![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
40-80 Holdem
It was getting late at night and the game became shorthanded with 5 players. Everyone passes to me and I raise with ATo from the SB. The BB, probably the best player at the table, calls. We have played several hundred hours together.
The flop brings 883r. I bet and he calls.
A Two comes on the turn. There are no flush draws. I bet and he raises. I reraise. I can not put him on an Eight, and I sense weakness on his part and I also feel like he might be putting a move on me.
A Three comes on the river. I bet and he calls. He turns over T2o and wins the pot.
Perhaps I am missing something, but when my opponent turned over his hand I was shocked. Shorthanded calling a raise BTF with position and Ten high is perhaps OK. But calling a bet on the flop really confuses me. Am I missing something? Do I have a tell or a leak which I am not aware of? I really felt by reraising on the turn I could get him off of his hand. I realize a pair headsup is pretty strong but nevertheless I felt like he was weak. I have a tight image and I was trying to take advantage of it.
Please help me.
Bruce
I would have folded to his raise on the turn. If he raised the turn with no pair, or a worse ace-high, gawd love him. Take it.
I don't fault your reraise. You obviously had a good feel for what was going on, and you acted accordingly. Good for you.
But!
You still could have saved a bet by checking the river and folding if he bet. It's hard to imagine a hand he could hold where he would raise the turn, call your reraise, then call on the river, and not beat ace-high. Likewise, it's hard to imagine a hand that beats your ace-high that he would fold on the river, especially after the frenzied momentum.
Tommy
You are in small blind with ATo. Everyone folds. The button raises. Let's say the button is an average player, who will raise with a wide variety of hands when everyone has folded to him. You know that if you just call, that the big blind will call with a wide variety of hands (5 to 1 odds), but will fold unless he's got a strong hand.
Is it worthwhile to reraise in this spot with ATo? If so, what is the worst hand you would reraise with?
I like to make the aggressive play here against the button, re-raise him, bounce out the big blind and play "fast" at him here. I'm assuming this is like 50-100 at least. put pressure on him and use your early position to steal the pot. I use this move against weaker more aggresive stealers on the button and works well. re-raise him pre flop and check raise the flop no matter what hits. they will feel compelled to bet the flop after you check. Most of the tim the button folds here.If he calls and the flop did not hit you, you know your behind, if no straight or flush becomes evident on the turn come out firing. you will win 4 out of 5 hands playing fast in theis situation, the only time is if you are up against a "monster". very likely will the button fold to the bet on the turn with anything less than a medium strong hand.
40-80 Hold-em
I am in the BB with Q9s. The live one in early position raises and two equally live ones call. I call. We see the flop 4 handed.
The flop comes Q T 9 rainbow.
I lead, the initial raiser raises, and the last player to act three bets it. I call and initial raiser calls.
The turn brings a 4 with no flush draws. Check, check, bet. We both call. A 4 comes on the end. We all check. I have the best hand.
Comments welcome.
Bruce
I don't think you ever played tight on this hand.
Before the flop, I think you played too losely. I'd fold before the flop.
Then I think you played scared. I'd put in the max on the flop and bet the turn in the dark.
I'll be glad to elaborate if someone can help . . .
This is my first time to 2+2. I wrote a much longer reply about this hand and it got lost when I got bumped offline. So I rewrote the reply elsewheres, and came back to 2+2 to copy and paste my reply into the 'message' box. It wouldn't show up. Anyone suggestions?
Thanks,
Tommy
Firstly, let me congratulate you on finding superlive players who want to play 100-200. All the superlive ones near me have already lost their money.
Your bet on the flop has to have been a semibluff. In a potlimit game, where the guy can raise you enough that your nut draw suddenly becomes a crying call, it is a very dangerous bet. You want him to fold, and definitely don't want him to raise. If his major problem is betting too much, I'd check and call him. Wait until you see another heart before putting your whole stack in the middle.
Your question comes down to stack sizes. If you could go all-in with your 1.86 to 1 draw, you'd be happy. On the other hand, if you each had ten thousand in front of you, you might easily have implied odds to call. But in the situation you describe, you now have to fold. Even if he has a pair of twos, he has you beaten. His raise has to mean *something*.
