winner, but very, very prone to getting drawn out late (in loose games of course, with many players in for the flop). Excample AQo in BB with A-K-6, two diamonds for the flop. If I'm early to act and there are action players to my right, I'll probably check and then raise if there's a possibility of getting some isolation done. Another thing I get for making this play, is valueable information. If there is a bet and a raise from a solid player before it gets back to me, I might even lay this hand down right now.
And because other solid players (I like to think of myself as one, lol) make these kind of moves too, my theory is that it's sometimes better to come right out betting when you have a monster, because people are so used to these hands being used for check-raises. What could easily happen, then, is someone raising YOU. Depending on how likely you hand is to hold up, you may now consider whether to raise right back or alternatively hang on for the check raise in the next betting round.
Check-raise is handy for value betting on the flop. People know this, too. However, check-raising on the turn is signalising little else than that you think you are far ahead (if you reckon you hand is marginal, holding e.g. AJ with an A-T-9-6, one two-suit board, you will probably come out betting here, giving the option of check-raising little thought.
But you main opinion, I agree wholeheartedly with: Slowplaying sucks!
Lars
- Flopping top set, preferably Aces or Kings, with no straight or flush draws on the flop. Even doing this may cost me a bet if it gets checked around.
It's worth noting that if you flop a set of aces (not full house), it is ALWAYS possible the next card off could make someone a straight. It sounds like you got the general right idea though regarding slowplaying. Good luck.
Rob
Don't slow play AA or KK. Even if you are lucky enough to flop top or 2nd set, they are no means invulnerable. Bet and raise right away while you have the best of it.
I played in a 6-12 game recently and got QQ UTG. I raise and get 3 callers. Flop is AQ3. I bet and get 1 caller. Turn is 5. I bet again and same player is calling. River is a 4. I bet again because I can't put the player on a straight draw. Well, I get raised and I end up paying off his K2. This is not intended as a bad beat story, but simply that generally in low limit, players will call if they think have any chance for the pot, but they are not going to bet your hand for you
Also, if you flop a set of Aces, there will always be a straight draw on the flop. Try it and see.
Hope this helps.
Very good post.
I think you might add that when you flop a small set and you are early, that the best play is to bet and hope someone raises you so you can reraise. This play will almost always wind up winning you a bigger pot than any other way you can play it. Plus you are assuring that no one gets a free card. Trying for a check-raise here is dumb, IMO. Also, waiting till the turn to raise when you have flopped a set is usually a mistake as well. When all is said and done, you will usually do better to fast-play sets all the time, regardless of position or the board.
Your points about not slowplaying hands that might actually be strong enough to slowplay is a good one too. I once flopped the nut flush in early position and bet it the whole way, getting three chasers who each caught a fourth club on the river, thus giving me three small bets and two big bets from each one. But the highest card drawing against me was the Qc, so it is very unlikely that anyone would have bet had I checked, and that would have DEFINITELY cost me $$.
Dave in Cali
I completely agree with the idea of NOT slow-playing, especially at the lower limits. Even up to $6-12 or $10-20, mostly people aren't thinking too much about what is in MY hand, I've noticed.
Let me add an example (happened to me this past Saturday night) to the many fine ones that have already been posted...
$6-12 table, fairly loose-passive (Northern Cal.)
I'm in the BB with 84o, and I'm ready to chuck it at the slightest provocation... but I wait for the action to come around to me, and to my surprise there is no raise. We take the flop 7-handed, with only the SB and the cutoff folding. Since I am to act first, I am ready to check-fold at the first opportunity. But wait a minute!
The flop comes: 444
In the split second I have to consider my options, I decide NOT to check-raise, and instead bet out immediately... as no one will expect the person holding the case 4 to bet out.
Sure enough, one of the smart-alec's at the table says in a loud voice, "Well, I guess we know who DOESN'T have the last four! 'Cuz anyone who HAS it is going to slow-play until the river."
He got a couple of dirty looks from around the table, but no one said anything in response.
I made no comment as I watched the action go around the table... Fold, Fold, Raise (!!), Re-Raise (!!!!), Fold, Call, and I just smooth-call the two raises. The first raiser caps it, as I expected him to... and everyone calls.
The turn was a K
I checked this time, assuming I was going to see plenty of action without needing to fire. Sure enough... the original raiser bet, got immediately raised, Fold, Fold, and I made it three bets. Another fold, and then it got capped.
So we were now three handed. I assumed that one of the players hit the K in his hand, and I assumed the other guy must have had a smaller pocket pair (I guessed probably 77 or 88, because anything bigger than that and he would have raised pre-flop... and that would have gotten me out).
The river was a rag, and we all put in four bets, with me leading out this time, Raise, Call, I make it 3 bets, and the raiser capped it, we all call.
Sure enough the first guy to show flashed KTo and said, "Ship it!" while tossing the dealer a chip. The next guy sadly turned over his 99 (I was close with my guess!) and mucked it.
I turn over my 84o and start stacking like an octopus.
Everyone at the table was flabbergasted that I immediately bet out on the flop. The prevailing opinion seemed to match the loudmouth who made the comment on the flop... that there's no way someone who BET at that flop could have had the case card.
Playing in a straightforward manner actually seems to be a sort of "reverse psychology" and it won me a *monster* pot in this case.
The guy who lost with the KT was furious and asked me how I could play crap like that... I reminded him of my spot in the BB and the fact that there was no raise pre-flop. He harrumphed, and got up for a smoke break.
Slow-playing doesn't pay.
Mike D.
Mike -
Excellent example! In my regular 4-8 game, I could see more people folding on the flop against your bet, but I could also see some maniacs raising with overcards. I agree that, more often than not, slowplaying just costs you extra bets at the low-limit tables, and even sometimes at the 10-20 table. A lot of times, the best way to disguise your hand is to play it as straightforward as possible. You really maxed that hand. Your check on the turn was brilliant, making it seem as if you had a small pocket pair yourself and were showing weakness in the face of a high card. Your check-raise showed them that every time you check does not mean you're weak. That hand probably made your week.
I remember a similar example that one of my friends was involved in. He had A9, and the flop came 999. He checked and called the bettors. The turn was an A. He bet, and the others folded. I was convinced that if he came out betting in the first place, he would have collected more bets than if he had slowplayed it. He may have even gotten raised on the flop, just as you did in your example. It is tempting to slowplay stuff like that, but few people will give you credit for having the nuts (quads or better) at a 4-8 table....so why not bet and collect more bets from them? It shows people more of your "fast gear," and by betting the crippled deck nuts just as hard as you would two pair, a set, or something like that, they won't be able to put you on a hand every time you raise and reraise. They'll always wonder "damn, does he have the nuts AGAIN?" That makes for a more intimidating table image, which I like a LOT.
I'm very pleased to see that the readers agree with me that low-limit slowplaying is undesirable. It should be used sparingly to confuse your attentive opponents, but don't overdo it. I have noticed that the better players are definitely the more aggressive players. Good feedback everyone!
Scott
Mike
Excellent play betting the quads. I will have to buy you a beer next time we are both in vegas (or the same city period). Of course since I only pretend to drink at the table, I probably won't finish much of it! I have not had such an opportunity as I have only flopped quads once and it was against a single opponent who bet into me the whole way. If it happens though, I am going to bet out and post the hand here.
Dave in Cali
Dave,
Thanks... I would look forward to it! Where are you in Cali? Southern Cal, I assume? I am in Nor. Cal...
Haven't been to Vegas in two years, but I am going in March and I can't wait! I wish it was tomorrow!
Mike D.
>Mike > >Excellent play betting the quads. I will have to buy >you a beer next time we are both in vegas (or the >same city period). Of course since I only pretend to >drink at the table, I probably won't finish much of >it! I have not had such an opportunity as I have only >flopped quads once and it was against a single >opponent who bet into me the whole way. If it happens >though, I am going to bet out and post the hand here. > >Dave in Cali
I have a rule of thumb. If there has been any significant action pre-flop, i.e. raising, or a big field, I just don't slow play, period. There are virtually no impregnable hands, and even when you do get the unbeatable nuts, they're chasing anyway, so charge 'em for the privilege.
About the only way I might slow-play the flop would be if I got a free play out of the BB in a small field with something like A8o, and the flop comes down A-8-8. Give them a bit of a chance here to make a 2nd best hand. But if I held something like 8-4o, and the flop came down 8-4-4, I'm betting out.
My Student learned a tough lesson on slowplaying last summer. He raised out of the BB with the red Ace's. Flop comes down Ac-As-Tc. There were 6 or 7 limpers when he raised, so the pot is already decent sized. He checks. Turn card is Jc. Now Hero bets, gets called by one player. River is Kc, and about 4 raises later, dummy wakes up to the fact that he's let the Qc-Tx back into a Royal. That cured him of being cute.
As a rule, slowplaying is usually incorrect. I would save slowplays for situations where you have 1-2 opponents who are tight players. You list of slowplayable hands is a good one, but I think you can expand the list in bigger games. For the most part, get all you can out of your monsters.
Over the last 9 years I have logged over 9,000 hours playing 1/4/8/8 unstructured holdem in Las Vegas. I have averaged a little over 1 bb per hour. Many of my friends in Las Vegas, inclding some props, are convinced that a 4/8 structured game, like the one spread in Bellagio is a much better game to play. Why in the world would someone want to post $6 a round in a strcutured game when it is only $3 a round in a unstructured 1/4/8/8 game? Am I missing something? I will not switch until someone can give me a valid justification that the 4/8 structured game is a more feasable game to play. Any input would be appreciated.
Correction. 1.5 bb per hour.
You are right and your friends are nuts. Furthermore, your earn of $12 per hour in $1-$4-$8-$8 is great and it would be difficult to average this over many thousands of hours play in a structured $4-$8 game. I have played both games and here are my observations:
1. The lower blinds have the effect of loosening up the game. This is a good thing for a tight, aggressive player like yourself.
2. The higher blinds encourage more pre-flop raising since there is more money in the pot to start with. This is a bad thing for a tight, aggressive player since you will be raised out of many playable hands pre-flop which you could play for profit had the pot not been raised.
3. The higher blinds have the effect of tightening up the game because it costs twice as much to limp in and they encourage pre-flop raising because of the higher blind structure. This has the double barrelled impact of making the game tight, aggressive rather than loose, passive. A tight, aggressive game is the worst game to be in and a loose, passive game is the best game to be in.
4. When you play in a typical $1-$4-$8-$8 game on the strip you will find that you can profitably limp in on suited connectors and small pocket pairs almost from any position because very few pots will get raised and you will have lots of callers. So when you are chasing you will find your opponents are not punishing you by raising with their good hands and your implied odds are great on your drawing hands. However, when you have the best hand you will be raising and charging your opponents premium prices to chase you. This gives you a big edge.
5. The $1-$4-$8-$8 game is more popular with the tourists since it is less intimidating and it is spread all over Vegas so you have much wider range of games to choose from.
Keep doing what you are doing and ignore your friends' advice.
Modestly successful $4/8 stud player is trying to learn hold'em. Loose, passive $3/6 game. I'm in the big blind with QhJh. No raise before the flop which we see five-handed (small blind has folded). The flop comes down KsTs9s. I bet out, UTG raises, it's folded around to the button who calls, I call. The turn is an off-suit 8. I check, UTG bets, button calls, I call. River is an off-suit 5. I check, UTG bets, button raises! I am more than a little confused by this. I agonize for a bit and then fold. UTG calls. Your comments sought.
I think you played fine. On the flop you may want to consider 3 betting with your made straight since flopped flushes are hard to come by and you want to force anyone on a singleton Spade to pay through the nose to chase you. The UTG could be raising with top pair, two pair, or a big Spade. You might even get someone with the Qs or the Js to fold since they may worry about drawing dead ignoring the one-outer to the straight flush. The rest of your play is fine. I think your fold on the river is right and it looks like the button did actually flop a flush.
I disagree with jim and scott. I don't think you played the hand well. Betting out in early position with the spade flop doesn't accomplish anything unless you bet out on the turn. UTG's raise tells me he is strong but unlikely to have spades so it's the button who you need to focus on. If he calls the turn, you check and call the river. If he raises, you dump or call and check call the river. He most likely will not raise on the turn without the spades but he might try to call and trap on the river. Be careful if you play with me because I like to bet out flopped flushes from early position. To be honest with you, I would be more fearful of a check with a three suit flop then a bet or raise, but I play funny anyhow.
Andy -
I agree with Jim's assessment of the hand. You definitely want to come out swinging, even if there are three spades out there (and you don't have one.) You definitely want single spades out of the hand, so raise them out if you can (they may call anyways, but that's what you have to do.) Reraising on the flop may have driven the button out, depending on how big his flush was and what kind of player he is. This would also give you information on who's willing to stick around in the face of a capped flop round. Betting on the turn would also be an option to prevent a check-around and giving a free card.
Since you had two other players in on the river, checking and folding was probably correct. It would depend on your assessment of the playing style of the raiser. If you have any sort of hand, calling on the river is usually the thing to do. If either player was slowplaying the flush, your call would encourage him to do the same in future hands. If neither player had a flush, then you'd win the hand. Maybe the button had 76 and was playing his straight....but I'm fairly sure someone had the spades. In this case, it may have gotten expensive had the UTG player reraised the button and you got trapped inbetween raisers. My cardroom has three max raises, so worst case, it would have cost you $24 if it got capped. Somewhat of a personal decision. I would accompany folding by saying something that encourages slowplaying flushes, like "man, you reeled me in on that one!" This way, they won't max their flushes like they should. This also encourages bluffing.
However, if I was heads up on the river, I would check and call. Better to do this than to make an incorrect fold.
You played it well...hey, if you flop a made straight and don't win, you're going to lose some chips. The board has to be very scary (three high spades would do it) with action for you to dump it. More often than not, players will pay off your straight.
Scott
Guys,
Thanks for the input. I wanted to make sure I wasn't going insane.
A while back someone asked "why hold'em and not stud," and Jim answered to the effect that recreational hold'em players play worse than recreational stud players. I've played a lot of low-limit stud and a bit of low-limit hold'em, and I didn't think I agreed with Jim at the time, but having played hold'em almost exclusively for a couple of weeks, I'm inclined to agree with him now. One player at this table was almost decent, but the others were just plain bad. The button on this hand was brutally bad, and I say this not just because of this hand.
UTG had kings-up, I think with K5o. The button had pocket tens for a flopped set. When they showed their hands down I let out a loudish "Oh god" or some such. UTG wouldn't believe I'd dump a straight. I had had every intention of calling him down, but when the button raised on the end, it looked like he had slow-played a big flush. I thought it was highly probable that UTG had a flush too, so I couldn't see calling two big bets when it seemed pretty obvious that I was beaten.
The button pulled off quite a coup, getting the best hand to fold so he could steal this pot. Judging from his play the rest of the time, though, I'd have to say that this was due to blind luck rather than any brilliant strategy on his part. :^)
Hi all,
In the process of reviewing the major hands from my most recent poker session, I came across this particular hand as a spot where I may have made a subtle error. I'm primarily interested in the forum's opinion of my flop play, although any other aspects which you might like to comment on would also be appreciated.
The game is very loose, generally passive from the flop on, and, in spite of occasional raising wars, relatively passive preflop as well.
PREFLOP
I'm in middle position with KJo. Two limpers to me, I limp. Next limps, then cutoff raises. Button folds, rest call.
The cutoff appears to be a somewhat better than average player who is capable of exercising some hand selection, but plays too passively postflop. The remainder of the field is on the whole unspectacular; in fact, I've been impressed by the weakness of the field.
I'm not particularly pleased with having to play two bets for this hand, but since I got here on the "installment plan," I guess I'll have to live with it.
There are 7 active players, and 14 small bets in the pot.
FLOP: K T 4 rainbow
Action is checked to me. I have top pair, but I can't be too pleased with my kicker. However, with the exception of someone holding QJ, there don't appear to be any major draws out there against me.
I figure that my only way to stand a chance is to clear the riff raff out. To do this, I hope to use the preflop raiser. I bet out, hoping that he'll raise, and thin the field. I then can check and call all the way, if needs be.
I bet, next folds, and now the cutoff lets out a discouraged sigh, kind of slumps in his seat, and just calls. (I've seen the body language before ... it's exactly the same thing I do when I'm playing on the computer and some IDIOT sucks out on me ...)
The BB and UTG call. Rest fold.
4 active players, 18 small bets = 9 big bets.
TURN: 8, same suit as the T.
The cutoff's body language/sigh/demeanour leads me to believe he's holding an underpair to kings. Likely QQ, maybe JJ (I have one, so it's harder for him to have these). I don't know whether he'd raise the field with AQ or AJ, but these could be considered. He's not a good enough player to slowplay TT, complete with the faked tells to egg me on...
Action is checked to me. I now figure that my kings are good. I bet, cutoff calls after a long pause, BB calls, UTG folds.
3 active players, 12 big bets in the pot.
RIVER: 5 of the fourth suit.
Checked to me, I bet. Cutoff folds after a long pause, BB calls.
My KJo beats BB's K7o, and I win a fairly large pot. Cutoff moans about his QQ being cracked "yet again."
QUESTIONS
I feel that given the game conditions described, my preflop, turn and river plays are fine. Any disagreement?
Do you agree with the reasoning behind my flop bet?
What play would you make in this case, and why?
I appreciate all your input, and I look forward to reading your responses!
Dave
Dave -
I think you played the hand just fine. When I flop top pair with a good kicker (face card,) I come out swinging and make the other players decide what to do. If it's bet before me, I raise depending on my kicker. Your kicker is probably good, unless someone paired up KT or had AK...if they did, they'd probably raise you. If I got raised, I'd probably call with top pair and see the turn. The body language is kind of funny...usually when someone's visibly moaning and groaning, it indicates strength, not weakness. In this case, it doesn't seem as if he was acting...I guess he wasn't. QQ's a delicate hand, and if he's moaning about it "getting cracked" when he doesn't flop his set and the flop comes out K high, then screw him. The BB should have folded also, since his kicker was so bad. But you gotta say thanks when you have players like that in the hand with you.
Your play was good. Granted, there was a straight possible on the river (76 makes the 8 high straight,) but if anyone's playing that into your bets, you should also say thanks. Good hand.
Scott
Pre-flop your limp and call of the raise behind you is fine and you are correct in viewing this as problem hand given the presence of a pre-flop raiser.
On the flop, you are correct in betting top pair/decent kicker but you must realize that if you get any heat especially from the pre-flop raiser you should plan on dumping this hand on the turn.
On the turn, since no one raised on the flop, you should assume your hand is best and bet again.
Your river bet is fine unless you have some reason to think the cutoff was play acting.
Your opponents played poorly. The big blind has a clear fold pre-flop when the pot is raised having only King-Seven offsuit which is not a playable hand. The cutoff should have folded on the turn since the pot odds are not there to play a two outer.
I was on a 6-12 table for about an 8 hour session on Saturday. Great table lots of live fish with maybe a little too much preflop raising and capping, but pretty passive after the flop, so all in all typical Cali day. Anyway, I sat and watched three to four live fish take the table for about 4 grand. It was fun to watch, but a little frustrating even though I ended the session up a rack. I have been playing only about 5 months, but I have already learned that tight-aggressive play leads to a better bankroll over the long term. I could have been down a couple of racks playing like them except being up one. Still it was interesting watching these fish all get on rushes at different times and walk away 4-5 racks up, even though they were beating up the other fish. The funny thing was, that watching them gets me going on tilt (but in a happy go lucky kinda way), wanting to cap everything like they do. It was a great learning experience keeping myself under control. Even though I suffered a couple of bad beats, it was still a great session. Just thought I'd share.
Thanks for all the help the last couple of months. This forum has been a steal with all the valuable free info provided.
PS. what is this Jim Brier quiz I keep reading about? Can I get a copy of it?
Thanks
Stork, email me at: jbrier1@msn.com and I will send it to you.
I knowthe guy I was against from previous games. He is a tight aggressive player that likes to dominate others until they fold. questions are below the hand.
I'm one off the Button.
Seat 4 - fold Seat 5 - fold SEAT 6 - RAISE Seat 7 - fold Seat 8 - fold ME - RAISE (Ah Ac) Seat 10 - fold Seat 2 - fold Seat 3 - fold SEAT 6 - RAISE ME - CALL
POT = 28ish ------------------------- FLOP ( Js Qs Kc)
SEAT 6 - BET ME - RAISE ( I think I have a good chance for a straight and hi pair but . . . . .) SEAT 6 RAISE ME - RAISE SEAT 6 - CALL
POT = 52ish ----------------------------- RIVER ( Js Qs Kc)(2d)
SEAT 6 CHECK ME - BET SEAT 6 - CALL
POT 64ish -------------------------- SEAT 6 CHECK ME - BET SEAT 6 - CALL
POT 76ish ----------------------------
The guy had QQQ. I had AA
Looking at BOTH sides. Was he correct on raising early knowing there was a chance for a straight? I probebly would have been raising also. Plus he knows me and know that I play good cards.
Was I correct on raising knowing I had a 16% chance for a straight. I had him on a hi pair and was not thinking he had trips. Should I have CLUED in that he had better then what I thought? Or was I betting on emotion thinking he was bullying me.
I'm not the type of player that will hold AA at all costs, NORMALLY!
opinions?
Rod -
I think you should have capped the preflop betting and make him rethink his hand. He probably would have called anyways, but you have to get the pot built when you're the favorite.
When the flop came out, the thing I would be worried about is his having two pair or a set, since he's the type of player you describe. He played his set the way he should have, which is fast fast fast. It's unlikely he has two Aces because you have two Aces, but it's possible. When he reraised on the flop, maybe you should have slowed down right there and just called him to the river.