Your reraise on the flop was highly incorrect, in my opinion. Since you can't raise any more after then, your decision must be made on a purely mathematical basis. I assume that he'll almost certainly not fold if you reraise, and that therefore your hand had no bluff potential.
Sounds a bit like you were the live one. I'm not trying to be sarcastic; it's just that he played this hand perfectly and you sure didn't.
Richard Cavell
I disagree. He had no choice but to either reraise or fold. If he waits till the turn ("waiting till he sees another heart") before betting, he is now in the middle of the river without a paddle. Assuming he misses his draw here, he will have to fold, as a pot-size bet no longer gives him the proper price to draw to his flush. The correct play here, as in NL, is to raise (what for him was) all-in on the flop, giving him what might be 15 outs twice to win (of course, since he was up against a straight, he only had 9 outs).
I am now on roll posting hands. Penn St. is getting drilled and the game is boring to watch so here goes.
I was watching this hand from the rail and this among other factors motivated me to sit down and play the other day.
They are playing hold-em with 10 and 25 blinds. The game is eight handed. Everyone limps and the button raises the pot $200. Guess what happens? Dah, everyone calls so there is now $1600 in the pot.
The flop comes Jh 9h 4c
Everyone checks to the button. This is the same maniac from the previous two posts. He bets $1600. The small blind calls and raises him his remaining $2000. The button calls and he is almost all in. Everyone else has folded.
The final board is:
Jh 9h 4c Qs 4s
The small blind has QhTh. The button has AcJh.
The button of course throws his cards and rants and raves about how unlucky he was. He of course did not realize he was a dog on the flop.
Comments welcome.
Bruce
QTh v AcJd w/board of Jh9h4c: AcJd ~1.69-1 dog.
QTh v AJc w/board of Jh9h4c: AJc ~1.53-1 dog.
Reality v An 8-handed 10-25 PLHE game where everyone limps pre-flop then calls when the button makes it $200 to go: Reality a ~1/0-1 favorite.
Bruce seems like an intelligent person with no hidden agenda, but this game cannot exist.
Where is this game?
I think what you're trying to say is that the math works out this way... let's assume the 18 outs out of the 45 cards left... but there's two cards left to see so the AJ has to dodge the 27/45 odds twice... that means he's got a (27/45)^2 or 729/2025 odds of winning... he's not only a dog but he's actually a pretty big one... even without the over card he's still a dog with a (30/45)^2 or 4/9 odds of winning... the trick is that there's TWO cards coming...
having said this in a limit game he's still a big favorite because of the way the game is played (i.e. he will get to make a betting decision after each of the next two cards... thereby limiting his exposure as well as breaking the odds up into two greater than 50/50 decisions) the Q-10 was right to force him all in here so that he didn't have that luxury...
40-80 Hold-em. This is one of the most interesting hands I have seen in a while. I was not involved in the hand, but I will try to post it as accurately as possible.
Nine handed a little tighter than the norm. Relatively live early player raises and there are two caller and both blinds call.
Flop comes 568 rainbow. Early raiser bets and button calls. Button has been playing all night and he is playing poorly with frequent bluffs and overplays. The small blind calls. An eight comes on the turn. Check, bet, call, call.
River brings another eight. Check, check, bet, and the small blind and initial raiser both call.
Better mucks his hand and the SB and initial raiser both have pocket Sevens.
Should the small blind have checkraised on the river? Would he have won the pot if he did so?
Bruce
The flop aggresor would probably bet an overpair on the river for he surely can't fear quads on the river given that nobody raised the turn. Thus, sb is probably justified in thinking that the flop aggressor has just given up his overcards semibluff. [Note that if I was the flop aggressor here, I may check and call one bet wih Ace high. Sb probably knows that].
Sb probably also knows that a raise from him is not going to knock out the flop aggressor if he in fact does have an overpair which he checked for some reason.
If I were the sb, I would think that this is the most likely scenario:
- flop aggressor missed his overcards draw. He will likely throw away if I call but may overcall if I call. He will certainly throw away his overcards if I raise. So, I don't want to raise.
- If flop aggressor has an overpair, he ain't going nowhere. So, I will not raise.
- Button is probably on a pure bluff so he can't call my raise.
- Who knows...maybe button slowplayed a hand like 86 on the turn and now made quads so I will not raise.
All of it adds up to a 'I'll just call' move by sb.
I think skp pretty much captured the SB's thinking here. No, wait a minute, I KNOW he did. I was the SB. :-)
Lemme first just get all the ducks in a row. Though I could be wrong, I recall the hand slightly differently. I *think there was an earlier raiser, a solid player, then the player I ended up splitting the pot with called cold, then the button called. Also, I *think it was the 6 that paired twice, so that at the river the board read 5-6-8--6--6. At any rate, this only affects the question marginally. I think the preflop raiser checked and folded, or folded to the flop aggressor's raise on the flop.
Once the third six came, and the flop aggressor checked (I was concerned about an eight, a full house with something like 65s, or an overpair -- well, almost specifically 99, till then.) I knew I was highly likely to have him beat. But I was a little concerned about the often weird playing button. I couldn't rule out that he had called with an eight, a pair of eights, or even a six on the turn
Of course, if I'd been able to put the flop aggressor specifically on the other two sevens, I would have been much more likely to raise, but I thought I had him beat. Well, actually, I'm not sure I thought it through that clearly at the time, but I can't argue myself out of calling when I think about it now. :-/
I doubt it. A checkraise by a quiet player when trips appear on the end looks a little forced. It's pretty hard to convince people that there's better than a 90% chance you have quads.
I think the situation would be different if the small blind had originally bet and been raised by the preflop aggressor. This would look more like "it has to be quads," which is what he'd need to convey.
I played a hand very close to this a few months ago, where I took the lead from an aggressive blind on an AQ flop when I had KQ. I bet again when the ace paired on the turn (stupidly on inertia), and again when an ace hit the river giving me the likely best full house (value, aha!). He checkraised, I folded. Then I thought: but what would he do if had had a queen and correctly put me on one too?
ooooh...You cannot beat with KQ on a board of AAAQx if you intend on folding to a raise. If you did, the bet would serve no real useful purpose....but I think you know that.
I like your bet on the turn when the Ace paired as this makes it less likely that your opponent has an Ace. I also don't mind your bet on the end if you think your opponent is capable of calling with a lesser hand or perhaps dropping a Queen (which is highly unlikely mind you). I hate your fold to the raise at the end....if you held an Ace and the board was AAQxA, I am sure that you would not try for a checkraise b/c (a) you would think that the other guy may not bet unless he was on a complete bluff and (b) you would want to avoid looking goofy if he checks back.
The second factor is more important to players' decisions than what most people think.
skp:
Yeah, folding was dumb. Call it the "same hand follies." The problem was that I believed he'd call me with a bunch of hands I could beat but would never check-raise me with a worse hand. I still believe it. The queen thing occurred to me about the time I clicked "fold."
With pocket kings, 3 aces on board, and an opponent that won't check-raise bluff but will pay you off with lower pairs, which are more likely under the circumstances than the case ace, betting after he checks and folding if he check-raises seems mandatory. I was thinking something like that.
With a queen he might think: another ace? no way he's got quads. We're gonna split. Hey, I wonder if I can knock him off a split?
Still, you'd think he'd have the decency to be worried enough to just call, especially when I think of the times that I've called only because there were trips on board, and regretted it.
I disagree he wouldn't ever check-raise with quads. With an ace in his hand and three on board and me having been doing all the betting he'll know that something's funny. If he checks and I've got a pair, I might be dumb enough to think it's good enough to bet (after all, that's what I thought). And if I'm not paired, I might take another shot at this really scary board, not knowing when to quit. But I agree that he wouldn't want to look dumb by having me show it down and would probably fire off a bet most times.
Your point about players being scared of looking goofy is well taken. Poker is, after all, by and large an ego game more than a money game. Most people don't play poker for the money because most people can't play poker for the money.
- Chris
Blinds are 2 and 5 with a full table. I limp in with pocket aces. Several other players limp in behind me. The big blind makes a maximum raise. I reraise the max. All of the limpers fold to the big blind who raises the max. Now it is decision time. There is around $600.00 to $800.00 in the pot. I have around $700.00 left. Should I put the rest of my money in the pot before the flop and try to win it now or wait until after the flop and gamble that he does not flop a set???
At this point I put him on KK or AK. What else could he possibly have.