You have more than the four tens as outs...you also have the other two aces. Six outs with that big pot is probably justified for sticking with it all the way. Yes, there's a chance for a straight or an Ace, but there's a better chance for him to improve by pairing the board (full house for him) or the fourth Q landing (seven outs on the flop, ten outs on the turn, and thirteen outs on the river) It's hard to put someone on a set, but even if he had KQ, he'd still have four outs to improve to a full house or better.
This is a very interesting hand, and I'd like to see what other readers have to say about it.
Scott
He played it just fine.
You, on the other hand, were pushing the pedal a bit hard.
Even a dominator probably has a good hand after 2- and 4-betting preflop. When the flop comes, you gotta think that he's got a chunk o'that. This is one of those situations where you are either way ahead or way behind (we'll neglect the possibility of him having AA at this time). He rates to have a set, two pairs, or Ace-Face. He could have draws, but they are less consistent with the preflop read.
I don't like your flop raises. They aren't too bad, in that he could be testing the water the first time (so your first raise isn't way out of line), and your second raise is the last one (I assume - maybe there is no cap at the moment. If that's the case, I would say the second raise is very bad) and might slow him down on the more expensive streets. However, if you are behind, you are just giving your chips away. If you are ahead, a smart bully knows when to stop and he may well fold.
Since he didn't give in to all your pressure, I think you have to give him credit for something good, probably better than what you have. When he checks the turn, I say check behind him. He probably has a set of J's or Q's, and is not going to lay it down. When he bets the river, you can probably fold, but looking him up with all those chips in the pot is probably better.
If this guy were a maniac, then playing the way you did makes some sense. As a tight-aggressive (and probably smart) bully, he rates to have a better hand than a maniac, and would back off in the face of defiance without something really good.
Eric
that I take aggressive a little to strong at times and felt I had here but . . . . . .
I was in one of those streaks of folding of playing barely playable cards and folding on the flop. Then BAM! AA - I got juiced!
thanks again.
1. I think its ok to raise once on the flop. However,
when your opponent come back over you, it is a clue
his hand is better at the moment.
On the flop, your opponent is correct to play fast
even with a potential straight. He has 3 queens and
is a 2-1 dog to make a full house. In fact, he
should bet the turn again to stop free cards for
a straight.
If he is still worried about a straight, he can
check/call the river.
When he (actually I found out last night it was his wife and I might have played it different) came back at me I should have clued in!
I'm thinking I was tilting because I had FINALLY had a hand to play that was not A6s type. You know, the kind you MIGHT want to play but it's not that great
I am the SB. Everyone folds ahead of me. I am starting to think that calling is NEVER the correct play. I believe I should raise or fold. Is this correct? If I am re-raised I hit the brakes pretty fast unless I have a huge hand. If I do raise before the flop and I am called, then I also think I have to put a bet in on the flop, because checking would be basically telling him "If you bet, I will fold". Is this a good strategy?
On a similar note, if I am the BB, everyone folds and the small blind raises me, I NEVER call. If I have a big hand I re-raise, if not I fold.
What do you guys think about this? (This is only when the entire rest of the table has folded).
Leafsfan
Leafsfan -
Do they allow chopping (taking back your blind bets on agreement if there are no other callers) at your cardroom? I'm a chopper, and I haven't been in a game yet where they don't allow chopping the blinds when everyone else folds.
The problem for you is that by calling in the SB, the BB will have position throughout the rest of the hand. To call, you need a big hand. I don't think you're losing too much by folding, because you'll have the button on the next hand. And no, you don't HAVE to bet on the flop if it doesn't hit you...although it shows weakness, it's better to check and fold than try to bluff a calling station or an aggressive player.
If I'm the BB, everyone folds, and the SB raises, I'd treat it like late position with a raise against me. I already have a small bet out there, so I'm getting 3:1 pot odds. I'll have position throughout the hand, and if the SB is capable of folding, I can usually bluff him out if he checks. Of course, if I have a big hand myself, I can reraise him and go from there.
Scott
Never say never or always. While you are generally correct to raise in this situation don't overplay a hand simply because you feel you have to raise and bet out.
I lost a 22 big bet pot on this hand. I think I played it too fast. Well, 2/4 at PP. Small blind with AdAh.
PRE-FLOP:
Early players fold, two middle callers. The player on the button raises, and I re-raise. Big blind calls, and so does everyone else. So that makes us see the flop 5 handed.
FLOP:
6d Qd 3d. I check, because the people down the line have been betting with crap, I expect, 90% sure that I can check raise here. Is this too fast? Anyway, I get a bet and a raise. I re-raise, with overpair and a nut flush draw. I get two folders and a re-raise. Of course re-raiser must have already made a flush, right? I just call this time.
TURN:
6c. Oh-oh. Maybe trips? I check. Player next to me checks. I expect a bet from the Re-raiser, but he checks too. Now Im confused.
RIVER:
4d. Giving me a A-high flush. I bet, get raised, I re-reraise, and the other player calls. He shows me 6h Qh! Man, oh man. So did I play this too fast?
Later that night, at a new table, I'm in early position with Ad8d. i know this is a bad call, but players in front of me sat out, making me think I was in middle.
PRE-FLOP:
I call, two other callers, and blinds call.
FLOP:
3h Jd Qd. BB bets, I call, player after raises, and everyone calls except for the SB.
TURN:
Kd. Giving me, or what I thought at the time to be the nut flush. I check, 90% sure that at least the flop raiser will bet here. She does, and the player after raises, and I re-raise. Flop raiser drops, and everyone calls.
RIVER:
8h. Blank. I bet out, get raised, and now its just me and the river raiser. I re-raise, just now realizing that I DON'T have the nuts. Well, he caps it, and the pot is too large to back out. He show me 9d 6d. Phew! Won 23 BB on this one.
So those are the two hands. Did I play these too fast?
my entire night Saturday. These are MY thoughts (right or wrong).
hands like that are the reason people complain that there is cheating going on at Paradise when in reality the guy played his hand wrong.
----------
I have 4 paragraphs and erased them all because this is a pretty interesting hand. 1st of all, no - I dont think you played to fast. I would have raised on the TURN ( costing me more ). The reason is that by checking you showed weakness.
NOW - his checking on the TURN is interesting and I'll store that one for use later. I think it was pretty smart. He knew he had the table beat and HE would show weakness by checking. Nice bluff.
When he re-raised THEN I would try to get the blood back in my head and do the right thing and check. I think you were caught up with the hand and missed the signal that you were beat. To much in the pot to fold.
That was the only mistake and chalk it up to a lesson learned and right the guys name down.
Are you saying that the guy in the first hand was a good player by calling all those pre-flop raises with Q6?
but he sure did the right thing to fool you when he had a full boat.
That's why when you have a good hand you have to make them pay dearly to hang on to those cards and why I would have bet instead of checking.
Plus - was he a loose player in the first place?
I dont think you played to fast.
N\T
Was the Qh6h the guy who re-raised the flop or was it the guy between you and the re-raiser?
If its the middle player, he probably just missed a check-raise. If its the re-raiser, it was a tricky play, but didn't make him any more money - if he bet the turn, you and perhaps the middle player would have still called and as long as one player calls the river, he makes the exact same 3 big bets. However, it did lose you more money...
~DjTj
1. With the Ace of diamonds, I would have led into
the field. However, with all the action around you,
I start thinking about 2 pair, a set or a flush.
On the turn, your check was correct. Your opponent
slowplayed correctly too by checking.
When you made the flush at the river, you really
can't reraise. A made flush on the flop is not going
to raise you here. Only a full house of better
can raise. You should not reraise here because the
board is paired and the pre-flop action gave a
clue your hand may be no good.
2. The only hand that can beat you is T9d. Therefore, I think your value is good by reraising as much as you
can. If you do feel awkward, then stop at 6 bets or
so. Since you were heads-up, there is no cap to the
number of raises.
On the button with pocket 33. game has been fairly tight and most pots are raised with less than 4 players. (Actually, what am I doing in this game? Waiting for a table change to the 4-8 which looks much juicyer!). Two players limp and the cutoff raises. I am likely to be getting only 3:1 if I call here, because both blinds have been playing tightly and I really don't expect them to call. If either blind plays, they would quite possibly reraise. So if both limpers call I get 3:1 odds to come into the pot with a small pocket pair, and then to play it against three opponents (which 33 does not play well against).
So I folded.
The flop came 3 3 K with two diamonds. A third diamond hit on the river. Two players played to the end, the raiser with AKs and the limper with 9d8d. I would have gotten pretty good action and it would have definitely been one of the rare times that a slowplay would have been correct....
Now here's the point, and the reason I posted it on the small stakes forum. What happened after I folded was IRRELEVANT. What came on the flop does not matter. The only thing that matters here is whether or not I made the correct play when the time came to make my decision.
You need to be getting 5:1 or better to profitably play small pairs in a multiway pot. 3:1 just isn't going to cut it, even with position. You just aren't going to flop a set very often, and without flopping a set, your small pair is basically worthless in a four way pot against a raiser!
So I made the correct play, and I know that in the long run folding my threes made me $$. And I would do it again! Sure, it would have been nice if I had made a bad play, I would have won a nice pot with a powerhouse hand. But if I had made a bad play, I would not have been playing winning poker - despite the fact that I would have liked the result in this case. The fact is, the majority of the time I will flop NOTHING with my 33 and have to fold. The odds I was getting before the flop were not high enough to call in the hopes of flopping a set.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but foresight is worth so much more.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
$3/$6 Hold'em – Paradise – JJ in Cut/Off-seat
#4 (off the button) open/raises - #2 call – I re-raise (to buy the button and get rid of the blinds) – every body folds except #4 and #2 – 3 players - $31 in the pot.
FLOP : [ 7h Qd 6d ]
It’s checked to me – I bet - #4 call - #2 re-rasie – I fold - #4 calls – 2 players - $46 in pot
TURN : [ 7h Qd 6d ] [ 5s ]
#4 check - #2 bet - #4 call
RIVER : [ 7h Qd 6d 5s ] [ 4s ]
#4 check - #2 bet - #4 call
SUMMARY : Pot: $67 | Rake: $3
#2 bet $27, collected $67, net +$40 (showed hand) [ Th Qh ]
I lost $12 (folded) [ Jd Js ]
#4 lost $27 [ As Ks ]
How do you rate my play ?
Hoe do you rate the tvo other players play ?
Hi there,
I'll try to be the first to respond!
Preflop, your 3-bet of JJ in the cutoff is fine. Paradise games play much tighter than live games at the same limit, so this should allow you to take control of the hand. One who open raises from late middle position in these games is not always marked with a big hand, although you should be wary.
There are 10 small bets in the pot when you see the flop. When the action is checked to you, a bet is reasonable. You still have the lead until someone tells you otherwise.
When the player who cold-called preflop now check-raises, you have to figure that you are likely beat. You are now reduced to two outs, neglecting a very small contribution to value due to runner runnner diamonds.
At this point, however, you are getting 14 to 1 on a call, which is probably sufficient to call once to see if you can spike your set on the turn. (Note that since you hold the Jd, you aren't put in the sticky situation of spiking a set while somebody else nails their flush.) However, a fold can't be all that bad ... perhaps a fraction of a bet mistake at most.
If you decided to call for one more bet to see the turn, when a blank falls, you have an obvious fold, as you no longer are getting odds to chase.
As for the play of your opponents, the gentleman playing AKs did fine preflop. On the flop, I also think his play is OK, although when the cold-caller check-raises, he has to wonder whether his six outs are reduced to three dirty ones. (AQ and KQs might be "legitimate" cold-calling hands that currently have him in a tough spot.) His turn call is somewhat more questionable, as the straight draw gets there, and his call on the river is pure charity.
As for QTs ... well, be glad he's in your game. No way he should be cold-calling with that. After that, the check-raise is perhaps a bit aggressive with top pair weak kicker given that he is against two pre-flop raisers ... he may have been better off leading into you instead. When unopposed, continuing to lead all the way is fine ... especially since it is unlikely that either of you raised with 89.
All in all, I think you played fine. Best of it,
Dave Shaw
Pre-flop I am not comfortable 3 betting with pocket Jacks in this situation you describe but I am not prepared to say that it is wrong. A middle player who open raises may well have a less than a premium hand but the problem is that there is a cold-caller between you and the raiser. In these situations I want pocket Queens or better to 3 bet. Most of the time an over card will flop and I will frequently be facing two outs. You also run the risk of it getting 4 betted which you will be obliged to call. When check-raised on the flop I like your fold especially with the two flush. The odds are not there to play a two outer.
The player who cold-called the raise pre-flop with Queen-Ten suited played poorly. I don't like the call on the turn by the guy with AsKs. He has no pair, no draw, no hand and he should simply fold.
2-4 at Paradise, I'm in #7 seat with 8d8s. Four limpers to me, I call, Player on my left calls(PL),SB folds so we see the flop 6 handed. Flop is Qc,3c,8h. Checked around to #6 who bets, I raise, PL calls 2, all fold to #5 who calls 2 cold, and Original bettor folds. I put #5 on a flush draw, and turn comes Jc. #5 bets out, I call, hoping to fill up on the river, and PL calls. River is Kd. #5 bets out again. Is this a clear fold, or should I call the river?
Thanks for comments.
I'd making a crying call since you have 10.5:1 odds. This is 2-4 so some calling station could have been in there with QJ or even Q3. You do have to worry about PL but with no raise at anypoint I don't suspect he has the flush (or T9).
There are enough loose and bluffing players at Paradise 2-4 that I think this is at least a 10% shot.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
You have to call with your set. There is a reasonable chance your oppoent is betting two pair or some other hand that you can beat. The pot is too large to muck it here. Like the great Izmet Fekali has stated: "There is no money to be made in limit hold'em by trying to make tough folds at the river".
I'd toss one pair here but not a set. In general, in $2-4, you don't even want to consider mucking a really good hands based on your reads, not when the pot is this big. In these typically passive games you often see players check-calling a pair on the flop, often top pair, and betting out a second pair hit on the turn. He could have also picked up a nut flush draw on the turn to go with his pair and thought it worth a bet. Remember that players often cold call in 2-4 with less than nut draws, and often bet out as soon as the see a decent hand, regardless of the check-raising opportunities or board threats. Since you can still lose 90% of the time and profitably call, I 'd call. He's not going to show you a flush 100% of the time.
$3/$6 Hold'em on Paradise
I’m on the button w/ Ad4d – there is one caller (4 off the button) – I call (Is that a loose call ? With a lot or just some limpers the call is clear !? With no limpers it’s a clear raise !? Right !?) – SB folds – BB does not raise – 3 players - $9 in pot.
FLOP : [ Qd As 7c ]
Checked to me – I bet (I feel that I have somewhat been told that my Ace is good -I know my kicker is weak – I’m working on the big move from tihgt/passive to tight/aggressive) – BB call – Limper raise – I call (I also have runner-runner-flush-draw – Bad excuse ?) – BB call - $27 in pot.
TURN : [ Qd As 7c ] [ Qs ]
No betting.
RIVER : [ Qd As 7c Qs ] [ Tc ]
BB bet – Limper call – I fold (of course !?)
SUMMARY : Pot: $39 | Rake: $1
I lost $9 (folded) [ Ad 4d ]
BB bet $15, collected $39, net +$24 [ Qc 3d ]
Limper lost $15 [ Jd Ac ]
How do you like my play ?
How do you like the play of BB ?
first off, the flush draw isn't worth that much against just two opponents.
secondly, before the flop against someone who plays solid hands, folding was the best option, raising the next best, and calling the worst. change the six to a nine and raising would clearly be best.
if the lone limper was the type who sees virtually every flop, then raising was definitely best as well.
With two opponents and no raise pre-flop I think it is reasonible to bet out on the flop. Once it is raised you can call for one SB but then you have to fold to the next bet if you do not improve which is what you did. I think you played it fine.
The preflop limp is really player dependent. Some players will open raise with any decent Ace in middle position but limp with other hands. If this is such a player (his raise means he didn't have an Ace) playign is fine. If he is just as likely to limp with bigger Aces than yours you might want to give this a pass.
The limper should have bet out on the flop. Many players limp on the button with a wide variety of hands and he should not be so sure you will bet it. Furthermore if he bets out and you raise to see where you are at with an Ace the BB gets driven out and limper can check call his way to winning the pot. He doesn't have to fear AQ or AK since you didn't raise pre-flop.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Pre-flop your play is fine. On the flop, I think you should have considered folding when check-raised. Unless, you know the player to be unpredictable or extremely tricky, the check-raise means at least a bigger Ace and maybe even more. You are playing 3 outs at the best which is a 15:1 shot and the pot odds are not there. Now it may be worth calling for $3 just to preserve your image and to make sure your opponents don't try to run over you in future hands so I am not saying your flop call was wrong.
You like his pre-flop call? There is only one other limper in and he is playing A4s. What kind of hand are you going to hit 3 way that your going to be comfortable with? An ace and you have kicker problems. A 4 is almost never going to be top pair, and you dont have odds to draw to your flush 3 way.
I wouldn't play anything less than A8s in this situation. Add a few more callers, and his call with A4s is okay.
even comparatively tight players will limp with any Ax in low limit from any position, and then there is the type who won't raise with anything but high pairs preflop. I might just call with A8suited, but would raise with A9, suited or not, especially against a lone limper who normally raises with Ace-bigkicker.
I like the Ace-Four call pre-flop because it is suited. I would fold Ace-Four unsuited. Consider the following:
1. With only two limpers, a top pair of Aces is much more likely to hold up than otherwise. Now if you get heat when you flop top pair and insist on staying with this hand by paying off all the way to the river then you should always fold it. But playing well once the flop comes means you have the good sense to get out early like when you get check-raised on the flop as in this post.
2. Being suited helps because your chances of making a flush our greater than when you are unsuited.
3. But here is the real key about being suited versus unsuited in unraised shorthanded pots. There are thousand of flops where you flop a flush draw and your Ace is an over card to the board allowing you to bet and raise aggressively once the flop comes. You will frequently win without a fight. With you having Ad4d in an unraised, shorthanded pot means that flops like: 9d7d2c or 8d5s3d or Td6h2d etc will result in you winning the pot most of the time through aggressive play with position against only one or two opponents without ever having to make a hand.
when you winnow out a bunch of crummy hands, the remaining few hands frequently include Ax, against which A4 fares poorly. and bluffing is not usually a viable option because there is bound to be some knucklehead who'll call you down all the way with thirdbest pair, vulnerable kicker when there's a raggy flop. I see this happen all the time.
Mark in a shorthanded, unraised pot at the middle limits I frequently win without having to show down a hand having a suited Ace when I flop a flush draw and play aggressively. At the middle limits most players cannot afford to just pay you off all the way to the river on bottom pair or middle pair hoping you were bluffing. However, at low limit you may be right.
I would add a 4th reason..
..You have good position to steal pots when it looks like no one is interested.
Further, even if you get called by a draw, you can often have the best hand to show down at the end when you both fail to get any help on the turn and river.
A simple example is that the flop comes 885 or something. They all check to you and maybe you get called by the big blind. Turn and river are blanks. Regardless of whether you choose to bet the turn, you can show down the river and often win with Ace high as your opponent may well have called the flop with 76, QJ and the like. Specifically, it is unlikely that he would have checkcalled the flop with a pocket pair or a 5. Of course, he may have slowplayed an 8 and you have to be wary of that if he checkraises your ass on the turn.
I dont like your play. I wouldnt call pre-flop because there aren't enough callers. And I would bet the turn when checked to. If you get raised, fold.
It's not a good idea to bet the turn ! I read the limper to have a better Ace. The reason he don't bet the turn is of fear of the QQ.
Thank you for responding !
Thank you all for contribution !
The 'big deal' seems to be the pre-flop-call - fine - that was One of the reason I posted in the first place.
Here are one more reason for folding: I probably woudn't have called with A4/off - A4/suited isn't a much better hand in a 3-way-pot.
The defense (of calling) gives it one more shot then I rest my case - OK ?
(1) The limper is 4 off the button - not 7=UTG
(2) He didn't raise - he just called
(3) KickerProblem - maybe - but it is a 3-way-pot and I have position - which means I can 'very easyally' get rid of my hand if any heat - what I somewhat did.
Playin' tight/aggressive is like 'tap-dancung in a mine-field'.
its a 5-10 game fairly loose(few very loose players, and one maniac)
Maniac in an early position raises blind(before his cards even came, I look at my cards and its two jacks
Next two players fold I re-raise two pleople call, blinds fold, Maniac caps it(still blind)
Flop comes 9,6,2, no flush draw
Maniac bets(still blind)i raise, the other two people fold.
Maniac now checks his hand and reraises me. I call ( I think I should have caped it but i figured he caught something good cause he has been catching all day)
the turn is a 4 Maniac bets I call (I was thinking about folding, but there were no overcards)
the river is a 10 he bets i call
He turns over pocket AA
Should I have folded when i had him on a two pair. I played with this man for a couple of hours and i had beat him on a couple of hands and a few times he folded on my raises, Thats why i suspected he had me beat. I never suspected big pockets
Thanks to him I had a good day because of all the big pots he created but am still wondering if i could have done anything differntly.
Youre coments and suggestions are welcome and apreciated
dorrex
"Should I have folded when i had him on a two pair."
If he is truly the maniac you say he is you just have to call him down from here.
Sure maniacs get as many good cards as everyone else and sometimtes you get burned.