I will post my decision and results later.
Put EVERYTHING in. This is the perfect spot for having AA.
This hand occurred in a 1-3 pot limit game. I had been watching the game (standing behind the hero of this hand) for a while and it was pretty tight. Preflop raises were getting respect, but over the past 5 hands (estimating) prior to this hand, the game had started to loosen up. Anyway, here is the hand.
I was standing behind a player who was UTG and I see that he has JJ. He raises the pot to $7, and four players call, which I found rather surprising.
The flop comes: 5 3 2 rainbow and he bets the pot, which the dealer says is $40, everyone folds to the button who raises it $60 more. The button is a solid player (from talks I had with some players after the hand). Our hero thinks for a few minutes and then reraises all in. At the beginning of the hand he had approximately $160.
UTG flips his hand and the button doesn't, but anounces that he is drawing nearly dead. The turn comes down 8s to put a 2 flush on board. Finally the river is flipped and it is the 6c. The button now triumphantly turns his hand over to claim the pot with pocket 6's.
I ask our hero about the hand afterwards (he is a friend of mine) and this is his assessment. He said that it was his first time playing pot limit and he didn't have a good read on the button except that he was decent. Our hero had been in the game for about a half hour and had played one hand, the button had played around five and won a couple with no showdown. Before the flop he thought the game was tight and the raise might get it head's up or 3 way in which case he likes his hand. He doesn't like having five way action on the flop but he says he liked the flop even though a straight was possible.
He bets the pot to punish any straight draws and is actually hoping to pick up the pot right there. When the button reraises $60 he has to think about what he could have. He rules out 64 right away, also rules out A4s although it was a possibility, he just didn't think this player would have called the preflop raise (maybe he would with the position and pot odds and implied odds). So that leaves an overpair or a set or a hand that he has beat (since he does not rule out the possibility of the button making a play). He says he rules out QQ, KK, and AA because he was pretty sure that the button would reraise preflop because of the buttons play on his previous hands. So, now he thinks the button may have a set, but is unsure enough that he thinks reraising is the best play. He thinks calling the raise and leaving himself about $40 in chips isn't really worth it, because he is either a huge favorite or a huge underdog. I agree with this.
So I want to know what you experts think of this hand and the play of our hero. I really don't know what to make of it. A4s was possible in which case our hero is drawing dead. A set was possible in which case our hero is a 10.5:1 dog. An overpair to his J's was possible although I think it was unlikely, but again our hero would be about a 10.5:1 (if my math is correct) dog.
Please, all comments are welcome and appreciated.
The flop raise was not big eneough to find out very much so it is hard to put anyone on a hand. The bad play (if there was one) was by the button who must have put hero on a Big Ace - he was in deed drawing thin - 2 outs for the set and 4 for the 4.
Before the flop, with four players in, the button can call with a lot of hands--especially A4s and even 64s if he knows his players and thinks someone might be in there with A4. I don't know the stack sizes of all the players, so it's hard to say.
After the flop, Hero makes his move: nothing wrong with that, Button sees a scare flop, correctly puts Hero on big cards, counts six outs and makes his move: nothing wrong with that, either. Hero smells the steal, and goes all in. OK. Now the button calls??? Could he have Hero on AK? Hero is all in. If they both have 1000 left in from of them, the Button call makes more sense. If he hits, especially a 4, he's going to be rich. But here, Button's call might be a little questionable. He might have made Hero as a limit player over playing AK...
Your hero is on the right track. In these types of games, you have to make decisions which could cost you money at times. I think he played it right.
Another take:
In small PL games, once an early raise is called, many players like to come in hoping to double through with garbage that hits the flop. For this reason, I like to limp with TT-QQ in early position hoping to hit a set like any small pair. It's decision time if I'm raised behind, but since I'm in early position, my tendancies are toward folding (occasionally raising, never calling). I would especially consider raising when I'm UTG, since it really looks like the classic limp-reraise with AA scenario.
Given all this, a raise with JJ before the flop is fine, but the situation you describe is just the type I want to avoid: a good looking flop for my hand, but I really don't know where I am. If the hero had only limped, the pot would have been much smaller, it would have been easier to get away from the hand for less money, even though the button was making a play on the flop.
If I'm in this situation on the flop after the button raises, it really feels like a small favorite/big dog situation, so I'm likely to fold. How do you know he doesn't have A4, 64, or even two pair? The hero had the right read this time and got unlucky, but I try to avoid these situations all together.
Moral: This is one of those situations where you were outplayed and should fold the best hand. (IMO)
-Oz-
This hand i played in a Potlimit Omaha Game in Austria during the Bregenz Poker Championship in Austria.
I had about 2500 $ in Front of me and get dealt KsKc5s2c three limpers in front of me i raise the Pot, Button reraises the Pot again, one loose caller i decide to call too.
Pot is now about 1000 $.
Flop comes AcKh6h. Loose caller checks, I dont hesitate to bet the pot 1000 $ and the Reraiser thinks and puts the Grand into the pot which is exactly allin for him.
The loose caller folds.
Okay i was now sure that the reraiser has aces, i think he hesitated a little because of the flush and straight draws out there.
So i am dead to the fourth King.
Turn 4 d River 2 h.
Okay we flipped our hands and really he had aces with the lone Ah and no draw possibilities.
I lost this big Pot.
So the table discussed i should have known that he had aces because of the reraise.
I think it is stupid to only reraise with aces.
And i surely did not want to give him a freecard to outdraw me.
Later
bootsy
Preflop, I would just limp. Unlike other games, very little value is gained by preflop raises in Omaha High. Hands run close in value, and narrowing the field can cost you a lot of profit if you knock out someone who would have made a second-best hand and given your nut set/full a lot of action. The goal should be to keep inferior hands in preflop. And you open yourself to reraises from later position players, which can isolate you out of position with a lot of money in the pot; the worst possible situation even with a premium hand. Your hand is not as good as it looks, since the four cards don't work together well. If you flop a set, the flush draws are almost certainly worthless, and if you flop a nut flush draw, the ace on board negates the value of your kings.
When the button committed a large fraction of his stack with the reraise, you almost have to assume he has aces. When the money is deeper, some players will reraise in position with a lot of hands if they think they can get it heads-up. But here, he's committing a fourth of his stack. If he didn't have aces, he would have to think that you probably do, and that you could then put him almost all-in right there as a significant underdog.
This trash shouldn´t have cost you more than 1 big blind.
M.A.
You are right thats what i want to hear ....
9 handed game is cut short to 5 handed, as 4 guys are walking. I am in the small blind with AhTd. Everyone folds to me (the big blind does not chop). The big blind is a fairly loose bb defender, and will call lots of raises (I discussed his behavior in previous posts) even in bad position with hands like JTs and such. I believe he will raise with any pair on the flop or any draw....but may just call with high cards if the flop doesn't hit him.
I raise. He calls.
Flop comes Qs6s2d
I bet, he calls.
Turn is a Tc
I check, he bets, I call.
River is a 3s
I check, he bets, I call.
Please critique the play....remember the description I gave on the player...that is the main reason I played it the way I did (otherwise I would have bet on the turn if I didn't hit, and prepared to fold if he raised).
Mixing up your play is fine esp. against tricky opponents. I can't fault your play. By playing this way you are maximizing your gains and minimizing your losses. If you lead on the turn and are raised, against this opponent you almost have to call. Now that you have a hand on the turn let him bluff away his chips. Heads-up giving your opponent a free card is not as big a concern.
Bruce
9 handed game is cut short to 6 handed, as 3 guys are walking. I am in the big blind with Ac8s...small blind is a loose/aggressive player. Everyone knows (or should know) that I am a tight player...and I have played very few hands.
Everone folds to the sb...he raises. I think he can and will raise with any two cards here. I just call.
Flop comes QsJc2s
He bets, I call.
Turn is a Qc
He bets, I call.
River is a 4s
He checks, I bet...he folds.
Please critique. Please also remember, that I only called him down because he is so aggressive and so loose...and I thought at all times that the A may be good even if it didn't pair.
I like the way you played the hand. Alternatively, raising on the flop and betting the turn and river may get your opponent to lay down a worse hand also. However, I think you bring up a good point. Against this type of player giving up on the flop esp. with position is a poor play even though you have nothing.