I like the way you played the hand. You get the people out behind you on the flop. After that you just call him down. This way 1) you get it heads up with the maniac, 2) if you are beat you lose the least, 3) if you are best you probably maximize profit by letting the maniac think his hand is good or has a chance to bluff you off.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
he was a "maniac" I have never played with anyone like him before.
no mater what he had in the blinds if the pot was raised he would reraise.
Same thing on the puck or near it
any raise he would reraise, because of him the averge pot was 150 and routinley would go over 250-300, i think that those are some pretty good pots for a 5-10 game
I just wish that i had a player like that on every table that i play it.
That hand just botherd me a little. I noticed that alot of people are having prob with JJ
Hi,
I recently purchased Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold'em. He has new starting hand suggestions. I know his 1st addition has been challenged on this point on this forum.
Any opinions on the new starting hands?
Thanks
I recently purchased Mr. Jones' book as well. I've found the book very helpful, though, also had some questions on the starting hands suggested & was glad to see your post Pyramid. Let me mention that I'm pretty new to poker & appreciate this chance to learn from others here.
As you said, there are some significant changes from the 1st edition. It seemed the starting hand suggestions went from conservative on raising pre-flop in the 1st edition (not raising AKo) to what seems a swing to the aggressive side of the median opinion in raising ATo in middle position.
My understanding is there's two main reasons to raise pre-flop: to get people out or increase the pot when you're likely favored. Since the former goal is difficult in low-limit games, my question was whether I'm favored enough to raise with a hand like ATo in middle position or like A9o in late position.
Let me add another question here I've been wondering & hope to hear some opinions on. The book calls for counting the callers in front for some starting hand decisions. How should the small & big blinds be counted in regards to callers? Also, how should a player who's paid a live button charge be counted in regards to callers (the charge does not go in the pot but the player is treated like a big blind)?
Thanks
Sean
ps. Mr. Jones if you monitor this forum, nice job on the book.
"My understanding is there's two main reasons to raise pre-flop: to get people out or increase the pot when you're likely favored."
With hands like AK, AQ, etc. your raise will frequently limit the number of players so that you can sometimes win without improving. This is a very important reason for raising with hands like this. However, if your raise won't accomplish this, then you are probably better off calling in some of these situations. (The exception is if they will usually come for a raise with terrible hands.)
Pyramid -
I have the first edition of his book, and it's the primary reason I've been consistently winning at low limits. His starting hand selection is very thorough, but I did customize it (I clipped out most of the one-gap offsuit stuff, and I made a few other modifications depending on the game I was playing in.) I haven't seen the second edition, but I'm sure it's a winner.
Scott
for those of us who don't own this book, why don't you post several of his current recommendations that seem controversial or counterintuitive?
Thanks for your reply Mark.
A few of the starting hand recommendations in Mr. Jones' book that represent what I was wondering about were raising with the following: AT offsuit in middle position, A9 offsuit in late position and A8 suited in late position. These are recommended assuming no raises and regardless of # of callers in front.
If one assumes a low-limit loose/passive profile where bullying players out pre-flop will have limited success, do these starting cards warrant feeling like you're "likely ahead" and want to start building the pot?
If you have any thoughts on how to count blinds/button charge in counting callers-in-front, that would be great, too. Thanks
I was playing in a couple 4/8 and 6/12 games last weekend where I noticed a few people raising from middle and late position with a lot of callers with the type of hands you mentioned.
While I think that open-raising with them or raising with 1 (maybe two) callers in front is a good play, they were routinely popping it when 4 players who play reasonably tight had already called and you knew that at least the BB and probably the SB was going to see the pot size and call the raise anyway.
I noticed they lost a bit more than they should have on those hands when they made top pair on the flop. The pot was almost always so large that their preflop raises went basically unnoticed (lots of callers) and it was basically a 'showdown the best hand to win' situation. The best hand in that situation was rarely top pair weak kicker.
I remember thinking that in 7, 8 and family pots that a preflop raise from late position with ATo probably is not the best play.
I haven't read WLLHE 2nd edition, but I am almost positive that in the 1st edition, Jones' starting hand discussions always took note of the callers in front.
I remember this because when I was a beginner, I had trouble remembering which hands went with which position and which # of callers.
I think the best thing to do here is get away from the idea of 'Start Charts' as soon as you can and concentrate on tailoring each decision to the specific situation.
one of the problems with AT and A9 is that many many players won't raise pre-flop with AK and AQ, much less AJ. I guess they all read the FIRST edition.
with 8 or more players dealt a hand, I FOLD A9offsuit even when on the button when there's lots of limpers. raising AToffsuit from middle position makes sense if you think it will drastically thin the rest of the field. if you don't, then I'd say calling would be preferable from middle to late position vs. THE MOB. raising AT on the button can sometimes get one a free shot at broadway if it's checked to you on the flop (this happened 2 nights ago when I held AJ although I wasn't quite last to act). it also elevates the overlay for your draw when you flop second pair, ace kicker. in this situation, raising for the free card becomes a better option, since a reraise isn't as detrimental (more turtles will chase the rabbit when the pot has been hiked preflop).
I'd say 70% of players play the majority of their small blinds for a single bet and plenty will call a raise from the big blind with absolute garbage. here it helps to know individual players' tendencies.
(keep in mind we have a dead drop here in So. Cal. from the button.)
I think there should be already 5 or so limpers to justify raising with this hand in late position.
I just moved to SoCal, and haven't played in any of the rooms yet. What do you mean about the dead drop?
welcome to LA, RT
at Commerce and Hollywood Park for sure and I believe all of the other cardrooms in this area, the rake is collected not from the pot, but from the player with the button, before the hand is dealt, and removed from play. this applies to all lowlimit games from 3-6 to 9-18. at the higher levels, the rake is collected every half hour (hour?) at so much per hour. at 25-35 hands dealt per hour, you can see that the total amount deducted adds up quickly.
by the way, I should have specified "the LA area" and not "So. Cal." because I think the rake may be duducted in a different fashion in the card rooms further south.
Does that mean you should play marginal hands when you don't have the button and that you should tighten your requirements when you're on it? This relates to my question above about how the rake affects playing marginal hands, so please forgive my new understanding of this concept.
Thanks for the help.
I'll tell you how I play the button and you can compare with S & M's advice for lowlimit games. when there is a "family pot," where virtually all players have limped and the small blind will kick in the extra $2 more than 60% of the time,
I will limp and seldom or never raise with:
9xsuited, Txsuited, Jxsuited where the difference between the 2 cards is 2 or more
Qxsuited when x = 2 thru 9
Kxsuited when x = 2 thru 9
KToffsuit, K9offsuit, QJoffsuit, QToffsuit, Q9offsuit, JToffsuit, J9offsuit, T9offsuit, 98offsuit
suited one-gappers 64, 75, 86, and maybe 5-3
suited connectors 54, 65, 76
I will either limp or raise with:
22-TT
Axsuited when x < T
87suited, 98suited, T9suited
I will always or nearly always raise with:
AKsuited, AQsuited, AJsuited, ATsuited, KQsuited, KJsuited, KTsuited, QJsuited, QTsuited, JTsuited
JJ-AA
AKoffsuit, AQoffsuit, AJoffsuit, AToffsuit*
KQoffsuit, KJoffsuit*
*it may be better to just limp with these in the long run, so I may alter my approach with these two hands in the future.
let's say I've raised with AQsuited and the flop comes KJx or KTx. someone holding Krag will likely check (classic symptom of kicker anxiety) and I can check right along with a free chance to make the nut straight or catch an ace or pick up the nutflush draw on the turn. notice that someone holding two-pair and planning to checkraise is thwarted by this maneuver.
because the typical games are so loose, I think one needs to see more flops than S & M might recommend. suited hands in general perform well if handled with sobriety, and pairs are playable from any position. of course those sessions when few flush draws come to poppa won't be much fun, but, hey, poker ain't easy.
.
I normally play in very loose low-limit hold'em games. What is the most profitable image for me to have? I play tight-aggressive. When I win a pot without having to show my hand, are there situations in which it would be a good idea to show it? I guess I see 3 possibilities and I would like to know what you guys think:
1) Show my hand when I actually had a strong one. I would think that this would help me to get people to fold in the future when my hand is mediocre.
2) Show my hand when I had rags. This would get people to pay me off more when I have a genuine hand.
3) Don't show any hands that I don't have to. Keep a "secret" image and let everyone wonder.
Any thoughts?
Leafsfan
Leafsfan -
I'm guessing you're the best player or second-best player at your table. In a low-limit game, I would try to create an image that would encourage callers. This does expose you to more risks of getting run down when you do have a hand (which can drive you crazy,) but I think it will pay off more than an image that will allow you to steal blinds or small pots.
I'm a tight-aggressive player too (almost all good players are, right?) I can still be a tight-aggressive player, but I like to throw the other players a bone early on in a game that makes them want to call me more often (showing down a bluff or rags that won a pot, etc.) If your bluff doesn't work, at least turn it over to get some value in the advertising. If your bluff does work, it's even better because you get the pot AND you can advertise. Just remember that bluffing is not the way to go in most low-limit Hold'em games. Your true colors will show through anyways when you get to showdowns with genuine hands.
Another good way to do this is in a big blind that hasn't been raised. If you have garbage and the flop hits you, go as far as you want with it. When you get to the showdown, turn it over and broadcast it..."eight-four offsuit takes the pot!" A lot of players won't remember you were in the big blind, and they'll think it's okay to play a hand like the eight-four offsuit you had that flopped trips (or quads, as in Mike D's example under my "Slowplaying sucks" string.) Talking about "getting lucky" is another good way to make players call with more garbage, hoping they'll "get lucky" too.
To expand on the point...the problem with most low-limit games that I've played in is that these players call too much. You should try to increase their error by encouraging them to call even more. This way, you encourage them to play even worse hands than what they've already been playing...which can only benefit you. This will increase your variance, but it should pay off more in the long run. If you try to guide them into not calling as often, you're bringing them more in line with correct play. Of course, some games are extremely tight...then you can go the other way and steer players into folding more often by doing the opposite.
Yes, sometimes it's cool to turn over the monsters I get. But if I don't have to show down my hand to win the pot, I usually don't unless it's garbage. This tends to loosen up the players against me, and they stay in even more with second or bottom pair, gutshot and runner-runner draws, and other bad hands. What do the other readers think?
Scott
Leafsfan,
Always keep them guessing. Never, ever show a hand. Make them respect your play. Remember, if they want to see your hand they have to pay for the privilage.
play strong and you'll do well.
"Rook"
I would think that not showing your hand would have almost the same effect as showing rags. If you win several pots without showing your hand people will starting "keeping you honest" and call you more. This can actually make your hidden genuine hands seem like they could have been bluffs, which should get people chasing you down.
nt
I like to have a tight image and keep them wondering. I still like to bluff every now and then, so I don't like showing my uncalled hand ever.
I don't like showing strong hands in low limit because I feel I would lose the 'curiousity calls' you often get from certain players. Why give them something for free when they would gladly pay for it?
I have found that I can keep them guessing by open-raising and semi-bluffing (in games where it makes sense to semi-bluff) often enough that I don't have to show any uncalled hands to keep them guessing.
Never ever show a hand that they did not pay to see. If after they fold and they ask what I had I just say either: 1. ancient history, I don't remember or 2. toss me a bet (they never do). If they want to see (hence to the term, I'll see your $5 cowboy) your cards then they can pay for it. Think of it as giving an extra free card.
I played this hand just the other day: 9Ts on early position. Flop comes with two of my suit. No raises pre-flop. On the flop we all check around, turn is an Ace, not my suit, BB bets I raise, everyone folds. I win the pot. Then I show my cards, BB picks up his chips and leaves the table. Then I said, "I knew he didn't have an ace". How do you read my action?
Since you never can count on having good cards, I want an image where people always think I have good cards. If they think you have them, it's just as good as if you do.
You may win some big pots if you have a loose image, but if the chances to win those big pots don't come around for awhile you could be in for some bad runs.
Sklansky has written about adjusting your image based on what sort of cards you have been getting. Say you planned on projecting a wild, gambling image, but get crap after crap for a couple hours. You could just play and lose a lot of money or you could play correctly and keep folding. If you fold, people are going to have a tight image of you no matter what. they don't knwo you haven't had paint in three hours. In these case, make some steals and bluffs. If you keep getting good hands and miracle flops then you can argressive play and raise future good hands knowing that people wont belive you have another one.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
i was in a super looose game and waited AN ENTIRE HOUR folding hand after hand after hand after hand after hand after hand.
thing was, the ppl were loose, but not stupid...so there's this young kid, basically half asleep, folding hand after hand after hand...
there was the usual bet, raise, i reraised..etc, but my ak didn't hit anything on the flop...but since i was on button and only two other players in the pot, i decided to play the hand as if i had a hand...
so the flop is a buncha low numbers, original raiser bets, guy calls, i raise.
turn comes rag and check check and i bet and both fold sayin 'i can't beat pocket aces' and turn his jacks over...acting like he made an awesome laydown...
point is that although the pot was pretty small...i still won it b/c of a tight image...had i showed my hand...they'd call me the rest of the night...and what happens if the rest of the night i keep getting junk...then i can't make a move like that...
i've learned never to show cards even if a sweet ol lady asks cuz then the big sharks are like 'ooh, u gotta show everyone now...'
okay bye
jon
.
Let everyone wonder.
Hi Jim,
The situation described in the post above, with our disagreement over whether to 3-bet JJ in the cutoff after a middle position open raise and a cold-call, struck me as an excellent testbed situation for me to use to learn how to set up Monte Carlo simulations in Turbo Texas Hold'em.
After a couple of hours, I finally managed to get the software to simulate the situation described. (There is one slight difference, seeing as I can not deal only "cold-calling" hands, so if the player in the middle gets AA, KK, etc, he will raise, so I made the test profiles act the same way in a 3-bet pot to reduce this effect.)
I used my experience with Paradise online games to have the open-raiser raise with an appropriate range of hands. Since I agree with you that the quality of the opponent cold-calling is a concern, I ran the simulation twice ... once with a loose cold-caller (i.e., one who might cold-call with QTs and other similar hands), and once with a very tight cold-caller. I placed average players in the blinds.
I used a 3/6 game with blinds and rake appropriate for simulating the online games. After the preflop betting, all players play reasonably under the rules given in their profiles.
The results: with a loose cold-caller, cold-calling in the cutoff averaged a win rate of $4.52/hand. 3-betting did better, with a win rate of $5.15/hand. When we have a tight cold-caller in between, the expectation falls a bit, but the overall trend remains the same: cold-calling is now expected to average $4.30/hand, while 3-betting averages $4.73/hand.
These results hold for moderately aggressive opponents. If any opponent is even more aggressive, the numbers tend to increase somewhat, and the margin of difference becomes closer together between the two courses of action.
I thought you might find these interesting. I have yet to check my suspicions that the two options will be about even for TT, and cold-calling is likely the better play for 99.
Should you have any questions/feedback, I'd love to hear from you,
Dave Shaw
Oh dear,
I pulled a Sklansky!
Dave
I've played LOTS (lots=700-1000 hrs) of 3-6, but recently online I've played higher 5-10, 10-20, etc I am going out to Phoenix this weekend (i live in poker wasteland, AKA Wisconsin) and am wanting to play higher b/c I spend all of my time here in Wi, studying: This Forum, Super/system, Theory of Poker, Krieger, Jones etc, I've worn my bindings off! :) and last time I was in Phoenix I absolutely destroyed the 3-6 for 3 days 1st night 150, 2nd night 300, 3rd night 800+! (3rd night had a guy who was GIVING MONEY AWAY though so that was a fluke) so here are my questions and I was just looking for a group opinion here
Buy in: 6-12= 200? 10-20= $500?
Games: realistically, at 6-12 am I looking at a Lot of difference from a 3-6 or 4-8? I know the 10-20 is much different, but I've held my own online, and am interested to test my studying and skills.
Any thoughts or opinions would be appreciated
Your buy in values are in line and pretty good numbers.
6-12 is not a lot tougher than 3-6 or 4-8. In fact, in some ways it is easier. Most time, 6-12 is a "semi-aggresive" game. Even with 1 raise, there will be 4-5 callers in a full game. If someone 3 bets, they almost always have AK or better.
10-20 is usually a little tighter, but you will find many chances to exploit errors and weak play.
I agree with previous poster about 6-12 being as easy or easier than 3-6 or 4-8, but don't agree with the buy in.
Different people have different ideas about buy-ins, but in this case you are only giving yourself close to 15 big bets for 6-12.
As tight as 10-20 can be, 500 should be enough, but if you like to mix it up, I would recommend a little more. As far as 6-12, it is different from 10-20 and a lot looser game. I wouldn't sit down with less than 300, but I would normally buy-in as much as you can.
Personally, I like ammo. Some recommend anywhere between 50 to 100 times the minimum bet. This is very realistic, but it depends a lot on your style of play. I think if you sit down with 200 in 6-12 you are setting ourself up to not get full value for your hands.
quite loose 3-6 game, some 7 players, most weak, 2 I don't know, I'm in cutoff, to me it's two calls and one fold, I raise with 88, get four callers. Flop comes K K 8 rainbow. everybody checks, I bet, blinds fold, guy I don't know raises, next guy (moron) folds, I raise, he calls, I figure he's probably on QK, maybe, maybe AK. turn is a 5 making a two-flush on board. he checks, i bet, he calls. river comes offsuit 4. he bets, I raise, he calls, turning over Ks4s
I seriously couldn't put him on either K8 och K5 calling two bets preflop, did I screw up here?
thank you
Nothing you can do about these except hope for more. I also would have raised on the river. A lot of times he'll have a weak king and bet on the end, afraid that you'll check it down.
Against a typical player sometimes just call his raise on the flop and checkraise him on the turn for an extra bet.
Just be happy he didn't reraise you on the river. Does he think you raised pre-flop with K8 or K5, the only two hands that beats him? Another classic example of a LL player who didn't extract the maximum from a hand because he was looking for the sniper behind every tree.
I play quite a bit of 3-6. The upside is if you play tighter than the rest of the table, you will almost always win and the pots can grow quite large very quickly. I am constantly amazed by what people play in these games. In these loose games I never bluff because it is a complete waste of money. These people will call you with anything. Sometimes a semi-bluff works nicely but even that should be done rarely. The downside is that it is very difficult to put people on hands unless you pay careful attention to their style of play. Even then, loose-aggressive players go on tilt fairly frequently so you never can be totally sure what they are holding. Your play was close to correct in my opinion. You need to assert power early in the hand with your boat. You could not have slow-played it because most people in these games call bets and raises with any Ace or King and as you found out, any K8, K5, or K4 kills you. Sometimes you are just going to lose these hands but be happy knowing that if this guy plays K4s against your 88 all day long, you will have all of his money.
There were two problems with your analysis however. One is your late position raise with 88. You want to play this hand against one or two opponents if you think you can get a lot of people to fold and your 88 will hold up. Or you want 6 or 7 callers and try to make your set. Your raise made the pot have four callers which are too many to beat straight up and not enough to give you correct pot odds to win a lot when you make the set. As it turned out, the flop hit you hard but you should be scared of Kings over. Trust me, very few players in a loose game are going anywhere with a King and this flop. I might have slowed down on the Turn and River. You were not really a favorite in this hand with that flop. Paired boards in low limit games are dangerous, it's too easy to turn rags into a monster. Also, K4s might not have been so bad anyway. You didn't say what his position was. In late position especially in a very loose game, this is a marginal call against a raise and once those Kings flop, he's not going anyplace no matter how much you make him pay. I know I'm getting nitpicky but the way you played the hand was really just fine. You are playing higher quality hands than anyone else and you make them pay to stay in the pot with you. Play like this is very good in a general sense in those crazy games. Remember, you turned over a strong hand and played it very aggressively. That is a reputation you want at those tables. Now when you bet or raise you'll get a little more respect and maybe next time you'll force somebody out with a winner.
Did I read that right? Slow down with that hand. Its no wonder you guys can only squeeze one big bet out an hour. You are a huge favorite. That's all I'll say about that. Secondly, I am surprised none of the you posters found the correct way to play the hand. It was done well on the flop, but you should check-raise the turn. This is where hand reading makes money, maximization. You know what hands your opponents will bet. Why bet the turn? You can't get three bets out of him. So get two. He will bet three kings 100% of the time, so check-raise the turn.
you didn't get the original post right - he was before me and did NOT bet his top set on the turn!
I don't recall anyone saying I earn only one big bet per hour. Like I said, I LIKE the way this hand was played. It showed aggression. I happen to be an extremely aggressive player myself but this hand is not nearly the monster it seems to be. He wasn't close to the nuts. If you take the time to think about it, there were nine hands that could have beaten him. It's a matter of preference. The only bad play was noticed by another poster, the K4s was crazy not to raise the River. As an aside, please try and refrain from making sweeping insults and generalizations about people you do not know. This board is here for us to learn from each other and communicate about a common interest. Why bother reading this board if you believe you are so much better than everyone else?
I didn't mean to insult anyone. Apologies all around. But you are a huge favorite against a full field even if both kings are out. You are out of your mind if you don't consider this a monster. Certainly you can lose, but unless someone has KK or K-8, both unlikely. Its a dream situation, and to slow down on the turn would be a sin.
Sorry Gus, I read you post too fast, you are right. With this new info, you played the hand correctly, just took a bad beat.
You said there were nine hands that could beat 88, based on the board of KK854 four-suited. I count only four distinct hands -- KK, K8, K5 and K4. Any hand other than these containing any two of the board cards must make a lower full house than eights full of kings.
If you get into specific hands (i.e. the different-suited K8 hands, etc.), there are many more than nine.