Bruce
I was observing the following NL hand in Reno. Labor day week-end. Two players left standing the pot has about 150 as we later found out both were on diamond draw with four diamonds flopping. Flop 7d 3d 6s One player bets out on a draw bluff, $150 other guy calls turn 6d - player bets $150 (he had maybe 600 plus when betting started the passive player had way more maybe about a 800-1000 (he had some bills too) River shit. Guy under the gun bets out again with what he had left (200 or so) The caller thinks for a long while. And reluctantly calls (he had Kd 4d) The agressive guy had Jd 9d No full boat anywhere. I would have scared myself from the boat danger. also No-one had the Ace. Above hand may have had some inconsistencies as I observedit from the outside. If you were there don't jump on me as I think the jest of the hand is shown.
This is a hand I saw in an 80-160 game a while back. (I was not involved in the hand.) It was nothing spectacular really, but was fun to watch and think about.
Very good, successful high limit player ("X") (who was on Daniel Negreanu's rgp list of his top 20 limit hold'em players) opens for a raise one off the button. An unfamiliar but seemingly decent player ("Y") makes it three bets on the button. Others out.
Flop: 9c-6d-4s
X check-raises Y, who calls.
Turn: 7c
X bets. Y calls.
River: Jd
X check-raises Y, who calls.
X wins with 96s.
Y shows AJ.
I'll hold my comments for now. But I should say that I'm not positive that there weren't two of a suit on the flop, with a third of that suit on the turn, and player Y with the ace of that suit. It might be interesting to look at how that would affect the hand in either case.
At any rate… comments?
John Feeney -
My comment is that I would like to hear your comments about this hand!
Thanks.
My comments :
The only way this hand is a profitable pre-flop raise, in my mind, is if all of these things are in play :
1. He has a tight image 2. He thinks the blinds are tight 3. He thinks the blinds think he has a tight image 4. He is hoping that if he shows down his hand (or if everyone folds, he can show his hand), that he may get some future action on real hands (I don't think this is generally a good idea, cause I'd raise it with a hand like Q9 in this spot, and I'd be happier to take the blinds than have them call with Q9).
So, it is possible that he thought all the pieces were in play to make it a good raise. (or maybe he was just bored?).
After that, I thought the play was tremendous. The check-raise on the flop versus waiting for a checkraise on the turn, I think are equally viable. But the great play, I thought, was the checkraise on the river....thus hoping the guy hit a J or inducing a bluff from AK, AQ....or a "value bet" from TT.
One of the reasons its hard for me to analyse hands like this one is because I am at home sipping my first cup of morning coffee and the players in question were in the middle of a war. I can't recreate that mindset until after at least three cups. :-)
If this hand were played by typical recreational players in a typical loosish game, we'd probably have plenty to say in critique of both players. But no, we have extra info, that both players are top flight. Funny, how that so drastically changes my thoughts. And it should. The student can't help but wonder what was going on in their well-trained minds.
The only question I would have for either of them concerns the button's call on the turn. Was he planning to pay off with ace-high on the river? If not, then why not muck on the turn?
Tommy
I agree. I don't like X's play pre-flop, but I thought it was very good on the flop and after. However, I agree that Y's play is questionable on the the turn call (after the bet).
I would imagine you'd have to give X credit for a pair or AK, in which case Y is beaten. On the turn, there is now (7.5 sb preflop, 4 sb on the flop and 1 bb on the turn) 6.75 bb...and at most, he has 6 outs....which makes it an evenmoney call (assuming he'll get at least one more bet on the flop if he wins)...but its possible he only has 3 outs or no outs at all...which makes this a fold on the turn, in my mind.
Of course, the only thing I can imagine is if he thought the guy might have tried this play without a pair or an ace.....but that would go beyond the scope of the understanding here without knowing both players and the exact situation (as Tommy mentioned).
Pre-flop, X should not be trying to steal with Nine-Six suited. Stealers will frequently get called and sometimes re-raised by either the button or the blinds with any kind of half-decent holding. X needs some high card strength to making this move not two mediocre suited cards. Y played correctly by 3 betting with AJ since this is a decent holding in a shorthanded situation like this especially against a potential stealer.
The odds were about 28:1 against X flopping two pair, trips, or a full house. X got lucky with a great flop. I think Y should fold when check-raised on the flop having nothing but over cards. Y has no pair, no draw, and no hand. It is highly unlikely that X would check-raise here without a pair. X could even have a better Ace. Y does not have enough outs to merit continuing.
On the turn, Y has a clear fold. His play at this point was pure charity. Like many decent players who face a great player heads-up, Y is overly concerned about being faked out so he continues to dump money in situations where he has virtually no chance of winning. This is how X is able to make more money in these situations then he should. In my $30-$60 game at the Bellagio, X could be Roy Cooke and Y would be a decent playing tourist.
Y can only fold on the flop or 4th if he normally plays in such a way so that X would not check raise him without having ace jack beat.
Are you saying that Y should not be folding if Y plays an aggressive game, and that both Y and X know that Y plays an aggressive game (and that Y knows that X knows this), as well as X's aggressive game also? If that is the case, shouldn't X then stop or limit his checkraise bluffs on Y to a very low rate, since X knows that since Y knows that X knows that Y plays a very aggressive game, that X would make a play that would try to force a hand like AJ to fold, and knowing this, X should know that Y would call him with AJ on the turn....thus then X should not be check-raising bluffing Y on the flop as he did.
Or does that only work if X and Y are both great players? (and maybe in this situation Y is the only great player, so he doesn't need to go another level)
Is it wrong to sometimes play a hand straightforward against a great player?
RZ, your comments and thoughts are always great appreciated and read carefully by me and others. Please comment further!
I think most of what can be said about his hand has been said. Of course if Y did pick up a flush draw on 4, then that erases any question about his call there. But while I don't think he did, I just don't remember.
Not sure what X would say about his hand selection there. Some possible reasons for playing the 96s:
1. 80-160 is actually a little small for X. He usually plays about 200-400 (mix games) or higher. Just plays 80 when his other game isn't there. So, as odd as it sounds at a limit like this, he could have been playing a little sloppily if the limit didn't mean to much to him…. But I don't think that was the case. I've played with him a couple of times and he appears to me to focus very intensely when he plays. He seems to be always thinking, and taking his decisions very seriously.
2. He probably did think the blinds were tight. At least I think that would apply to how he saw one of the blinds. I don't recall who the other blind was.
3..Since this was the first time I'd played with Y, I have no idea what X thought of him. Nor do I remember exactly how tight Y was overall. But it's certainly possible that X felt confident of his ability to outplay Y.
Regardless of all that, if X is as good as I *think he may be, then the question is, "Is he giving up much by open raising with a hand like 96s in that spot even if the circumstances were less than ideal?" I think he's probably giving up a bit, but only a bit. I do think he may slightly overestimate his ability relative to others. I suspect that's common among players at that level.
Having only played a bit with X, I'm not sure how I would have played the turn had I been in Y's position. But Jim, I would almost always at least take a card off on the flop when check-raised there. The combined chance that an ace or jack will be good or that ace high is good now, or that X will check the turn merits a call I think. I don't know if X would check-raise there versus Y with something less than AJ (as Ray brings up), so the turn is open to speculation. The call is certainly very iffy against many players, but may not have been in this case. Is that enough "I don't knows?
Like Doc, I really liked X's play after the flop. Some might argue that by betting out on the river (or flop) he might have gotten 3 bets out of Y instead of 2, but my feel for it is that the EV of playing it as he did was greater. As I think of it, maybe the river check-raise would have been even more warranted had the river been one of the three higher cards, but I still thought it was great.
Here's my 2cents. Raising in the cutoff with 96s under the right conditions is OK. Obviously it isn't a routine play, but it's good for your image when you get to show the hand. A lot has to do with how the button and blinds play and how likely they will surrender. The buttons play BTF is pretty routine. On the flop when Y is checkraised I think his call is mandatory considering there is not a card bigger than a Nine. Folding in this situation is a future recipe for disaster. I don't care if he loses the hand. Your more observant opponents will run all over you if you give up so easily. The checkraise by X on the river is nothing short of brilliant.
Bruce
But Bruce who is ever going to know what Y had if he quietly mucks?
Now, now Jim. We've had this debate before about the merits of these type of raises BTF.
Bruce
I need to get this off my chest. Consider the following scenarios if Y chooses to keep playing once he is check-raised on the flop:
Scenario 1: He is drawing dead. This would happen if X has a set. This will occur A% of the time.