I think you did fine. Had the board paired a second time, your hand would not be a raising hand any longer. Or if a third king hit the board. Since neither of these happened, you had the best hand til the river. If an ace or queen hit the river, you might also lose some potential bets. However, with 2 small cards, I would have raised once on the river, but only call if reraised.
I was reading a column by Caro where he provides tips on winning at low limits. One of the things he mentions is that if there wasn't a rake, playing only slight tighter than the other players would be profitable (we're talking the no fold 'em type). However, he says because of the rake, only the best starting hands should be played. I'm having a hard time understanding the effect the rake has on these types of games. Can somebody please illustrate this point with an example?
Thanks in advance.
The rake is played by the players who win the pot. If you play tighter than you opponents, but only a little, the money you save by not playing a couple of more hands pre-flop will be washed away by the rake, which you pay a pretty large amount to.
Excample: Playing ATo from middle position may be a marginal winner at a loose low limit table. Say for every $1 you invest on ATo (if you play it correctly pre-flop), you earn $.03. At a $2-4 game, it means that limping with AT has indirectly won you $.12. If the flop is A-K-4/not suited, you have a clear bet unless someone else has shown strenght pre-flop. That is another $.12. If you get one caller, and the turn card is either Q, J or T, there is another clear bet. If he's got AQ or AJ, then he has you beat anyway, and that's a co-incidental at low limits, I'd say. So, you see, being able to play AT all the way through will see you earn about half a small bet in the long run. Even the times you fold on the flop, you've "made" $.12 for every dollar you CORRECTLY invest in AT (not likely to be profitable if it's raised to you pre-flop).
What the sad story is? With a 5% rake, playing AT from middle position in an unraised pot will suddenly become a long term loser (this is just an excample, I actually don't know if this excample happens to be true).
Hands that go from being small long term winners in a game with no rake to small long term losers are what is often referred to as 'marginal' hands. I'm just guessing here, but I think these are excamples of marginal hands, of course depending somewhat on the game:
From early position: AJo, 77, KQo? From middle position: A9o, 33, KJs. From late position: Ax, K10o...
Maybe these are even marginal long term losers in an unraked game. I'm not quite certain here, having little or no experience of playing raked games.
lars
To win in a raked low limit game you must shield yourself from the rake. If you play marginal hands with small positive expected value (EV), the rake you pay if you win will reduce the EV and can turn the EV from positive to negative.
The only way to escape negative EV is to not play the hand. That is why in raked low limit games you must play very tight - hands with high EV to insure that you don't expose yourself to the rake too often and give all your winnings to the house in the form of rake.
Specifically, you must play very tight in early position and can then play small pairs and some higher suited connectors in late position for one bet.
A math approach would be: If you play a hand that will average earning $1 per play in an unraked game, the same hand would earn -$2 per play in a 10% rake game with $3 max rake.
Moron
At what betting level does the rank start to become minimal enough that you can play a little looser? In other words, if you're playing 5-10 do the bigger winnings offset the rake or do you have to play at a much higher level?
Thank you for the answers so far.
Last hand I posted was KK in BB too, I think. Wacky.
I'm in BB, 6 out of 7 play (including me). Table is way loose tonight. I decide to just call for 2 reasons: a) I've been raising preflop more than everybody else and want to mix it up a little (this may have been wasted on a good portion of the table, but it wasn't wasted on all of the table). b) I'm pretty sure if I like the flop I'll get some action, but I'm pretty sure if an A flops I'm going to have to check and fold. c) I'm pretty sure nobody will fold if I bet, and if I like the flop some of the callers would then be accidently playing correctly.
Flop come Q94 rainbow . I check. Button bets. I check raise. I get reraised, and just call. One caller hangs out for all of this, other 3 limpers drop out.
I don't remember the turn or the river really. They weren't scary at all - no aces, no flushes, and a very improbable back door straight. I check the turn, button bets, I call, so does third player. I check the river, middle player checks, so does button. Button shows AQ, other caller folds I take the pot.
Should I have bet the river or the turn? If it had been heads up, I'm pretty sure I would have. And if button had checked the turn, I would have bet the river. The button is a decent player, although maybe she was a little more agressive than optimal last night. Middle caller I wasn't really worried about at all unless she raised.
Any other comments are also appreciated.
I think you should go ahead and raise pre-flop. You do so for value with what is almost certainly the best hand. You also don't need to worry too much about an A falling. With 7 limpers it is likely that the Aces are in people's hands and you wont be seeing them on the flop.
Once you are three bet on the flop you might as well check and call your overpair. On that flop a bet should mean top pair and a raise should mean top pair with kicker or better than top pair. The reraise should mean better than top pair.
Paul Talbot
I'm new but here goes
Pre -Flop: 3 bet it - maybe get out the hanger on
Flop: re-raise the re-raise - you have the best hand and get the other, maybe, both opponents out.
Turn: Bet and call a raise. You probably have the best hand. The Button will tell you if she raises.
River: Bet, unless you have been raised on the River by the button. If so, check and consider a fold to trip Queens if the button bets. You need to know the Button well to fold with Kk's.
I don't think there would have been a 3 player River or, maybe, any River if you had acted on the Flop and Turn.
KK's mean play fast and hard until an opponent slows you down.
This is a newbie's opinion. I would appreciate comments on my analysis.
Thanks
With no real flush or straight possibilities or an ace, you never lay down kings on the turn. With 2 callers, I'd still play this one strong. Likely to be the best hand even against a bet, and even if beaten, probably 8 outs for a winner (board pair not giving two pair opponent a full and of course the set). With two opponents, there is someone else who's definitely playing the sucker role here, even if both opponent have sets! This is an extreme excample, but vs two sets with overpair, at least you have outs, someone else haven't.
These are situations I play aggressive. Not maniac-aggressive, but solid-aggressive. You have a fairly good chance of having the best hand, and if not, you are likely not be far behind and with one opponent handing the you and the leader free money to play with.
Calling the river is a must if you call a turn raise.
lars
You should raise pre-flop. Forget about deception. I can't imagine anyone thinking, "Chance didn't raise. I wonder if he has KK". You lost 3 big bets by not raising. That is a lot and adds up.
Since you didn't raise I like the check raise on the flop. By betting out you may have got a couple more callers but I want to thin the field here. Someone should bet with 7 players. Realize that you're taking a big risk though. If it gets checked around you will likely lose this pot.
On the turn I bet again. I don't want 10-J to get a free play. If she has Q-9 you have outs. If I don't get raised I bet the river
I would have raised preflop. I think you're leaving a lot of money on the table not raising here.
With this many players in I'll also raise with medium and high pairs, and some big suited connectors. (JTs, QJs,etc.) I just like doing this so when I raise out of the blinds with AA or KK, no one gives me credit for it. I quite sure I'm getting a good return on this invesment and it makes me look like a gambler.
I like the checkraise on the flop and the smooth call of the reraise.
I would have fired on the turn provided a Q didn't hit.
I don't like slowing down with overpairs until someone slows me down on the expensive streets. If raised on the turn, I'll call it down against MOST players.
Usually a 3 bet on the flop means you can beat top pair. But in this case I don't think necessarily so. The button may have thought that YOU thought she was making a run at the pot, or at least trying to thin the field with middle pair. I would take her three bet to mean that she wasn't full of crap, but I wouldn't automatically assume I was behind. She would have to raise the turn to convince me of that.
That's my style. I'll lose a few extra bets on occasion, but I HATE leaving them on the table.
So everybody hated the checking the KK, and I understand. Its not something I do very often. I still like it though. It is possible that it actually won me the pot by making the check raise on the flop big enough relative to the size of the pot to chase people out, and keep somebody from correctly calling and making two crappy pair. In a 4 hour session I raised with 75s in middle position once, and checked KK in BB once before the flop - all other play was pretty strictly by the book - and I'm comfortable that I didn't over do the fancy play.
I think Squirrel' analysis of the button is correct here though. She thought I thought she was full of crap and thought I was maybe check raising with middle pair or bottom-pair-Ace-kicker-backdoor-flush type hand (which I will do). So her re-raise just tells me that she has a real hand as wasn't betting just because she was checked to - I kinda froze up here and startin thinking trip 4's or trip 9's. I failed to take into account that my non standard play before the flop gives her plenty of reason to 3 bet the top pair good kicker, cause I could really just be trying a re-steal type thing.
I should have bet on the turn, and check-called the river if I got raised, but bet again if I got only got called. To do otherwise is to not fully take advantage of deceptive qualities of my non standard pre flop play.
I am trying figure out why you played so passive.
With KK, you should raise 99% of the time, the only expection being against a steal raise from the last 2 seats and your heads up with the stealer.
The check-raise on the flop was good, but I would have raised a second time.
You have to bet the turn. Remember JT is an open end straight draw against your KK hand. The best hand you are against is probably AQ. NO FREE CARDS.
You can check/call the river or bet again. Your call.
Which positions would you call or reraise a raise with 22 thru 99 pocket pairs in a nine handed game? Which position would you fold to a raise with these cards in a nine handed game?
Thanks in advanced!!!!!
Shawn
In general I fold anything below 9-9 to a raise.
If I suspect the legitimacy of the raise (i.e. he's a maniac or it could be a blind steal). I may re-raise with 7-7 and up.
In the BB I call most raisers with any pair. In the SB I call with 7-7 and up.
You are 8.5-1 to flop a set which usually you'll need with the smaller pairs. I like to get 5.5 to one to call with a small pair. The difference gets made up when you flop a set and with the action you get.
"Which positions would you call or reraise a raise with 22 thru 99 pocket pairs in a nine handed game? Which position would you fold to a raise with these cards in a nine handed game?"
As always, it depends. Keep in mind that you usually want a minimum of 5 to 1 on your money pre-flop if playing a small pair. Reraising will limit the field and may result in a heads-up situation against someone who is either a big favorite if he has a higher pair or a slight underdog if he has overcards.
The pairs you mentioned are only worth 3-bets against an aggressive raiser, such as one in a steal position, and here I wouldn't 3-bet with anything lower than fives with the blinds yet to act, a bit higher if I'm in the blind.
I'll normally only call an early or middle raiser with nines or eights unless I can get 4 or 5 opponents without another raise, in which case I'll call with any pair.
I have been playing alot of 2/4 HE and pre/post flop raises do not thin the field much. I play pretty tight am beginning to get a feel for the way I think the game should be played. It is maddening when some jackass plays 23o from the front wins. A raise at this level really doesnt do much, everybody calls. I watch the 10/20 games and the raises carry weight. What would you say is the minimum level game that raises are respected? And what would you say would be the minimum bankroll for that game?
I believe $10-$20 and above is where raising has a bigger impact on the players. Calling $4 cold pre-flop or on the flop means less to a typical $2-$4 player than calling $40 cold means to a typical $20-$40 player. But raising to reduce the field is not the primary purpose of raising but rather is an ancillary effect. You should raise because you want to confront your opponent(s) with a decision as to whether or not they wish to continue playing. You usually raise because you think you have the best hand, the best draw, or some combination of the two. If they always decide to continue playing then they may win more pots from you but you will win more money because the pots you do win will be larger as a result. Furthermore, they will find that when they stay with you it will be an expensive experience over time and not a profitable one.
Players who believe they cannot beat low limit games because their opponents don't ever fold when raised but that they can beat a bigger game because the players are better, don't understand poker.
n/t
It really depends on the game. In live play, raises can be brutally disrespected at all levels. On a consistent basis, things change a little at 10-20. Sounds like you want to move up cause you are taking some bad beats at the lower limits? I know people that think they will do better cause you can "raise the crap " out. IMO, this is a bad idea because bad play is where money is made. And there isn't much worse than calling with 23o UTG.
Steve,
I used to suffer from the same frustrations when I started playing but here's how I got over it.
Everytime that "jackass" calls up front with 23o, you are making money. In fact, anytime anyone plays poor cards out of position,or calls bets and raises they shouldn't, you are making money. Maybe not on that hand, or even during that session, but believe me, you are making money and lots of it.
People who play poorly should be your best friends at the table.
It's a good thing the "jackass" wins with his 23o occasionly. If he didn't, he'd stop playing 23o.
The next time you lose to hand that hand no business being in there, think about all the times these bozos called you down to the river and mucked when you showed them top pair.
They probably called you down with bottom or middle pair, or some other crap that you obviously could beat the way you were betting. You just dindn't get to see how poor their cards were because they didn't drag the pot, you did.
In low limits you make your money off of bad players playing bad cards. If they never win with them, they might stop doing this, and actually try to learn something. No good player wants this.
Helped me, hope it helps you.
Oh yeah, make sure all bets and raises at 2-4 are for value and DON'T slowplay. They don't respect you when you want them to so they won't respect you when you flop trips either!
n/t
If you want your raise been respected , ... you should raise for exemple AA UTG and show everybody your aces , good chances that they all fold .You will take the blind and make 3$ ! That is the best way to be respected But if you don't show your aces , and 5 players cool call your raise maybe you are going to make around 25$ 50% of the time . If you play tight at higher limits lets say 10-20 or 20-40 you won't like your raise from early position to be so much respect . When my raise are to much respect at a table , I have to raise more often hand like 88 or 9-10 suited out of position . At lower limit , I remember a hand : I raise AK , and someone cool call my raise with K7off even if I was playing thigh . Why do you think he cool call with K7 off ?, it's because he was going to call with K7 and suddenly I raise , so the guy thinks: "maybe he has QQ,JJ or TT , so if I flop a king i'm good " ... Oh yeah , if I remember that hand , it's because the board was K-rag-rag_rag_7
I think the more pertinent question would be, "why do you want your raises respected?"
10/20 and 20/40 players raise UTG with A8s and 78s (even though its probably slightly -EV) just so people will call their real raises in future, and you want people not to call you.
Big hands should welcome callers. You have the best hand, make them pay to come in with trash.
Okay, enough with the A-K hands. Here's something different:
6-12 game, mix of loose passive and loose agressive players.
Pre-flop: 7 callers, I get a free play in the BB w/2h 4h - hey, at least it's suited!
Flop: Jd 4d 4c. It's a miracle - I bet my trips. Two folds and the rest call. Hey, now that I've thinned the field, I'm really getting excited.
Turn: 7d. I grit my teeth and bet. My thinking is I don't want to give a free card to singleton diamond holders. Well, next player (NP), who's loose aggressive, raises. Folded to late position player (LP), who's decent, reraises. Rest fold, and it's two bets to me.
Question: Should I call, fold, or reraise? What I did and results later.
Also, was it a mistake for me to bet the turn in the first place? Was this a case where I should have checked a hand with outs?
Thanks, Caddy
6 big bets in the pot before the turn, then your bet, two more from the raise, three more from the reraiser and presumably the original raiser at least calls which would be 13 big bets to win if you put in two. If you are anticipating a reraise, then it's 3 big bets to win 15.
So if you think your 10 outs are good, then call. I doubt that all your outs are good, however. You may be drawing dead or maybe to the case 4.
Anyway,I HATE the bet on the turn. Those five callers on the turn called with something. All four opponents couldn't have a jack. When there's only one draw on the flop and lots of people pay to see the next card, there's a high probability that at least one player has that draw. Let him bet his own hand....
You won't see a better hand five times as often as you'll see a decent player trying to isolate the maniac. Call.
The "decent player" three betting surely has the 2-4 beat. The only question is how many outs does the 2-4 have?
If the aggressive player will bluff or overplay a fair amount of the time here and Caddy doesn't need a set to bet the flop and turn, anyone on the end can 3-bet with 88/99 or even semibluff with the Ad, depending on how confident he is that his opponents will put him on a legitimate 3-betting hand and act accordingly.
Your point about the outs is well-taken. I didn't see the flush threat. It makes Caddy's call automatic.
With 5 people wanting to see the turn after a two flush flops someone must have a made flush when the third Diamond appears. I would check and call trying to suck out with my 10 redraws to a full house. Having decided to bet, I think you have to call because of your strong draw although some of your outs may not give you the best hand like a Jack or a Seven but who knows? Both your opponents may have made a flush.
Well I folded on the turn after LP reraised. I got worried that I was drawing dead.
River was a blank that wouldn't have helped me. NP had a small flush, LP had a K-high flush.
I retrospect, I think I should have checked and called the turn.
Thanks for the responses, Caddy
Assuming you are a reasonably good player who wins consistently, how would you rank these games and why? Putting it another way, which game would you play first, second, etc.?
1. 4-8, 1-2 SB & BB 2. 4-8, 1-2 SB & BB with 1/2 kill 3. 1-4-8-8, 1-2 SB & BB 4. 3-6-9, 1-3 SB & BB
Have these variety of games available. Just wanted to see which ones would be better than the other. Or are there no differences?
Papio
Put the spread limit game first. The good player has greater advantage in spread limit than in structured limit games.
Paul Talbot
Here are some general guidelines to follow when trying to figure how blind/betting structure effects the game.
First of all, games with a kill greatly favor the solid, tight player and punish loose play. That's because looser players will be winning more pots and poting more kills. That means more dead money in the pot for you when you pick up a great hand in a kill pot, but you won't be posting the kill much yourself.
Games with a structure like 3-6-9 seriously PUNISH solid tight players. That's because implied odds go way up. AA in a very loose game with this structure looses MUCH of it's value because people have odds to suck out on you if they know you will pay off.
Then again, hands like JTs go way up in value IN LATE POSITION in these games. This is a serious change in the game and if you don't adjust you are toast.
Games with smaller blinds relative to future bets favor tight play. IE 4-8 with 1-2 blinds demand much tighter play than 4-8 with 2-4 blinds. On the other hand, since your implied odds are high you might consider limping cheaply with very speculative hands like Kx suited if you think the blinds won't raise - and only play them on the BUTTON in a VERY loose game or you are toast. And never play hands like that for a raise.
Personally, I won't play hands like this even on the button in low blind structure games because I think you will lose money in the long run. But others will disagree.
Other notes on blind structure.
I totally avoid games like 15-30 with 10 and 15 blinds. The reason is that now you are forced to call the last 5 with ANY 2 cards because of the enormous implied odds you are getting to play pure crap. Furthermore, there is more incentive now for people to try to steal your blinds and you will be forced to defend them more often. I don't like being put in this situation so I avoid these games.
On the other hand, I LOVE 15-30 with 5 and 15 blinds. I can muck the SB and only lose 1/3 of a small bet.
So keep this in mind -
Bigger blinds/antes PUNISH tight play
Larger bets on later rounds reward suckouts and make implied odds hands go way up in value
Kill games REWARD tight play because you won't be winning as many pots and posting as much of the kill as the others.
-SmoothB-
I'm on the button with QcTh, there are 4 limpers, I call, and both blinds call. flop comes JT4 with 2 clubs, it's checked around to mid-position player (lady-about-to-go-on-tilt) who bets, next player (fishy) calls and I raise my middlepair/>J kicker and backdoor straight and flush draws, all fold but LATGOT and FLOUNDER. a T hits the turn, and it's checked to me, I bet, LATGOT calls, FLOUNDER folds. river is a blank, she checks, I bet, she calls, I win.
now she couldn't believe I raised the flop with just middle pair, and that got her muttering. she was also ticked at the fish for raising with 45suited, when he proceeded to runnerrunner a straight. cut to:
a few hands later, I get JJ in middle position, after LATGOT calls, FLOUNDER raises (could have anything from 45suited to AA, but I've noticed he'll raise with any Ax), I just call the raise because I want a family pot. sure enough, 4 others call besides LATGOT, who also calls.
the flop comes JT6 rainbow. it's checked to the fish who bets, I raise, both to doublecharge all inside straight draws, and to throw Latgot and Flounder off, all fold except L & F. the turn is T of the 4th suit, checked to me, I bet, Latgot calls, Flounder raises, I just call to keep Latgot in, Latgot calls. river is a 2, Latgot bets (!?), Flounder calls, I raise, both call. Latgot flashed T2suited and Flounder had the other ten with, I believe, an ace.
before long, Latgot metamorphosed into Lot and was raising flops and muttering like a crazy woman and she busted out soon thereafter.
5-10 HE ,11 players at the table :3tight , 2 borders , 6looses UTG call , woman at my left seat call , and I call with AQoff , 3 other players call and both blinds call . Flop : QQ7 , 3 different colors . Check , check , UTG bets , fold (UTG is a pro but if he plays 5-10 , it's because he hold the game in this club , he's usually making a "show" , making action in the game , is purpose is not to make money , but just making action. He usually softplay with loose players , and make bad call when he's headzup with loose or not check raise them. But when he's against the good players , he doensn't make gift ) I raise , my point was that if I just call he will suspect me seriously , and what I want , is to see someone call 2 bets in a later position with QX where X is a small kicker . And he or she would raise me on the turn , making a huge pot . I think that if I just call , they won't call 1 bets with only a 7 because 2 early position are allready in the hand .#1 is that was the right move ? They all fold except UTG , I suspect QJ or KQ The turn is a 10 , he check-raise me , ...i'm suddenly scarred about QT , and that's why I didn't raise him again .#2is that was the right move to do ? Blank on the river , I call , he shows KQ , ouff ..... Any comments would be appreciate ... Ohhh yeah , I have forgot ; I am one the three tight players of that table .
Seems to me your play on this hand is fine. I just dont see y you would slowplay here. Theres already 7 SB in the pot and the players who hold a 7 are going to call you because they want to win DA big pot... After all, if another 7 shows, they are winners :O))
I might have raise with AQo for value. but not always. it depends on who is playing after you and who limps before you...
Charlie
ps: Good for you, you beated Rolland... i just cant beat him head to head :o((((
I also think he played fine, although with the A kicker I would have been mighty tempted to re-raise. As a general rule, slowplaying will cost you money at low limit, since most of the time the fishies will call anyway, hoping to chase you down. If you slowplay you are not getting in bets and also giving them a free ride to chase you down. Make them pay.