Scenario 2: He is drawing near dead needing two runners to win. This was the case on this hand where X had two pair. This will occur B% of the time.
Scenario 3: He is drawing live but the pots odds are not there to play. For example, when X has QQ or A9. He is basically dead to an Ace in one case and dead to a Jack in the other. If X has a bigger Ace than Y is dead to a Jack. This will occur C% of the time.
Scenario 4: He is drawing alive and the pot odds are there to continue playing. This will occur D% of the time.
Scenario 5: He has the best hand. This will occur E% of the time.
Now obviously I don't know what these probabilities are but I would guess that Scenario 1 and 2 (A+B) are probably far greater than Scenario 5 (E). Scenarios 1 and 2 are big money losers especially if Y catches something on the turn that hooks him in to calling bets and raises on the expensive streets. On the other hand, Scenario 5 will win at least 10.5 small bets when his hand happens to hold up but with no pair and no straight or flush draw to speak of he has to be very vulnerable to suckouts. When Scenario 3 occurs he will lose some money having to call turn and river bets in some cases and just turn bets in others. In Scenario 4, he probably realizes a small EV gain by staying rather than folding but 6 outs is a 7:1 shot and he is getting 10.5:1 on his bet. Part of this overlay may be needed to cover redraws.
It just doesn't seem like good poker to keep playing here unless your opponent bets and raises with random cards even after the flop comes.
When X check-raises, Y probably no longer has the best hand. That indeed is quite true. However at this level of play there still is a possibility that X is making a play at Y. We also need to factor in the ramifications of folding after being checkraised in the future. Your more observant and agressive opponents will take notice of this and they will be taking shots at you all night long. I think if you take both of these factors into consideration a call becomes mandatory. On the turn with two overcards and assuming there is no flush draw folding is the best option.
Bruce
Okay, we can make this a mind game. They get to win this battle because Y has nothing to fight with once the flop came. But maybe the next time, Y has a hand and calls when check-raised or even re-raises. If my opponents want to play hands like Nine-Six suited heads-up out of position when I have Ace-Jack offsuit or a hand of similar strength (HPFAP Category IV hand or better) they are welcome to try. But once the flop comes Y knows he is now fighting with a peashooter.
What do you think of Y's call on the turn?
Most typically you'd best fold there (assuming you hadn't picked up more outs), but that's where we don't have enough info in this case. I mean we just don't know the history, if any, betwen the payers, what Y knew about X, and what X knew about Y. It *might have been a good call (as per Ray's comment), more likely, I would guess, it wasn't. (Note: As I write this, something tells me the circumstances for making such calls are more common than they *seem to be as I analyze it. Sometimes I have trouble translating from the feel of actual play to written analysis.)
John,
You wrote: "As I think of it, maybe the river check-raise would have been even more warranted had the river been one of the three higher cards, but I still thought it was great"
The river check raise by X is totally beyond me. How was it great? X has to figure he has shown so much strength that Y will check behind most of the time. Isn't a simple river bet by X the better play? Is the analysis above skewed by results?
Regards,
Rick
Maybe X figures that if the Jack did not help Y, then Y will not call a river bet anyway. However, if the Jack helped Y, then Y will surely bet. Given that Y took all this heat with no hand and caught a miracle card at the river how can he resist betting it? I am just speculating here since this whole line of play is simply beyond me.
That's basically how I see it. Plus the possibility of inducing a bluff, particularly if X knows that Y sees him as quite aggressive and capable of having played the hand the way he did so far with no pair.
In that game some players very routinely check-raise on the flop, even against a 3-bettor, if they think maybe the flop didn't hit the 3-bettor. Preflop reraises often are not given the same respect they are in most (smaller) games. (Understandable, since reraises are much more common in that game.) That would be especially true of a late position reraise of a possible steal raise. So X might know that Y would see him as just putting the heat on, without necessarily having even a pair. At least that's one explanation. Who knows - the reality might just be that X just hoped the jack hit Y, and didn't consider all that other stuff. :)
John,
You posted the above at 4:23 a.m. PST. Are you an early riser these days or are you taking over my title as the forum's primary insomniac?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I have been turning in relatively early since I am often playing in a tough 20/40 at 7:