Rich
nt
Ok, sitting 2-5 one seat left of the button. The button, is a new guy I have never played against. Since he sat down he has played all eight of his hands to the river. Rarely does he raise until the river unless he has it, and he gets caught bluffing twice.
On this hand I am dealt AA. Six players call and I raise. Two players, the button and Gramps, who is loose passive call. The flop comes 9 2 4 rainbow. Gramps checks, I bet, and get calls from both players. The turn comes 7. Once again Gramps checks, I bet, and get two calls. The river brings a 2. There is no chance of a flush, but I am concerned about a third 2. Gramps checks to me one last time. I am almost positive that Gramps doesen't have the third 2 becuase I have never seen him check raise. My concern now turns to the button. He has played every hand since sitting down, and could easily be playing any two cards. For some reason I feel he has it. I don't know if it his body language, or paranoia, but I suspect he has it. Based on his history I suspect he'll call or reraise if I bet. I decide to check rather than bet. The button looks at his cards and then turns over Qd 2d!
My question is did I make the right call checking on the river, or should I have bet out?
Thanks for the advice.
Not that it really matters, but I'm a little confused about the play pre-flop. You say there were 6 callers and then you raised. Only 2 people called. Are you saying that the 6 limpers folded after you raised. I find that hard to believe, usually once someone has limped they will always call one raise and see the flop.
Anyway, I would generally bet on the river thinking that the 2 probably helped if anything because you can beat anyone that had 2 pair before the river. However, in low limit the guy on the button could have anything and you indicated that you thought he had the 2. In this situation you should check and call if he bets. Why didn't the button bet? In situations like this you felt you had some sort of read on the button, whether it was intuition or paranoia I don't know, but I would tend to rely on this read.
Here's a hand that I really believe I messed up on, and another hand that I'm think I just got unlucky. Well, for the first hand, I'm on BB with KK.
PreFlop:
Everyone folds, but the button raises. SB folds, and I reraise, button calls.
Flop:
7c Ah Js. I bet out, and get a call.
Turn:
2d. I bet and get raised. I really feel that I should have positively folded here. Instead I called.
River:
2s. I check, get a bet, and call.
Button turns over AJ. Man, did I mess up or what? I should have folded the turn, right?
On the second hand, I'm in late position with AA. Preflop:
Early position call, then a middle call, and I raise. BB calls, and the two callers call.
FLOP:
6h Qs Qd. Checked to me and I bet. I get checked raised, and I reraise. He calls. TURN:
Kd. He checks and calls.
River:
8h. He checks and calls, shows me TQ for three queens. I feel that I played this right. Just bad luck. Any comments?
As far as being unlucky, bullets get taken down from time to time, but you cost yourself a few bets on this hand. A check raise on the flop is not always an indication of trips, but when you re raised him, he has to give you credit for a hand.
However, he called your reraise which means he has a hand, probably that 3rd queen with a mediocre kicker. His check raise should have told you that and his call of your reraise should have emphasized it.
When you bet the turn and he calls again, it is pretty much guaranteed that he has a queen.
In the future, when you reraise a check raise and he appears to be calling you down, you have to give him respect for a good hand. Don't bet the turn the next time and just call if he bets the river, you will save yourself money in the long run.
1. Unless your opponent is very loose, you should be concerned when he calls your bet on an ace flop after you 3-bet. Most players that will try to bluff you off an ace flop will do so when it's cheapest, namely on the flop. I would therefore have checked the turn and acted according to what I thought he'd bet in this situation. In most cases I'll probably call because checking the turn has the additional advantage of encouraging my opponent to bet second pair on the flop or even a lower pocket pair, hoping that I have something like KQs and can't call. AFter all, it's a rather big pot to just check and he can't put you top pair. You should not invariably fold KK with an ace flop just because your only opponent raises, especially in a steal vs. resteal situation.
2. You should 3-bet the flop when you're pretty sure your opponent doesn't have a queen but will call you down anyway. This usually means a weak, stubborn/ aggressive player. The usual problem with your raise is that you'll tend to get action only from a better hand than yours. And if he has a queen, you'll usually be raised again, often 2 big bets later on the river.
I don't think there was any bad luck here. In both cases you flopped second best hand and paid off despite the flop telling you exactly what beat you and raises that told you your opponent had the card needed to beat you in each case.
Big pocket pairs are nice, but they are, after all, only a pair.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
...well I raise in early mid-position (UTG, position 1 and me in position two - nine handed). Yes, a marginal decision, I know. Cut-off re-raises, button cold call, rest fold. I call, another marginal decision, I think to myself.
Flop is A-A-2 rainbow. I check, re-raiser bets out, cold-caller calls. I figure...I'm not worst off here, and actually quite possibly ahead and three outs to the definite nuts. I raise. Re-raiser re-raise (lol) and cold-caller, cold-calls two bets again! I call, now only with the thin hope of catching a jack.
Turn card is K. It's round-checked. Should I wake up here to the decreased possibility of re-raiser playing AK (the only hand he should play this way), with one of the kings now on the board? Must admit that my hopes of him playing KK goes straight out of the window, as he now is ahead if that was the case. Well, the round-check gives me hope that I'm now ahead. If re-raiser is holding AQ and checks now, fearing I've got AK, his play is just plain stupid.
River card Q. The worst possible card? Quite possibly. Things are so strange now, that even J10s for the cold caller goes through my head. QQ is a real possibility. Re-raiser checks, cold-caller bets out, I make a crying call and re-raiser folds.
Results to follow...
lars
"Cold-caller" shows KQ! I can't believe it, as I drag a quite nice pot, but one which were almost deserted for bets in the important (for pot size) last two betting rounds.
I can't honestly say that I played this one wrong. If I did anything wrong, it was certainly overplaying it pre-flop and on the flop (at least the latter). I reckon cold-caller for JJ or TT, which in the latter case would've sparked off some action if the jack had fell!
I can't believe the poor play of Mr. Cold Caller. Cold-calling two raises with KQ? The fact that a lone K actually may have won it for him in this particular hand, is purely co-incidal. The play on the flop is plain pathetic and the river bet, although probably the least awful move he made today (apart from checking the turn when he catched his pair) was poor too.
Comments?
I think the cold caller shouldn't have called even the re-raiser's single small bet on the flop with AA2 holding KQ..... How did he end up doing?
If the preflop 3-bettor needs AA-TT or AK, against him you're about a 5-1 favorite on the flop and a 5-2 favorite on the turn. I would have capped it on the flop or, more likely, just called and bet the turn rather hoping to be raised.
I agree that the queen is an unfortunate card if it induces the cold caller to bet the river, but you can't even consider folding this hand in 2-4, especially after the aggressors checked the turn and river.
I have QT of spade playing the button, five other players limp to me, I call, SB folds and then BB raises! I am surprise, look around and see 5 to 1 odds in this hand. Everyone calls and when it gets to me I reraise. BB next to me on my left makes it four bets, everybody calls. There are $ 120.00 preflop in this hand. The flop is 4s 8s Qd, my guess is that BB has Aces, a young "very thight player", I played with him before and he has been playing at this table for about and hour. We all check to him an he bets (of course). Everyone calls and when it gets back to me I really want to raise him again, but I don't. The turn is a 9c and now I have a straight draw. Not a very good one, but another out I didn't expect to have. We all check to him again and he bets (of course). There is only on caller this time, and when it gets back to me, again, I want to raise him, but I don't. The river card is another Q, the first player checks, I bet, BB calls, the first player folds. I show my hand, I win. BB jumps off the chair and yells: "You got me with the last card, I don't believe it, Oh my God', showing his Aces (I was right) to the table. I smile, enjoying the moment while I am collecting all the chips. My comment on this hand is that I reraise preflop for value; QTs might not be the greatest hand to reraise with, but I like it in this situation. My instinct was to keep reraising on the flop and turn, and I didn't. Should I keep adding money to this pot for value, is that the right way to bet for this hand? or did I play correctly by not reraising again and again. Please advise.
I wouldn't ever 3-bet with QTs before the flop, especially if there's a chance, as you indicate, that I'll get raised again. It's not just because it's never the best hand, but even in loose games it might be close to the worst hand and a lot of cards I need are often in other players's hands.
But I'd raise this flop every time. You had a huge overlay, even against aces, about even money to win the pot. Calling was terrible.
Also, it's not possible for anyone but the small blind to check to the big blind.
Pre-flop I don't like the reraise because it is vey likely to get capped. If the BB makes it four bets you might lose some people and you really want everyone in the hand. If you know everyone will coem no matter what it's probably fine.
On the flop I think you should have raised but not so much for value as to get other players out giving you a better chance to win the pot. There is a good chance the BB will reraise and get out hands like QJ, KQ and the gutshot draws.
On the turn I would have called, but a raise would not be too wrong. I think a raise here would be a semi-bluff and would allow you to check it down on the river if you don't improve. The pot is so large you'll want to make a crying call with top pair and if you are going to put in two bets you might as well do it on the turn. If you don't improve you pay the same amount. If you do improve you earn an extra bet.
The river bet is manditory since AA will certainly pay off here.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
You had no business re-raising with a rag like Q-10s
I am on the button with AcJd. There is a call UTG and a raise in early-mid position and one caller before it gets to me.
I call here (the big blind and UTG also call). I normally do not call with AJo but I didn't think this raiser needed cards better than AJo to raise in his position and I had the button. This is the first uncertainty I have about the hand. I think I should have just folded.
Flop: Jc Td Qc
Pre-flop raiser bets. The player between us folds and I raise. This is the second uncertainty I have about the hand. I wanted to knock out the big blind and have the option of checking through on the turn if I don't improve. It doesn't work. The BB reraises and the pre-flop raiser calls. I call for $5 more with $90 in the pot already.
Turn: 4c
BB bets out, pre-flop raiser calls, I call with a draw to the nut flush, a gutshot to the nut straight and to 2 jacks that could be good. The question here is do I raise? My flop raise and then call of the reraise looks like I'm on a flush draw. Should I just act as if I hit it and raise? At the time I didn't really consider this.
River: 8c giving me the second nuts (to T9c)
BB bets and I raise. He shows 98 with one club. I'm not sure why he bet out.
I won a big pot but I think I made soem questionable plays and I feel very fortunate to have gotten the goods on this one. I very well may have played incorrectly on every street!
Comments and criticism welcome,
Paul Talbot
Calling with A-J is not a good idea but you recognize that. If you think that the raiser has low raising standards then your call is marginal.
It is not a great flop for you. I don't know how loose the raiser is but the only hands you beat are A-10 and 9-9 or lower. K may well be your only out (excl. runner runner) and that is likely to be a chop.
Your action depends on what range of hands you put the pre-flop raiser on. Would he bet 8-8 here? If so I like your raise.
After that well played. If the BB called your raise with the 8c, I don't think he was going to lay it down on the turn. A semi-bluff is only effective if there is a chance that your opponent will lay down his hand.
I don't make a habit of calling raises pre-flop with AJo. If the raiser is weak, and the cold-caller also has very low standards, I will sometimes three-bet, then try to outplay the two (or three depending on the UTG limper)weaker players to see the flop.
I would also raise the flop in this situation. The call is correct after the BB 3-bets, I think.
By the way the hand has been played, I don't think the BB will fold. He seems to have a made hand and will likely call you down. If you know him to be the type of player to lay down in this situation then fire away.
In a 3/6 game yesterday I was on the button with a pair of 4's with 5 limpers and no raises before the flop. The flop comes 2,3,5 rainbow. UTG bets, 2 call and I raise. The turn is a 10. All checked to me. I bet. UTG calls, others fold. River shows a K, no flush. UTG checks, I bet again and get called down with a pair of 5's. Did I play this correctly?
In low limit players tend not to respect raises as much as in higher limits. You likely did not have the best hand here and it's unlikely the best hand will fold. So take a free card on the turn and see if you hit your straight.
I think the turn bet is fine because a lot of players will stay with overcards for a small bet but then will fold for a large bet. You may also have some straight draws that you want to charge for playing.
I don't like the river bet though. Just check it down here. Who is going to call you with a worse hand here and what sort of better hand is going to lay down? I think the answers are no one and none.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
I think I would have checked the river with so many over cards.
.
6-12 at Bay 101. Typical game.
I was having a good night. Pretty good game.
Everyone except 2 players limp in. I have AA in the SB and raise. Everyone calls. Flop is 10 10 7 rainbow. I bet out and I think 2 or 3 players fold and the rest calls. Turn is an Ace (I am loving it!!). I check and player in mid position (MPP) bets out and only the button calls(I wasn't sure what he was calling with because he would have raised with a 10 in his hand). I check raise and 2 players in between me and the mid position player folds. MPP re-raises me and the button folds. I re-raise and MPP calls. River is a brick. I bet and MPP calls. MPP flashes me 77 for a flopped full house.
A couple of questions:
1) Was the check raise good or was it better to just bet out considering my position?
2) Since I did check the turn, I did assume there was at least 1 player with a 10 (as it turned out no one had it). With 4 callers on the flop, if I did not catch an Ace on the turn, do I still bet out? I don't want to check-call all the way to the river, but I don't want to get raised on the turn either.
3) If I did not catch the Ace and bet out on the turn. Do I pay off whoever raises, assuming there is no re-raise from another player? The pot was pretty big.
I apologize if these are somewhat remedial questions, but would appreciate any comments or criticisms.
With regard to Question 1, unless the cap is a bet and four raises like it is here in Vegas, you probably did as well as you could. Nevertheless, I would bet the turn and 3 bet when raised. The guy with the full house might 4 bet and I could make it 5 bets on the expensive street.
With regard to Question 2, I would lead on the turn if a blank comes. It is hard to know where you are at but since no one raised your bet on the flop you should lead and see what happens since your hand may well be best. The pot is large and you must protect your hand with a bet and avoid handing out free cards here.
Regarding Question 3, if you get raised, whether or not you fold depends upon who else is in the hand. If it is heads-up, I would call and check-call the river.
Last night i went through the worst beat in over a month. I lost about 14 big pocket pairs and about 6 sets.
I was being rivered left and right. It seemed like there was nothing that i could right. Some one would always catch a backdoor flush or straght and take down my sets or big pocketss.
Some one would always get perfect perfect and take me down.
Here is one example
Im in a middle position with AcKc I rasie 4 players call flop comes A Q 6 Rainbow, UTG bets I raise, 2 fold, he reraises me I caped it
I had a read on him and i knew he had nothing maybe a Q or straight.
Turn is a Ten, he checks I bet he calls river is a Ten, he checks I check
He turns over a jack Ten to win the pot I was going to bet the river but could tell that he wanted to check raise me
I tightend up my game even more. But it seems like there was nothing that i could do right
I lost 400 playing the 5-10, very loose, very good game. I never went on a tilt all night though
370 of it was pure bad luck, 30 was lost cause i called a few times when i knew I had a hand lost on the river
I was wondering If this kind of bad beat happens to everyone once in a while cause this is the second time in about a month that this has happend to me and i don't see it happening to anyone else
dorrex, these things happen to everyone and I wish I could state that they happen to everyone equally. There are players who have sessions like this over a long period of time and lose a lot of money even though they play well. I have a dear friend who played over 1100 hours of $1-$4-$8-$8 here in Vegas and he was almost always the best player at the table. He read the books, studied the game, and I watched him play a few times. He played tight, aggressive poker. His mistakes were miniscule compared to his opponents who played horribly. Nevertheless after 1100 hours of play he lost almost $3000 and has quit poker altogether. He recently got a good job offer and has moved to Miami. He will never play poker again. It was not just the monetary loss but it was the psychological pain of racking up losing session after losing session that finally got to him. It also spilled over into other aspects of his life since he had put so much of himself into this game. I believe that are hundreds of good players who simply run bad their whole poker careers and eventually stop playing altogether because the game is simply not fun when you cannot win.
The biggest reason good players get vastly different results at the poker table is due to differences it luck not skill. Some players are lucky in that their hands usually hold up and they rarely get sucked out. Others have their hands routinely beaten and cannot win as a result. The players whose hands always get to hold up think it is due to their playing skill. They really go through their whole poker careers remarkably unaware of why they win on a consistent basis.
The biggest reason good players get vastly different results at the poker table is due to differences it luck not skill.
Jim-
I just cannot agree with the above statement. Surely the biggest reason good players get different results, is because they are better players period. They make better and more correct decisions than their counterparts over the course of time.
With all due respect, I think comments like the above, are a great dis-service to beginning players, especially when coming from a player of your caliber.
You and I have talked about the luck factor before. If you remember, I too have underwent a pretty extreme statistical nightmare at 20-40. Even though almost ALL of it was due to hideously poor luck in a 190 hour period, nevertheless, there were slight flaws in my game which I was able to pick out. I have since re-couped this loss and then some. Bottom line: I have emerged a better player for it.
It's true, luck is a deciding factor in the short term, and can be absolutely BRUTAL. But eventually good play will truimph over bad play in time. I feel THIS is the message to be delivered to newer players, IMO.
Kevin
nt
Kevin, you are misreading the statement. The statement says that we are talking about good players getting different results among themselves not about good players versus bad players.
What is a disservice to a novice is to tell him that if he studies hard, plays well, etc. and they will get a good result. People are making life altering decisions believing this myth. This includes young people dropping out of school to play poker or not getting a job in order to play poker, etc. It is true that if you apply yourself, read the right books, have discipline, a good bankroll, etc. you give yourself the best chance of winning but there is no guarantee. Apparently, my post addressing my friend's experience was simply set aside by you. My friend is not the only one who has had this happen to him.
The luck evens out only at infinity never over a finite period of time. When you have hundreds perhaps thousands of people engaging in an activity that is so dominated by luck, you will get a distribution of luck across this population with some people at the extremes. You hear about the players who are to the right of the mean and who are two or three sigma statistical deviates. You never hear about the players on the extreme left end of the curve.
Your message that good play will triumph over time is simply not true in many cases.
Jim-
I couldn't agree more with your comments about young adults making life altering decisions. There is a young man in the room I play in, who is very intelligent and has the potential to be an excellent hold'em player. Still, I can't help but think there are more productive/future building activities he could be doing than spending every day in a card room at the tender age of 23.
Then again, don't we all have to deal with luck in life? The stock trader, the business man, the farmer, the entrepreuner, are all exposed to luck, both good and bad. The farmer gambles on the weather, the market, on what to sow. It's possible that he too can run bad for an extended period. But thank God people still farm.
My point is, that a good business man who works hard at applying his trade can expect to succeed just as a good poker player who works hard can expect to do the same. Yes. Bad luck can take someone right out of the game. Undeserving people die in car crashes, tornadoes, of rare diseases, etc. This too can happen to any one of us. But there are more positive ways to spend our energy than to dwell on these things.
With all due respect to your friend, I suspect there were at least a few subtle flaws in his game that neither of you were aware of. Because poker deals with many small edges, it sometimes doesn't take much of a leak (when you add genuine poor luck) to put you far to the left of the curve as you say. I wish him the very best of luck in his new endeavor.
Kevin
I do NOT mean to encourage anyone to take up poker for a living! There are many of us who play for recreation. I just think we can also work hard and expect to win if we play well.
Kevin
Dorrex-
Losing 40 big bets in an easy game is certainly possible even for a player with a good edge.
Short term luck in poker can be BRUTAL! My advice is to hang in there. Make sure you are properly grounded in poker theory and are evaluating your own play correctly. If you are satisfied you are, then don't worry too much about this type of loss. They happen. Just continue playing good poker.
Kevin
nt
Poker IS gambling. Just as craps, roullette,blackjack, etc. are gambling. When you are a better poker player than the field you have the edge but you can and will loose for any given session,even for several sessions.
A casino runs a legitimate craps game and has a definate edge of 1 to 23 percent on all bets. How would you like to see players making hard tens all night if you were the house? Believe me it happens. Of course over the thousands of hands being played true probability will come into play but even casinos have bad shifts. A bad shift for a casino is like a bad year for you because of the number of bets being placed. This I think is Jim Brier's point. Most players don't have enough time in a lifetime to eliminate the luck factor in terms of std deviation and reliability of sample size etc. ps: the $30's in bad calls add up try to improve on those.
I am a winning player, its just that i seem to experiance these bad beats, I checked my records and its the third bad beat that i have had in the last 30 days, still I am up for the month.
I think from now on im going to have a stop loss for each session that i play. If i had set a stop loss I would be up very nicely for the month.
Cause in each one of my bad beats i start gettin beat early and keep gettin riverd all day
thank you all for youre advice
Unless your play deteriorates after bad beats, setting stop losses will do nothing for your long term results. In fact, they will hurt your results, if you continue to leave when the games are good.
Kevin
Most players don't have enough time in a lifetime to eliminate the luck factor in terms of std deviation and reliability of sample size etc.
Tony-
I hope I'm not the only one who would take issue with this. A few thousand hours should be sufficient to arrive within a few dollars per hour of your true mean. It is simply not true that a top caliber player doesn't have enough hours in a lifetime to prove he is capable of being a significant winner in the game! IMO-
Kevin
A few thousand hours is probably not nearly long enough. Take a typical $20-$40 game. Assume his standard deviation is $400 per hour and he plays 1600 hours per year which is like a full time job with time off for vacations, sick leave, etc. After 1600 hours his cumulative standard deviation is $400 per hour x square root of 1600 hours or $16,000. The uncertainity associated with whatever hourly earn estimate he computes for himself is ($16,000/1600 hours) or $10 per hour. This is a lot more than a few dollars per hour. In fact most statisticians speak in terms of two standard deviations so it could really be $20 per hour. In other words, a player could theorectically play well enough to beat the $20-$40 game but still just be holding his own or actually losing money after 1600 hours.
The bigger the game the longer the number of hours needed to determine how close your computed hourly earn is to your real hourly earn. A $30-$60 player with a standard deviation of $600 per hour could play 3600 hours (two years of full time play) and the uncertainity associated with his computed hourly earn would be $10 per hour. Note that the $30-$60 player had to play more than twice as many hours as the $20-$40 player to get the uncertainity associated with his hourly earn computation down to the same level (i.e.-$10 per hour)
I'll add a little to this post at the point where Jim B. says that statisticians speak of two sigma or two standard deviations from the mean...
Chebyshev (a Russian statistician) proved a theorem that states that the probability that that the value of a Random Variable lies within 'k' * sigma from the norm is at least 1 - (1 / (k * k) ).
So in your example, with a sigma of $400/hour, the probability that any given hour's result is within net +-$800 FROM HIS NORMAL RESULT PER HOUR is at least 75%. (k = 2, ie. two sigma).
So suppose he makes 1 big blind per hour because he is a 'good' player, ie. +$40/hour is his expected result. Then 75% of the time, he will make between negative $760 and positive $840.
That's in any given hour, which is why a winning player will post losing sessions. But after 100s of hours? Numerous sessions? The law of large numbers says you'll eventually post that +$40/hour.
Its a very weak statistical argument that propagates that standard deviation through 100s or 1000s of sample hours to show that a player may still net a negative amount of money over that large amount of time. The ordinary statistical rule of thumb is that 30 samples (ie. 30 hours of playing) should begin to show normal results.
Also, $400/hour in your example--10 big blinds an hour is a little on the large side, regardless of style of play.
----- Aaron
Yes, but since this is the lower limit forum, it's doubtful that we're talking about 20-40 or 30-60 here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but over 3000 hours (I did say a few thousand hours), assuming a 10 BB/hr hourly standard deviation would mean one could expect his results to be within $2.19/hr on either side of his mean. This would be within 1 standard deviation of his mean and would represent a 66% confidence level. So I stand by my statement. In other words, if a top player played 3000 hours of 6-12, and showed an hourly rate of $10.00/hr., he can say with a confidence level of 66%, that he falls somewhere between $7.81/hr and $12.19/hr. Running 2 and 3 standard deviations away from the mean while possible, is highly unlikely over a 3000 period. The thing that got me started with this, is that it seems as if you are trying to say that running 2-3 standard deviations away from one's mean is common place. If this were so, then we could expect that out of Sklansky, Malmuth, Cooke, Ciaffone, Feeney, etc. at least one of these guys to not only be doing poorly, but to be on the rail by now. Obviously, this isn't the case.
I stand by my case. It would take severe misfortune for a top player to run so bad, that he could not beat his game in a lifetime. While theoretically possible, it's not worth worrying about any more than other improbably events. This would be like NOT boarding a plane, because a small percentage of them crash.
Kevin
Yes, this happens to other players..
I have just went throught 4 sessions in a row at 6/12 that went very similar to your description. Fortunately, I had been running rather well, but it is disheartening to see your winnings disappear.
There will be nights when you make the right decisions and lose, there is just no way around it. It's especially tough when you pop those good starting hands, succeed at thining the field, and the board misses your hand and smashes into the guy holding rags. I have decided to take a short break, hit the books, work with Turbo Texas Hold Em, while I recover from my drubbings. I'll be back in a week or so to try again.
Kevin, I have to STRONGLY side with Jim in this matter.
Luck can easily determine long-term results for a player and often does. Your own personal example of running bad for 190 hours is not even really much of a bad run. 190 hours is almost NOTHING in fact.
As I've always believed, the most ardent supporters of the "good players just CANNOT lose over time" theory are those who have not run bad, truly bad, for any significant period of time.
natedogg
As I've always believed, the most ardent supporters of the "good players just CANNOT lose over time" theory are those who have not run bad, truly bad, for any significant period of time.
Natedogg-
I will give you this without argument. I won't bore you with the gruesome details, but even though my run may not have been long, it was a nightmare beyond belief. Before this run, I would not have believed anything so horrendous was possible. Suffice it to say, it felt like getting 3:2 on a coin flip and having it land the wrong way 97 times out of 100.
You are right that 190 hours is but a blink of an eye statistically speaking. I continue to be amazed at how even some very good players put so much weight into short term results. But we aren't talking about 190 hours. We are talking about a lifetime which can represent thousands of hours even for the recreational player and tens of thousands for the professional. My only point is, that given this amount of time, a good player can EXPECT to win aproximately what he should. I guess there's no way for me personaly to prove this point. I would think that guys like Sklansky, Malmuth, Feeney, Cooke, and other top professionals should prove it for me. If there was truly that much luck involved, we would expect at least one of these guys to be losers by now. I don't think that's the case, do you? There are many more pot and no limit experts that have gone broke. I think that's because they have more inherent gamble in them and that they are subjecting a larger percentage of their bankroll at risk at certain decision points.
Kevin
"I would think that guys like Sklansky, Malmuth, Feeney, Cooke, and other top professionals should prove it for me. If there was truly that much luck involved, we would expect at least one of these guys to be losers by now. I don't think that's the case, do you?"
Or you could assume that there are other players just as good who you have never heard of because they had the misfortune of a period of 1-2 years in the red and went broke.
Cooke often remarks that not many pros last more than 10 years. He attributes it to burnout, but couldn't it also be that when you play 10 years you inevitably run into a losing year (several thousand hours) that busts all but those with the largest bankroll and saved living expenses? Even Cooke didn't want to risk his family's future on poker alone (hence his real estate business) and he's one of the very best middle limit players, those with less ability are at even more risk. In fact, all of those you named recieve income from sources away form the table.
Paul Talbot
My only point is, that given this amount of time, a good player can EXPECT to win aproximately what he should
I couldn't agree with you more about the use of the word EXPECT.
However, expectation and realization are often totally opposite.
Basically, what Jim is saying, is that it's POSSIBLE to have a high win expectation but never win. Considering how many millions of poker players there are, it's not all that uncommon for a very good or even expert player to run so bad for so long that he simply cannot ever win. The extremes of card distribution are there, and certain people have to experience them.
natedogg
While all that is true, I just question Jim when he says that the game is so dominated by luck. Perhaps, I don't exactly grasp what he means (it wont be the first time that something went over my head I'll tell ya). If he is saying that good players can suffer extended losing periods, I would not quibble with that in the least. But the fact there are some losing good players out there does not mean that the game itself is dominated by luck. This example of "what about the good player who loses in his first 2000 hours of play and then packs it in" doesn't hold much water because unless you are some kinda superstar, you probably were not a good player (except in your own mind) during your first 2000 hours of play. Heck, I thought I was hotshit in my first 2000 hours of play. Looking back, my play was horseshit. I either ran real good or my opponents were even worse than I was (casino poker came to Vancouver only in 1996. I, along with many other locals, started playing regularly only then). I suspect my early success was a combination of the two.
Poker and hold 'em in particular is a complicated game and a game of skill first and foremost. Luck is secondary in the long run. If it wasn't, Sklansky and Malmuth ought to be sued for fraud with respect to their claims that with appropriate study and experience, you can make 100K per year or whatever it is they say in that one book of theirs. They should have added a strong caveat that despite your deep understanding of the game, you have a fair to good chance of going broke because there is so much luck involved in the game.
There is a lot of truth to the cliche that you have to be good to be lucky....
David Sklansky stated in one of his posts somewhere that he estimated that there were anywhere from 200-500 ring game players who made over $50,000 per year playing in public cardrooms. I wonder how many of these make over $100,000 a year? Probably not more than 100-200. To make 100 grand per year you have to average about $50 per hour which means that you must play at least $20-$40 and preferably $30-$60 or maybe even $40-$80.
Now there are hundreds of thousands of bright, intelligent people here in the USA who would love to make 100 grand a year. There are thousands of poker players playing limit poker throughout numerous cardrooms and casinos across the US. Now the question of the day is why are there only one or two hundred who are making 100 grand a year at this? I don't believe that it is due to a lack of intelligence, talent, or skill. I do believe that when you get thousands of people engaging in an activity there will be a select few whose hands hold up more often than the average, who draw out more often than average, who get held over less often than average, and who get more than their fair share of good cards. It is these players who get to make 100 grand a year playing limit poker. How many of the numerous authors and writers of poker books and columns make a 100 grand per year playing limit poker? (Hardly any in my opinion). How many of the posters on this forum or on rgp make 100 grand a year playing limit poker? (Probably none in my opinion). Is it because these people are not skillful or talented enough or they don't know enough about the game? I don't think so. I think you have to look elsewhere for the answer.
But the above has nothing to do with your point that I take issue with i.e. luck dominates the game.
I am not saying that every skillful player can make $100,000 per year but I am saying that you have almost a nil chance of making it if you are not skillful.
And if a guy shows a few years of making 100K annually, I would say that he is a very skillful player - I would not say that he is the luckiest player in the world.
As you point out, to make 100K a year, you have to play in fairly big games. Now, those games are not populated by schmucks. Most of them are skillful players. Since poker is a zero sum game, some of the skillful players are going to lose money. But that doesn't mean that luck now dominates. It means that skill is a relative term. I do well in the games that I play in. But if I play Vegas 30-60 day in and day out against guys like you, Malmuth, Jalib and what not, I am sure that I wont do as well and could in fact be a loser in the game. If that happens over the long run, it would be because I am not very skillful relative to my opponents.
In theory, if you put 10 equally skilled guys at the tables, then of course luck will be the determinative factor in the long run. But have you ever played in a game where everyone is equally skilled?
As for why more intelligent people don't play poker..well there are lots of reasons. For one, if they are intelligent enought to make good dough playing poker, they can probably make a lot more in other endeavours. Plus, playing poker for a living has a lot of other negatives associated with it (Poker Veteran I am sure would beg to differ).
Loose-passive $3-6 game, AQs in late position. Three limpers before me, I raise, BB and limpers call, ensuring me 'button position' for the rest of the hand.
Flop goes: Kc-Jc-8s. All check to me. Now, do I bet out here? With a flop like this, I will NEVER win it right here. I may get all four to call, in which case a bet here won't be a total EV disaster. However, in that situation, I strongly believe I won't if I only catch a pair of aces for me. Well, I check.
Turn card is 3 of spades. It's checked to player next to me, who bets out. Now, having not 'created my own pot odds', there may not even be room for a call here, but one more caller and I'm fine. I call, so does the other. River card is K of spades, it's checked to me, I bet out and only turn-bettor calls. Of course it holds up.
Then I get dealt Queens in BB, four limpers (incl. SB). I raise. Should I maybe check here, and go for the check-raise on the flop (unless A or K falls), gaining more information from doing this? Because lack of information was certainly my downfall here.
Flop is 10-7-6 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet, two callers. Turn card is 5. SB suddenly bets out! I decided to just call him down from this point on. Other guy calls too. River card is an 8. SB bets out. Now, I just MAY have SB beat (though unlikely), but what about the other caller? I figure I'm on thin ice here and lay down, so does the other guy, and SB takes it down.
Mistakes here? Raising pre-flop? Not raising the turn? Folding the river? You've got plenty to choose from. Just give it to me!
lars
On the first hand your pre-flop raise is good. On the flop, you were quite correct in checking here. With 4 opponents and a coordinated board like that you will not win the pot outright by betting and if you bet you might even get check-raised. You should check and take your free card as you did. On the turn, your call is correct. You have 9 outs to a flush plus a red Ten gives you the nuts as well so that is 11 outs. The Tc may even be an out. Sometimes an Ace may be an out. A call here is automatic.
On the second hand, your play of raising pre-flop from the small blind with pocket Queens is correct. Most of the time your Queens will be an over pair to the board or you will flop a set. I would fold on the river with a board of T-7-6-5-8 and this betting since the small blind will usually have a straight with any Nine or Four or he will have two pair. Let the third player be the sheriff and keep him honest.
You played both hands correctly.
On the first hand I would bet the flop for the sole purpose of buying a free card on the turn. You have a gutshot to the nuts plus other outs. In low limit a bet is in order on this flop.
2nd hand you played it fine.
First let me point out that I do not think that you played either hand poorly. On the first hand you presented, I would bet the flop 60% of the time. As Winger pointed out, it would most likely (depending on the mix of players) get you a free card on the turn. Further, you raised before the flop on this particular hand, which can represent AA, AK, KK or KQ. If you are not playing against "tricky" player, I doubt that you would be check-raised if you bet the flop in late position. Even if one of the players flopped a set, that individual would bet or try for a check raise on the turn. With respect to the second hand, your pre-flop raise is ok. When you bet on the flop, and were subseqently bet into on the turn, I would have folded the pocket queens if I did not have a draw. The bulk of the time in lower limits, a person that bets into a pre-flop raiser that follows with a bet on the flop, clearly means "I have a monster hand and I am afraid you will not bet."
I don't think you can throw away the Q's on the turn. While your quite possibly beat, it could also be only two pair. Frequently players will play top pair weak kicker this way as well. Or possibly a hand like 7-8. With 6 1/2 bets in the pot, and the fact that the five is unlikely to make someone a str8, I call. There are too many hands I can beat. If he flopped a str8, why wouldn't he check-raise the flop or turn?
A player description always makes analysis easier
Lars,
What am I missing? Seems like you are getting great odds for a call on the turn with your Spade flush draw. Worst case scenario, you're calling $6.00 for a $39 pot. Even without taking into consideration the implied odds, you're getting better than 6:1 for a better than 5:1 draw, no?
Ashley
I have been noticing lately that the difference between a winning and losing session for me is if I hit my draws or not. I am an aggressive player in late position with my draws (ie. betting or raising for value if everyone is just calling) and pretty passive up front with them. Is this the right strategy or am I missing something? I notice I make a little money with my good premium pairs etc and stay even, if I hit my draws I go home ahead, if not I go home stuck. Anyone else have these experiences?
An example was the other night in a 9-18 game. I was having a little bad run, but still hitting enough pots to stay even. Well I couldn't hit one damn draw and left the table stuck 3 racks. I compared notes with a friend and I couldn't come up with any leaks other than putting in a lot of money for my draws.
I guess my question is does anyone lay low until they hit their draws then get aggressive? My game plan is always be aggressive late and passive up front. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Low limit. AA on the button. Everyone folds to you. Do you raise? If the blinds fold you win the pot right there, but would you be better off just calling to try to make more later? If the blinds think you are trying to steal they may call, but maybe not. What do you guys think?
Leafsfan
Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If the Blinds are playing any sort of correctly, when it folds around to them, they are getting odds to play almost any hand, whereas your bet could put enough doubt in them to go ahead and fold it out, wait for the next hand. All the literature I've read, and my own meager experiences have always said never slowplay the AA; always be in there betting and raising while you still think you have the winning hand. In this scenario, you do, since obviously it doesn't get much prettier than that. Anyways, even if you do bet, the blinds are probably going to call you on the thought that your stealing or it's a position bet. Go ahead and bet...it's one more drop in the pot for you.
If think if there weren't any bets after the flop you'd be better off raising because the sb will get 5-1 on you limp and the bb will get infinite odds. In the real world, the blinds will lose a lot of bets with underpairs and near-dead overcards. So limping is more profitable for the immediate hand. In a passive low limit game with few stealing opportunities and where people often open-limp late, I'd limp because my hand would be sufficiently disguised.
In slightly tougher games, however, a late open-limp stands out and you might not get the big implied odds you need to justify limping. I'd therefore only limp if neither blind will defend without a middle position kind of hand or if they were generally unconscious. Also, I think you'll often make more in the long run if players regret defending against your steals.
Do the blinds always defend their hands? If so, then of course you should raise and make them pay. If not, then I think that occasionally just calling is fine as well. You're hoping that the blind will flog a pair and call you down. (But don't get upset when it back fires on you!)
In general I will go ahead and raise here. I agree with Natec. Your opponents expect a steal here so if you are going to raise with your weaker steal hands you might as well raise with yoru good ones as well. You might even get played back at (at which point you might want to slowplay).
In specific, I think you need to think about who is in the blinds each time this situation arises. if the blinds are very tight players you could consider slowplaying. If the blinds are loose and you expect them to protect then you should raise every time.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Paul, if the blinds are tight, they're likely tight post-flop too. You may earn an addition bet or two on the flop, but stand to lose a lot if someone makes their shitty two pair or trips.
If they have high cards, cards they are not likely to drop if they flop a pair, well there you go, they will call even a raise pre-flop.
However if you raise, you'll often get them chasing far more too. Raising, esp. pre-flop, triggers off something in many poker players' minds, as they know so much can change over a flop, although being up against aces, they won't know that what they need is not a good flop, but a miracle flop.
lars
You have the perfect cards and perfect position. I would definitely raise here. I sometimes slowplay AA when I'm in the blinds or when my confidence is totally shot, but other than that, I always raise. Talbot made a great point about what type of players are in the blinds. Hey, if they're good and tight, then you might win and just pick up the blinds right there...it's still a win. However, most LL players like to protect their blinds and that usually means a profit for you here.
I remember a similar situation I had a while back when I had AA on the button and I raised. Only the BB called and the flop was A27. BB bet, I raised, BB reraised, and I capped. On the turn was a blank and BB bet again and I raised again. On the river, BB checked and called my bet. He had 27o. Gotta love that!
This is low limit holdem he said. Most of the time hte blinds aren't even thinking about protecting their hands, they are thinking "Hey this guy just raised my blind instead of letting me chop, I'm going to try and run him over." Or they might get mad and reraise you. If they fold, then so be it, you make less than you should have on the hand. But, if you raise these players may call and then get pot committed (psycologically) and then you can win a large pot.
Talbot is right on the money. This depends a lot on the specific players in the blinds and therefore I vary my play in this situation (although it happens infrequently at low limits [it's 220-1 against getting Aces and it's almost 50-1 or more against the entire field folding around to the button in a low limit holdem game, hehe :)]). I think I would raise 80-90% and call the other 10-20% of the time.
What do you do when you not got paid off when you are value-betting your good/big hands ?
In spread/pot/no-limit someone may say that you should bet a smaller amount - but that is WRONG !
In fixed-limit someone may say that you shouln't bet so much - but that too is WRONG !
The solution is bluffing - in the short run you make money on your bluffs - in the long run you make money on your big hands (assuming the blinds adapt).
Before this situation - did.you do some marginal blind-stealing ? - good idea !
Besides: If you raise and get called - the blinds will be more inclined to call you all the way 'because of the pot-odds'.
I would raise 100 % !!
Hey Nate:
We were playing on Paradise yesterday at one of the 5-10 tables, and there was a hand with the BB, an early position player, and you. You raised preflop, and they both called. I forget everything else except the showdown: BB won with Q8 or something, and you and the other person both had AK suited.
I commented that I was surprised that it was not capped preflop, and you mentioned that you raised, but that the other person was "out of position". When I still didn't understand you said "You are ESPECIALLY out of position with AKs". I decided to give up on the conversation then, but I was wondering if you could clarify further what you meant by that?
Would anyone not raise/reraise/cap with AKs, regardless of position??
David "Comments too much during play" Ottosen
On the Medium Stakes forum Mason Malmuth recently posted a "Hand to Talk About" which generated a lot of response. One of the topics that was discussed was reraising with AKo out of the small blind (granted AKs is a different hand). Jim Brier made what I consider a good point in this discussion. Here's the situation.
UTG limps in and Mason Malmuth immediately raises, everybody folds around to you (in the SB), do you reraise? Some people said yes, some people said no. Jim Brier said that he would not reraise (I hope I'm not wrong) and I will recap reason (again I hope I don't make any mistakes). UTG limps and Mason raises from the next seat, what hands could he be doing this on? AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AKo, AKs, AQo, AQs and maybe, but not likely, AJs. It's also possible to rule out JJ and TT. You hold AKs so that leaves 3 AA combos, 3 KK combos, 6 QQ's, 6 JJ's, 6 TT's, 3 AKs's, 6 AKo's, 3 AQs's, and 9 AQo's. That is a total of 45 different hands. Against 6 you are a big dog (AA and KK), against 9 you are basically even money (AKs and AKo), against 12 you are dominating (AQs and AQo) and against 18 you are a small dog (QQ, JJ, TT). So over half the time you are a dog or even money and you only have 12 of the possible 45 hands dominated. Based on this logic a reraise doesn't seem like such a great idea in my mind with AKo.
Given AKs, it adds 6 hands you are freerolling on (AKo) and makes you almost even money against QQ, JJ, TT. But, you are comletely out of position for the entire hand. My preference has always been to reraise in this situation but after this analysis I am not so sure this is the best advice. Obviously in your example a reraise might have eliminated the BB who won the pot with his Q8, and I think that would have been the best reason to reraise pre-flop, but I'm not sure it neglects your positional disadvantage. I believe that the reraise would definitely increase your chances of winning the pot and I would reraise prelfop, but maybe some of the experts will disagree with me.
One has to consider how the hand will play out if AK smoothcalls and compare that to how it would play out if AK 3 bets. IMO, the advantages of 3 betting outweigh the advantages of smoothcalling.
AKs is a totally different monster than Ako. I think not three betting AKs against someone with moderate raising standards is a crime. The hand is too powerful. However out of position, I rarely three bet AKo and almost never cap.
First, you can't EVER talk about a hold'em hand situation regardless of position. I think even trying to do so indicates a fundamental leak in your game. Position is paramount. I'm NOT attacking you at all, but I am making a point that under-rating position to the point of "regardless" can only mean you don't understand position enough. At least in my opinion.
Now, to clarify how the hand went...
There were only 3 contenders for the pot, including my AKs and the AKs from the blind. The button had cold-called my raise and was in between us.
If you are facing two opponents with AKs from the blinds, I think calling the raise is the best course. If you reraise, you are not only opening yourself up to another raise from a hand that can beat you (like JJ QQ) but from a hand that will tie you. All things being equal, two players with AK contesting a pot, the clear majority of the pots will go to the player with position.
Going back to facing two opponents with AKs from the blind. At this point, suited and unsuited AK have practically the same power. You're not getting the pot odds for the suited part to matter a whole lot.
If you are facing a 6 handed raised pot, you would almost definitely go ahead and reraise, because your hand has such power in a multi-way pot. Thus, you would probably NOT reraise in a 6 handed pot with just AKo. But if you just flop a bare ace you are probably not even a favorite to win. You MIGHT win if you catch a K but probably not if you catch just the A. (The reason you'd rather catch a K than A with AK in a multiway pot are for another post).
Anyway, the point is, with AK in the blind, you're out of position with a hand that needs help. Once you see the flop, without an A or K, what do you do? If you had the luxury of acting last, you could even stand a checkraise. Look at these two scenarios:
From the blind:
flop is 239. you check, middle player bets, button raises, now what?
from the button.
check to you, you bet, blind raises, now what?
In both cases you've been raised and you have no pair. However, in the first case, you almost definitely cannot call. In the second case, you would call roughly 100% of the time.
You call in the second case because you have the luxury of letting him act first next round. If he checks, you punish him. If you catch an A or K and he bets, you punish him. Sometimes he'll be betting AQ like that and when you both catch the A you destroy him utterly. This is all possible because of your position.
natedogg
Don't take it wrong what I was saying about greeting 2+2ers in the online forum. It wasn't spurred by you greeting me last night, I was just thinking about how it affects other players at the table. Glad to have met you.
natedogg
I am the BB in a $3-6 game. There are 10 players. 6 see the flop. I get A 5 off to start. I check and the flop comes A J X. I bet everybody calls. the next card is an 8. I bet again and everybody calls. The river comes another J. The SB checks and I bet everybody calls and then the SB raises. I call the $6 and he has trip J. I was thinking about checking the river when the baord paired but I wasn't sure. I knew I had to call the final bet on the river. I also had just sat down a few hands ago so I wasnlt sure of everybodys playing style yet.
Leading into a field of 5 opponents with an Ace high flop having top pair/no kicker is probably not a good idea. I think you should consider checking and await developments. Having decided to lead and getting called by the whole field means that your hand is almost certainly no good. When a blank comes off on the turn you should definitely check.
I agree with Jim, this is one of those problem hands (situations?) that can cost you money in the long run if they are not played well. I believe this type of situation is covered in HPFAP21, I suggest a thorough read of this section of the book. You will likely gain some insight into how these hands can be problems and how they should be played.
Or just listen to Jim. He's right again, as usual.
You should definetely check the river - If you have any reason to bet the flop and the turn it's because of the fear of giving a free card. You don't have that reason on the river - your hand is not good enough to value-bet - not bad enough to bluff with - yuo have a check/call-hand or (more likely) a check/fold-hand.
With your ace/rag and that flop I would have checked. If someone in early to middle position bets and is called I would fold when it got back to me. If it was checked and a late position player bet and there are no callers in between him and me then I would raise!
Well, at this point, you have enough other people to call here I think. I imagine it is reasonable to assume that some portion of most people's hands are duplicating each other, so its unlikely that something like top set is going to win. Given that, I also think its fair to see the flop and see how many clubs you hit. You hit none, you fold, no problem.
The only question I have is regarding raising preflop. Admittedly, preflop raising standards are not theoretically correct at YH or Baccarat (not sure where you were playing), but if you read the thread below regarding raising preflop with AKs, maybe your preflop open raise is not correct. You stated that it was a close call for the $6 because you suspected you were dominated; perhaps this is a case where due to position you should have simply limped in, and when it comes back to you at $9 (and knowing it will shortly be $12), you may want to dump it right then.
David
1) Limping ok, but I am doing it with the intent of flopping a set. If that doesn't happen, I probably just get away from the hand immediately.
2) I'm up for folding or raising. Given that your buddy likes to semibluff, well a flop with 2 diamonds and 2 kings is just about the perfect flop to do so, isn't it? Either you believe he has a king and fold (which you don't seem to believe) or you believe he is on a diamond draw and raise him. I probably fold here, because I would not be too confident in my hand (imagining that there are something like 14 cards in the deck that beat me - 8 diamonds not counting the 6, and the other 6 overcards he has to my 6's), even assuming he doesn't have a king. I don't like the play of just calling.
3) On the turn, I definitely fold. Whether he had diamonds or a king or whatever, I just don't think Im going to win this often enough. Add to that the fact that there is only $27 in the pot (after his $6 bet), its just not worth the time to get involved and risk losing a hand to some guy who you don't like. Losing pots to people I don't like tends to induce tilt. I also tend to find that made flushes bet blind much more often than any other hand (not sure why this is or if other people agree; maybe people are afraid of a 4th flush card hitting and wrecking, so they decide to get it in there now before they get afraid). I imagine he turned over some piece of baloney like 9d8d.
I like your thinking on the flop, but I probably re-evaluate after the board flushes and just give it up. Not a big enough pot to get involved with based on my read (although reading players isn't my #1 skill).
David
David
Tough decision. But I would not raise him on the turn when the diamond hit. I would either call him down or quietly muck.
Playing 4-8 last night. It is a kill pot so the betting is 8-16. I am in the BB with 92s. There are 7 players in the pot so I throw $4 more. So 8 players see the flop. Flop is K95. It is checked around. Turn is a 2. I bet and I am called by 3 players. River is a blank and I bet and I am called by a few players. I win a very nice pot with the crap hand.
So I mention this hand to a friend and say that if anyone bets the flop I fold. With 8 players in the pot I can't imagine my 2nd pair with a 2 kicker could win anything.
How would players play the flop in this situation? Would anyone lead the betting? Would you call a bet?
To me throwing the $4 in the pot is looking for the miracle flop of 99x or 22x or 2 of my suit. If I hit top pair then maybe I call a bet. Anything else I fold and wait for the next hand.
Opinions?
Ken Poklitar
Not worth $4 preflop. This is one of those hands when it gets to me in the BB, I look at it, say "I think my only out is to flop quads, and even that may not be enough", and fold it. The worst part of the hand is that there are 4 potential outcomes: 1) You flop trips - very unlikely 2) You hit one pair; however, you know you will not be able to bet or call with one pair 3) You hit two (or three) of your suit and spend the entire hand terrified of losing to a higher flush, but are stuck calling 4) You flop two pair; the only real hope for you here. Even then, your 2 pair is going to be very vulnerable (K9s is certainly a reasonable enough holding to assume someone has in most low limit games!)
There are very few ways you could hit the flop with this hand and feel confident in your betting. That qualifies is as a trap hand to me, so I chuck it. There are things you could hit, but the things you could hit that would make you REALLY happy are very few and far between, and I dont think you have the pot odds (even at 15:1) to continue.
I'm thinking quads might be enough :)
But it was sooted!
I think at 15-1 any hand is worth $4. I agree that I am searching for the miracle flop.
Ken Poklitar
At 15-1 I call pre-flop as well. In fact, there is not a hand weak enough to fold for these odds (although I would throw away the worst of the worst). The key is not to get sucked in post-flop.
I would have played it the same as you and folded to a bet on the flop. Many players would say your getting the right odds to pull one off if someone did bet, but I don't agree. Flop it or out.
Dave, read the preamble a little closer. I was first one in the pot after three checks to me. If you aren't going to raise at this point with A-Qs, you had best revisit HEFAP21. I quote:
The First Two Cards: Middle Position section, p.29
"Thus, if you are the first one in, raise with all hands that are in Groups 1,2, and 3."
You don't want to be a slave to any system, I suppose, but the preflop raise was clear-cut, IMO. My problem was what to then do when it was an additional $6 back to me facing 3 opponents, and then what to do when I missed the flop, and faced another $6 with further action very likely.
I feel that I played this hand terribly. I'm UTG with TT.
Pre-flop:
I call, and a middle position player that has been starting with crap, but getting very lucky. SB calls, everyone else folds.
FLOP: 8h 5h 8c. I bet out then middle player raises. SB folds, and I re-raise.
TURN:
2h. I bet out, but now looking back over the hand, I feel that I should have checked and folded. Almost sure of 3 eights.
RIVER:
9s. I bet, he calls. Shows 4h Qh for the flush. Not what I expected, but still beats me. Bad bet on the turn, right?
On this hand, I feel that I got very lucky. I'm middle position with 9h 8s.
PRE-FLOP:
Player before me calls, I call, player after calls, and other raises after him. 5 people call.
FLOP:
Tc 9c 8h. Two people check, I bet, and get raised. I call, and one folds.
TURN:
2s . I check, and raiser bets, and everyone calls. I'm hoping for a full house to crack a straight, figuring I could start a raising war with the straight, making it worth the call.
RIVER:
Ks. I check here, I was gonna fold on a bet on the river, but it got checked around. Orginal raiser shows me Ts Ac. Did I play this hand right? Should I have played faster on the flop?
2nd hand:
you should have decided to check and call a bet on the river once the nonclub fell. the pot was too substantial to fold two-pair.
On the first hand, I don't like your bet on the turn. The raise on the flop is either 1) an overpair 2) trips or 3) the raise for a free card hoping to hit the flush. With only 2 of you in the hand, I would check here, most likely folding to a bet.
On the second hand, the turn card is a blank, so I'd bet out. If you get raised, the straight is likely made, and you can dump it. If you don't get raised, chances are strong that you are still ahead and can plan appropriately for the river.
Rich
Hand 1. I would raise UTG with TT most of the time. mnay dissagree with this so I wont say limping is wrong, but raising does help avoid situations like the one you faced. This decision has a lto to do with the character of the table however.
Hand 2. People flop straights, but just because there was a raise on the flop does not mean someone has a made hand. I would bet the turn. I can't imagine laying this down on the river for one more bet if a blank hit unless the flop raiser is someone who only raises with the nuts. I think the AT played it perfectly. He was lucky you were so passive though.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
I think you should consider if the game is loose/passive or tight/aggressive. If you limp in you should almost always go for a set, so you want the game to be loose. If the game is tight i would also raise with pockets ten.
Just my opinion
.
That first hand was really bad, since you said it. I mean you are looking(on the flop)a full house, flush draw and a straigt draw, I think you got too hung up on the guy playing crap and getting lucky thing. I'm not saying that two pair is horrible but you cost yourself alot of extra bets.
Second hand again too many bets and yea you got lucky. What limit was this ?
Re the first hand. I don't think the raise on the flop would have necessairly scared me. Many players will call and go for the raise when the betting limits increase with the turn. I might have put him on a flush draw though and looking for a free card. I would have bet the turn also. Personally, I take a 'when in doubt be agressive' posture. I want to be in the lead and stay there whenever possible. River is a definate check and call or bet. I would not have folded.
I don't know how long you have been playing but one of the skills you will develop over time is the ability to put a player on a 'range' of hands. From your last two post, it sounds like your reaction to a bet or raise is to focus in on the best hand a player 'could' have and react to it. I like your flop bet. The last thing you want to do is give a free card. I might have checked raised on the turn with this hand. It will probably get rid of some of the callers, which you want to do, and put you in charge of the hand. If your check raise gets re-raised, you probably have confirmation you have a straight out against you. On both of these hands you indicate you were prepared or should have been prepared to fold top pair/2nd pair and two pair on the river. Be very cautious of folding to much on the river. There is usually enough money in the pot by the time you get here that you should only fold when you are very sure you are beat....
You have a clear fold pre-flop. The only hands I'd want to make in this situation are the str8 or the flush and you're not getting nearly enough play to chase them. Combine that with the fact that the two players are likely to make it expensive to chase.
Your raise pre-flop, of course, is correct.
This thread has made me wonder how much security pro players have against bad runs.
For example, if I were to try and make a go of it pro, I would want 18 months of minimal living expenses (food, rent and bills) saved up and about 500 big bets. However we're talking about $60-70,000 to do this which means probably not too many people can start out with such security. Do pros actually save up that much and is it enough? Or is it way too much? I would rather be overly cautious than have even less than 5% chance of going broke.
Note: I'm not planning on doing this anytime soon, this is just hypothetical.
Paul Talbot
Most "pros" who try to make a living playing middle limit poker are always vulnerable to encountering a 500 to 1000 hour losing streak and getting wiped out. When this happens they have to get a job for awhile. The conventional wisdom is that you need 300 big bets as strictly playing bankroll meaning that winnings go into it and losses come out of it. For a $20-$40 player, this would mean having $12,000 set aside strictly for poker and nothing else. But what happens is that many guys start spending their bankroll when they don't win enough to cover expenses or some other thing happens in their life. Many of them win a few thousand and then move up to a bigger game where they get hurt when they run bad. So they never allow their bankroll to really grow making them always vulnerable. Many of them don't realize it until it happens.
I don't know if I would have gotten to the river the same way you did (or gotten there at all) but once there...
At 8.5:1 I'd call. Even if you lose you probably learn something about your opponent.
Also, how is the river a blank? A 3 or 2 makes a straight possible (would he have bluffed with something like 67?) and anything higher than a 6 could give him a better two-pair. I would be worried he put you on a 4 or 5 and now thinks he has a bigger two-pair. Of course if you think this you have to raise.
Curious to hear what you did,
Paul Talbot
The river was something like an 8 or 9, but it is almost irrelevant because he bet blind. Therefore it didn't sound to me like he cared one way or the other WHAT the river was.
I'm hoping for a few more responses in the next couple of hours before I put up the results.
I suspect he has a middling pair or a small flush. however, having gone that far, you must call his river bet, no matter what hits the board.
I almost mucked it preflop, but for the additional $6 looking at what surely would be a good-sized pot, I just couldn't resist calling. I knew the risks of getting into a dominated situation, especially with the player to my immediate left. As I said, the 4-bettor had been showing up with all sorts of hands, and who knows what the SB might have had?
The flop was a complete airball for me. When it was 2 bets back to me, I had no reservations whatsoever about mucking at this point. Sure enough, LHO 3-bets, and the kid just calls.
Turn is Ad. Check, check. I'm getting sick.
River paired the 6. Check, check again and LHO turns over KK, and the kid had 99. I do not want to be results-drive in post mortem's and I still think I made the right decision to fold after the flop. Pre-flop, I'm not so sure.
I got somewhat unlucky in that the guy with the 99 really overplayed his hand, IMO. Maybe I did, too, but as the guy to my left was stacking up the chips, someone said to the kid something about how strongly he played the medium pair. He said," Well, it was going to get capped pre-flop anyway, so I might as well have done it myself. And on the flop, I raised because there was nothing on the board."
If he doesn't 4-bet pre-flop, and/or raise on the flop, I might take this one down. Assuming I still call pre-flop for an additional $3 instead of $6, I might peel one off for a small bet to close the action, and would get lucky when the Ace hits. But given the way the hand played out, I believe I played correctly post-flop, although my pre-flop play comes into question.
FWIW, you played it right as did the kid on the flop.
AQs against KK and 99 with a limper thrown in is still +EV. You played it right.
I was not happy with the way I handled this hand. In thinking about the hand later at home, I must admit to myself that trying to put a little "move" on this guy given our past may have influenced my play, and this is no way to play poker. Vince, another mea culpa!
Bless me Father, for I have sinned...
Back to this hand. When the guy bets blind on the river, with his little table talk added in for good measure, I gave the hand some thought. From my early read that he was more likely to be stealing, or at best betting a 4, I had to change gears. What could he have at this point that I could beat? Was he good enough to flat bluff me at this point? He knows I'm going to call, right?
I mentally kick my ass at this point for foolishly trying to push this guy off his flush, and muck. He proudly turns over 8-4 (the river was not an 8)and stacks the chips. I didn't blink or show any reaction at all. "Nice hand, sir."
I internally was of course mad at myself for folding the winner, not trusting my original read. But not wanting to leave myself open for future similar situations, I could not display any outward emotion. His showing the hand was no doubt intended to put me on tilt, but it didn't work. I'll give the guy credit for making a nice play on me, and it worked. Poker is certainly not at all times about having the best hand, is it?
x
1. Do you think the previous hand (where he refused to show down) influenced HIS play on this occasion?
2. Had you called, would it have put him on tilt?
1. No doubt about it. Why do you think he showed me his bluff? I'm not going to go out of my way to "get" this guy; he's a contributor anyway. He'll get himself. I'm just disappointed in myself in that I may have allowed my emotions to get in the way here a bit.
But hey, I'm not the only guy who ever unsuccessfully (semi-)bluff-raised a paired board, am I? Getting a little too aggressive with this crowd sometimes gets me in trouble, to be sure, but I still booked a 3BB/hour win at the end of the evening. It just could have been a little sweeter, that's all. I'll learn from this hand, to be sure.
2. What do you mean, GO on tilt? This guy lives in tilt.
Dunc,
I like your read on this guy. Think about both possibilities. If he's holding the K, he's intent on waiting for the second round to checkraise. If he's holding the flush draw, he may be betting, but more likely--given your description of his play--he's waiting to hit his flush and trap anyone holding a king. In addition, he doesn't like you because you know his type. So why is he betting? Easy, he's got the four or is simply stealing. Raise him on the flop and let him reraise. Call him down.
Also, when you're up against this guy, bet your monsters into him, but I think you already know that.
John
We're back at it again last night. No open hostility or anything, but I was still stinging a little inside from laying this hand down the night before.
Middle position, pocket 6's. I limp. Six of us take the flop of Tc-6c-4s. Checked to me, I bet out. Our buddy raises, and we get 2 coldcallers. NO slowplay here; I reraise. Hero and others both call.
Turn is dream card: 4c.
Checked to me, I smoothly check, because I just KNOW this guy was raising on his club draw. Risky, I suppose, but he's sooo aggressive, I can't see him checking. Sure enough, he bets, other 2 players both call (what are they on?), I get in a nice little checkraise, which does drive out the two limpers, but I get paid off on the river by the other guy.
Straightforward play, but it was nice to get some of my money back from the night before.
2/4 game at paradise. I'm on the button with Jd Kd.
PRE FLOP:
Two early position callers, I call, and the blinds call.
FLOP:
Ad Kc 7c. Three people check, and a player bets, I fold here. Was this a good fold?
Another thing that I'm wondering about is if the table checked to me, would it be correct for me to bet on here? Or is the field too large to be betting into with second pair?
Oh yea, The guy who bet, it turned out that he had A6, and got beat out by a flush.
Another hand, maybe not such a good fold. I'm UTG with QQ.
PRE FLOP: I raise, three people call, and the BB calls.
FLOP:
8c 2c 6h. BB checks to me, and I bet. Two players left.
TURN:
5s. I bet, and the player raises. For some reason, I got a really bad feeling here, and I folded. The player that raised seemed like the type of player that does not raise without a good hand. But looking back at the hand, I realize that there's no way that this player could have seen a preflop raise with 79 or 75. It also seems that a raise here probably means that he thinks I raised pre flop with AK, AQ, AJ, and that I didn't flop anything. So what the heck was I thinking when I folded? Was this a terrible play, or what?
(1) Muck the KJs when it's bet into you, but generally bet if it folds to you. Players will call with worse kings and gutshot draws. However, be careful if players are routinely checking weak top pairs. I would be inclined to check here in a lot of Paradise 50/1 games.
(2) He probably had a set, but muck here only if you're certain you're up against a weak player. If your opponent has even a hint of aggression to him, you need to call down here. On Paradise $3/$6 and above, always call down in this spot. You might even consider flat calling the turn and betting out the river against very aggressive opponents.
Chris
your first fold is good. id like to think i would make that fold.
your second fold is kinda weak. he couldve had as little as a 7 (for an open ended straight draw semibluff) or he could be on a club four flush semibluff. he could have two pair with something wacky like 56s. or he could have a set that came on the flop and waited for the turn to sock it to you. he could also have JJ or TT and be optimistic. not likely though. you probably have a call to the river situation here although against a decent player you are usually beat. usually. fold is weak-tight here probably.
On the first hand you have two possibilities to do IMO, raise or fold. I think i would have raised in this spot, since you're last to act and you could buy a free turn this way with your backdoor flushdraw. I dont think a weak ace would bet into you on the turn if you raised the flop, but this depends on your opponent. You also gain information with this raise since he's possibly bluffing or he's betting second pair cause it's checked to him. If he calls i would have checked the turn if no diamond hit and bet if the diamond fell.
I think the fold in the first spot is good. Unless you have a clear and compelling reason from something that you have seen in the way the raiser has played, you almost have to assume he has an ace every time.
Agree with the respondent that termed your fold 'weak-tight' in his post. However, you made the comment about there being no way a player could have seen a raised flop with 7-5 etc. In lower limit poker, there is always a way someone might see the raised pot with just about anything...
Story too funny/sad not to share...
Sunday at Harrah's East Chicago 4/8 HE. In the early evening a younger Asian/Oriental/whatever the correct PC term is now a days woman sits in the 1 seat. She's rather quiet, plays a lot of hands, and sometimes seems like she's just starting out learning the game.
After about an hour, she miscalls her hand at showdown as a straight which causes her opponent to muck the winner, but after the dealer and 5 or 6 player/dealers pointed this out, she profusely and genuinely embarrassed apologizes and the mucker took the pot.
Anyways.... then it happens.
Kill pot (6/12) Flop comes 977. Sunglasses in the 8 seat bets. lady calls, solid player in 4 seat calls. The three of them see the turn of another 9. Now, 4seat checks, 8seat bets, lady calls, 4seat raises, 8 seat reraises, lady calls(?), 4seat caps both call.
Now, are we all clear on where the other two 9s are?
Lady seems puzzled by all this raising.... As the river is being placed I just couldn't help thinking that this poor girl is going to get cleaned out on this hand...maybe she has AA and an A will come and put both these guys on mega-tilt.
River: Brick.
4seat bets, 8seat raises, lady pauses (genuinely, I still believe) and calls, 4seat re-raises, 8seat caps, lady calls and says:
"What do you guys have? Quad nines?"
As she rolls over her 77 in the hole.
I made myself physically get up from the table to hide my total astonishment (and laughter and the two solid players) at the fact she flopped quads, never bet it and maxed out a killed pot. And as God as my witness, Noone.. I mean noone at that table would have even considered she had 77 before she turned them over.
I know you've seen worse, but I thought it was classic. Hey, I only get to play once a month, ya know.
Michael
See the flop... Be the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
"In the early evening a younger Asian/Oriental/whatever the correct PC term is now a days woman sits in the 1 seat."
I think the best way to express this is, "In the early evening a younger woman sits in the 1 seat."
Anyway a great story.
Paul Talbot
With AQo I will usually open raise in middle position because I probably have the best hand and AQo does not handle a large field very well. Often I limp with AQ suited though, especially very early (early middle)because I want people behind me to incorrectly call with lower cards of the same suit and stuff like A-10. I'm not sure which is the best EV play in low limit though and I think it really depends on the table.
If there is a limper or two already and there is a good chance that they have weak hands then I will raise to trap them. I think the money gained by this outweighs the possible profit from letting dominated hands call behind you. Also, if the players after you have absolutely no respect for a raise (or even "your" raise, depending on your current image) the I will raise with the AQs.
When the "solid" player re-raises you and then the loose gunner capped I would call. At 7:1 the price is ok. Even though you are likely dominated, you have a chance at the nut flush and if the gods are kind you could make broadway for a possible monster pot. There's also the slim chance that you're not dominated. All of these I think must add up to 7:1.
Probably if the re-raiser and capper were very tight and you can be fairly certain that they have JJ-QQ-KK-AA-AK and everybody folds then I would probably fold the AQs.
Post flop I think it would be a losing play to cold call. I usually estimate my outs like this:
runner-runner nuts for about 2 outs
Queen on the turn: 3 outs x the chance that it will be good = slim due to the reraise by the solid player
Ace on the turn: 3 x (say half the time it will be good) = 1.5
So your total outs are around 3 or 4 and there is a very good chance you will be re-raised so it is a clear fold.
Just my thoughts,
Jim Roy
#1 I believe you played this hand correctly ! I almost don't believe the play of the two other guys ! I also believe that if you run a sample hot an cold against two random hands you won't win your fair share of the money ?
#2 In my opinion you have a clear call !
#3 I assume you flopped a flush-draw - and made it at the river ? The problem is the flop is paired. I'm not shure what 'common wisdom' is in this spot ? Had some problems with that my self.
In a kill game, if you win some predetermined number of pots in a row, the "kill is on" and the stakes double, with the "killer" having to post a blind. Having the kill on in this game adds not much to the hilarity, but this story doesn't need anything added to it!
#1
Don't worry about it man I think you played the hand reasonably. I don't bet the flop here as a rule (but I usually do bet it). It really depends on the players, if they are tight I will for sure bet. As for being raised and re-reraised that is a clear fold. End of hand. Don't let it bother you when the maniacs turn up their trash, just play "solid" and before you know it you will be getting check-raised when you have the nuts.
#2
I think pretty close between calling and folding. In a small game I might call to not spoil the fun, make it a family pot. The problem as you know is that you can lose a lot of money with something like this, flop two pair and get rivered, flop a flush and get beat by some stubborn guy with the nine of spades, ect. You can flop a flush and lose to a genuine hand like trips filling out or high suited paint. You might flop nothing, or you could flop a 3 and be tempted to call for 1 more bet on the flop, only to be raised behind you, you call and make your 3 on the turn only to realize that you were drawing dead from the beginning. All I'm saying is that when you enter a pot with these hands, be prepared for trouble (or variance).
#3 Heh from your tone you probably got beat. I'm not sure what the best thing to do here is. I've check raised my flush versus a very agressive better on the river, only to be reraised by his full house. Usually the flush is good, but also some players will check their trips here because they believe you must be on a flush draw.
Preflop I always raise limpers with AK. Despite the fact that AK performs best with a few players it is still a monster and you have more than your share of chances to win the hand.
However, with so many players don't expect to win with it. There are a lot of cards out there, you will often win with an A or K high flush. Even if you get a dream flop of something like K72 and play it aggressively you still might get turned or rivered by someone with a pair on the flop. As the number of players goes up, the required strength of your hand also goes up. Heads up your AK high is often good enough to bet, with 9 players you probably need better than a pair (not always).
For myself I would check the flop because you probably do not have the best hand and you will be called (tough to bluff 8 other players).
When you are check-raised by the "fairly solid" lady you have a problem. By "solid" I take it you mean that she does not bet or raise after the flop without a big hand (playing Q8 in mid-position is not that solid).
This is how I figure my outs:
6 A's and K's to come on the turn and that's it so your outs are 6 x (THE CHANCE THAT YOU WILL BE GOOD WHEN YOU HIT).
That chance is probably not very good, base on your read. If you think she has two pair or better at this point you are drawing very slim (probably not even an out). If she has AQ or KQ that also reduces your outs to 3. If somebody else has A8 or K8 then you are again in trouble. But you can't be paranoid that everybody has the cards to screw you and fold every time. Generally I estimate based on my reads, and here I'd guess the chance that your A or K will be good is probably less than 30%. So you have maybe a couple outs. You might as well have pocket dueces so it's a good fold on the flop.
same ol' 3-6 no fold-em. I'm small blind but on the button with black 99, loose player raises, I call, 6 see a flop of 7d9hTd. big blind bets, all call, I raise, all call. turn is the 5d. everyone checks to me. my experience has been that around 85% of the time in this situation someone already has the flush. if it's small, they'll check and call fearing I was betting on the come with better flush cards. if it's a K-high or A-high flush, they'll likely check and raise (on the turn). as for the other 15% of the time, even here my hand is quite vulnerable since any 6 or J in addition to any diamond but the 9 cooks my goose. anyway, I check the turn. river comes 5s. big blind bets, there is one caller, I raise, big blind raises, baloney and cheese folds, I raise, big blind raises, I raise, big blind calls. the big blind was a complete maniac who overplayed her mediocre hands continually. I knew she would have reraised the flop with trip T's and quad 5's was out of the question. she didn't have a flush. what do you think she had?
I'd say the maniac was holding A5o.
But of course, if she was holding 8d9d in the pocket, now that would be worthy of a post.
#1) if these players are raising and reraising with trash, wait for a powerhouse hand to lower the boom (slowplay + disembowel) and be inclined to just check and call with your good but somewhat vulnerable hands
#2) I would call here with any suited combo
#3) with the board paired, he might just call with an A-high flush, and he would probably just call with a K-high flush. because you posted the hand under "something different," I'm guessing he had a low full-house. if he did, count yourself fortunate he didn't reraise.
Maybe you should consider to just call preflop with your AKo in this situation. You only purpose to raise here is to limit the field. If you think your raise would achieve this goal than a raise is correct, but I think this is a loose game (7 limpers) and a lowlimit game so the chance of someone folding to your preflop raise is slim. Since you're in the SB you also have a very poor position. The advantage of just calling is that if the flop hits you, you can almost always check-raise with such a large field, especially when you check and late position bets, it's a great way to limit the field.
On the flop you can be almost sure that someone at least has a Q and wont drop it against a bet. So i think you shouldn't bet into this large field with overcards.
Just my thought
Remco
I understand your analogy, but I would liken it more to getting 5 to 4 on 10,000 tosses of a coin. Of course, if you are very unlucky you may lose even this proposition. But getting the best of it, should be enough to plan on coming out ahead... Maybe we're just quibbling about the gap present in luck vs. skill. My example is certainly a lot different than your lottery ticket example.
What's important is in deciding whether you should take the bet even in my example. I would think that it depends on what stakes (limit) we are playing for. I would be perfectly comfortable making this bet with you for a lifetime if the stakes were say, $10 a toss. But if you were to make the stakes $20,000 a toss, I would refuse to flip, since this is far outside comfort level. Even though I have the best of it, you could wipe me out if I were to run bad for any length of time. I relate this to poker because I still contend that if you are playing for stakes you are comfortable with, then you shouldn't worry about luck. You should be able to rest easy in knowing you have the best of it, and in time, you expect to show a profit. Also, can we wrap up this thread? I'm geting a complex seeing "Jim is right, Kevin is wrong" so many times. Just kidding : )
Kevin
you need to keep in mind that if she is a solid player she could be raising with a variety of hands on the flop, including a straight draw (9T in this case) or top pair decent kicker. with that in mind your fold is not too bad. it's a little weak tight, but that's not always the worst thing in the world in a no fold em game. if she has AQ or KQ youre drawing very thin. since you say suits dont matter im guessing she couldnt be semibluffing a flush draw, but a semibluff straight draw is possible. really that straight draw is the only hand you would want to stay in against. having thought about it, i like your fold.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (Dick@annabelles-treasures.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Poorboy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 4:23 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 5:02 a.m.
Soon as you get that you should be ready to fold. A good equivalent is to ask yourself if you would call this hand in late positon without a raise. Usually fold. But you called. Hey its 2-4.
On the flop what do we have. Hmmm. We have an overcard and a backdoor flush and straight draw. With a paired board to boot. So what you have is close to zilch. You have no where near the odds to call here.
Well the turn was generous. Call is now automatic.
When you hit on the river you should just bet right out and pay off a raise. Checking raising may sometimes be correct but the pot is large just bet out.
When you are winning, often it becomes easy to become too loose and expect good vibrations to keep coming. I think you are very aware you are playing too loose.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 5:51 p.m.
You don't need to be a math guru here. The complication of this flop is the pair and the action that you are facing. Under ideal circumstances a backdoor flush, weak backdoor straight and vulnerable overcard are perhaps worth about 10-1. (About seven to one if you have a strong backdoor straight, a nut backdoor flush and ace overcard without the pair on the board.) The pair on the board puts a big hole in this. You could be drawing dead. Some of your outs are dead. Your flop call does not close the action (the original bettor could reraise).
This is a CLEAR fold. There is nothing marginal about this. Marginal is a term that is often used here about very close calls (usually a bit negative is the general use)
True, but the results don't matter. A checkraise opens yourself up to a three bet. In general it is much better to just bet out your hand when you hit. This is particularly true when the pot is large.
Anyway, goodluck. Looks like a good game.
Posted by: jeff
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 4:55 a.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: Peter James (jamesp@gov.ns.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 7:48 a.m.
Posted by: dorrex (dorrex@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Sparty (michstfan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: spitball
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 8:24 p.m.
Posted by: captain marlow (captmarlow@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Sparty (michstfan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: dorrex (dorrex@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein22@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 2:19 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: captain marlow (captmarlow@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Sparty (michstfan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: Senor Stupid (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: captain marlow (captmarlow@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Joe
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 11:03 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@pokerstudy.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Leafsfan (leafsfan1@mail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@pokerstudy.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: U. N. Owen
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: the club
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 10:02 a.m.
Posted by: wacamaster (wacamasta@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 8:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jace
Posted on: Friday, 12 January 2001, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: SGO
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Numbers (Cobra1041@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Nick
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: the club
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 10:02 a.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: the club
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: Joel E. Carlson (jcarlson@dealund.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Saturday, 13 January 2001, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: U. N. Owen
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 6:20 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 5:26 a.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 6:28 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 1:10 a.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 10:53 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 5:16 a.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg491@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 4:10 a.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg491@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg491@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 7:34 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 8:54 a.m.
Posted by: the club
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 9:48 a.m.
Posted by: captain marlow (captmarlow@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Shaw (rshaw@ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 8:42 p.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 9:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Shaw (rshaw@ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Shaw (rshaw@ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 3:14 a.m.
Posted by: Lars Eidissen
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 11:43 p.m.
Posted by: ChrisVWH (cvinall@smug.adelaide.edu.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 January 2001, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 10:55 p.m.
Posted by: Nick
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Shaw (rshaw@ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 3:48 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 8:50 a.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: someone not named dave
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 10:25 p.m.
Posted by: Steve martino
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 10:41 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 4:00 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 8:50 a.m.
Posted by: DaveW (NOSPAMdave@sebastian9.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Tim
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 6:16 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: Tim
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: wacamaster (wacamasta@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Chris V (zardoz_1999_1999@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 10:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:33 a.m.
Posted by: Chris V (zardoz_1999_1999@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:38 a.m.
Posted by: Zooey
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Martino
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 9:11 p.m.
Posted by: Zooey
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jamie Collins (jamiecollins99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 4:04 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Cheezr (cheezerules@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 9:22 p.m.
Posted by: Jace
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: wacamaster (wacamasta@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 8:31 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 10:44 p.m.
Posted by: Jamie Collins (jamiecollins99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Chet K (toddins@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: marknyc (marknycny@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 January 2001, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Butt Pirate
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:26 a.m.
Posted by: results
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:28 a.m.
Posted by: Quitter
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Squirrel (pcampbell3@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 10:11 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: chetk (toddins@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Eidissen
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Cheezr (cheezerules@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Jace
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:37 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 11:36 a.m.
Posted by: Lars Eidissen
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Nick
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: Kenneth Ng (kenneth.ng@csun.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 12:15 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 5:36 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 6:35 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Sano
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 9:10 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 January 2001, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 2:59 a.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 5:06 a.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Scott V
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 9:21 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: chris downs (chris.downs@bridge.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 10:00 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: CKim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: john b (nopairkid@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (Davepoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: Steve martino
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 12:51 a.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 January 2001, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 3:18 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: BK (kauffmbe@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: john b (nopairkid@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 11:36 a.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: john b (nopairkid@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 6:13 p.m.
Posted by: Leafsfan (leafsfan1@mail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Leafsfan (leafsfan1@mail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Leafsfan (leafsfan1@mail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: Stork (mikwea@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: ChrisVWH (cvinall@smug.adelaide.edu.au)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 2:13 a.m.
Posted by: the club
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: Ckim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: john b (nopairkid@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 9:56 p.m.
Posted by: Squirrel (pcampbell13@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 9:38 a.m.
Posted by: Squirrel (pcampbell13@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 9:44 a.m.
Posted by: the club
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 8:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 10:34 p.m.
Pot manipulation is a double edged sword. A typical pot manipulation technique (a Sklansky move) is to not raise to keep the pot small, thus : 1)increase the chance that your overpair can win when the flop comes low. 2) to force loose callers into making bigger fundamental errors after the flop. (That is their gutshots, etc are fundamental errors, instead of correct.)
In this case, a raise is clear in my opinion and my fulcrum is much less than 8 limpers. The profit is indeed immediate and indeed sufficient.
There are also good fundamental theory reasons that would help pot size considerations in your favor after the flop.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:12 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 6:52 p.m.
"Actually S&M advise raising with this hand for pot manipulation and EV. The hand they might call with is JJ and QQ, which may be more likely to win as an overpair if you keep the pot small. I'm not sure they are right in not raising with QQ and JJ. "
This is why I posted the above(notice the inclusion of 99):
Response by D. Sklansky:
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:17 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 6:50 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 6:55 p.m.
But what happens if you raise and an overcard comes? Here you have just cost yourself money... When this happens, I would have preferred not to have put much money in the pot since I will usually fold.
But what happens when you take the 2nd choice and a tail comes? Here you have just cost yourself money.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 8:59 a.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 10:41 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 9:21 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 10:35 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankensteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankensteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 9:51 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 10:58 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 5:00 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 9:34 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 11:39 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 11:46 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 10:35 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 4:00 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 4:23 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 3:44 a.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 7:39 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 12:05 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 12:22 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 1:49 a.m.
Posted by: BK (kauffmbe@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:22 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:29 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: BK (kauffmbe@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:32 a.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:01 a.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: Grinning Buddha (grinningbuddha@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: BK (kauffmbe@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:42 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: BK (kauffmbe@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:32 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Ckim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Thursday, 18 January 2001, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:56 a.m.
Posted by: Rod M.
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Ckim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: El Gato (chongwoo@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:54 a.m.
Posted by: El Gato (chongwoo@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 9:30 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 2:42 a.m.
Posted by: mississippi gambler
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: El Gato (chongwoo@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 9:31 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Ckim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Jace
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: El Gato (chongwoo@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 11:39 p.m.
Posted by: Chris V (zardoz_1999_1999@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 3:40 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mikedahl@gate.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 12:23 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Wannabee pro
Posted on: Friday, 19 January 2001, at 10:03 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Chris V (zardoz_1999_1999@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 4:11 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Chris V (zardoz_1999_1999@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:38 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 2:54 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:17 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Begginer
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 January 2001, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: rolled-up aces
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: U. N. Owen
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 10:54 p.m.
Posted by: U. N. Owen
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 10:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Rod M
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Eidissen
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Rod M.
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: Lars Eidissen
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Robert Wess
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 9:56 p.m.
Posted by: El Gato (chongwoo@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 January 2001, at 9:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: Mike D. (mike_dinucci@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mike D. (mdinucci@cybersource.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 6:12 a.m.
Posted by: CT AL (horseshoe7119@cs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 12:39 a.m.
Posted by: CT AL (horseshoe7119@cs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 12:40 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: Andy B (beerskeds@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 12:41 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 2:15 a.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: Andy B (beerskeds@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Shaw (rshaw@ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: Stork (mikwea@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Rod M.
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Rod M
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 7:42 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Rod M.
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 9:33 a.m.
Posted by: Leafsfan (leafsfan1@mail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 11:14 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: Ckim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rod M.
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: CKim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Rod M
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 7:10 p.m.
Posted by: Ckim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Shaw (rshaw@ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 22 January 2001, at 7:08 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: Big Jase (bigjase1@excite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:37 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 4:03 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 5:53 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 3:09 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 8:42 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 10:32 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: dorrex (dorrex@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 6:54 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: dorrex (dorrex@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Pyramid (pyramid@mm.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 8:19 a.m.
Posted by: Sean (sean_p@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Sean (sean_p@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 3:33 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 3:55 a.m.
Posted by: RadonTide (radontide@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: RadonTide (radontide@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 9:50 p.m.
Posted by: RadonTide (radontide@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 9:58 a.m.
Posted by: Leafsfan (leafsfan1@mail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Scott (scottiek@unm.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Leafsfan (leafsfan1@mail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: BillD
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 9:21 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 12:14 a.m.
Posted by: Butt
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 4:35 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 5:48 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Shaw (rshaw@ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Shaw (rshaw@ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: PokerProWannabe (theaterluvr@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 5:58 a.m.
Posted by: JW (lieutenantw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Gus (klartgrabbenskahaenhusvagn@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Andy (Moutonxxx@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Gus (klartgrabbenskahaenhusvagn@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: Andy (Moutonxxx@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (chris.oster@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 1:21 a.m.
Posted by: RadonTide (radontide@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: RadonTide (radontide@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: chance
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Pyramid (pyramid@mm.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Squirrel (pcampbell13@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 9:50 a.m.
Posted by: chance
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: Shawn (smcewen@bandrins.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 2:27 a.m.
Posted by: Squirrel (pcampbell13@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Caddy
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: chris downs (chris.downs@bridge.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 11:12 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: chris downs (chris.downs@bridge.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 5:06 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Caddy
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 10:25 a.m.
Posted by: Papio
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 January 2001, at 10:41 p.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: Charlie (revoilajf@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: Van Ollefen (rvanollefen@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: PiquetteAces (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: G
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 5:36 a.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: CKim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: JW (lieutenantw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 6:46 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: Johnny
Posted on: Friday, 26 January 2001, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 4:32 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: GD (garydaniel@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 8:25 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 9:19 p.m.
Posted by: "Rook"
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: ChrisVWH (cvinall@smug.adelaide.edu.au)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 1:21 a.m.
Posted by: El Gato (chongwoo@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 January 2001, at 9:21 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 1:38 a.m.
Posted by: dorrex (dorrex@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 2:55 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 6:56 a.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 10:21 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 7:10 a.m.
Posted by: beginner
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Tony G (tonyg491@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: dorrex (dorrex@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 11:50 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 1:47 a.m.
Posted by: Aaron Lovi (aaronlovi@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 10:42 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 7:20 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 7:44 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 January 2001, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: CT AL (horseshoe7119@cs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: ashley
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 3:02 a.m.
Posted by: Stork (slowplayin@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: Leafsfan (leafsfan1@mail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Natec
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 11:17 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Vegas
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Jace
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 3:43 a.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: Amondel (Amondel@wam.umd.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 1:07 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 2:27 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 6:17 a.m.
Posted by: George (gstephens@anthill.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 11:10 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Ckim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Van Ollefen
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Remco
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: CJC (caseycjc@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: john b (nopairkid@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 2:16 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 8:25 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Ckim (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 8:52 p.m.
Posted by: ChrisVWH (cvinall@smug.adelaide.edu.au)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: asdsd (hghb@sdj.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: Me
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 7:33 a.m.
Posted by: john b (nopairkid@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan1 (packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Roy (jimroy@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 5:13 a.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Roy (jimroy@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Roy (jimroy@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Daryl Black
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: Remco (remcoxyii@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 9:16 p.m.
Posted by: dsf (sad@kdsj.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 11:49 p.m.
Small Stakes Hold'em
January 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo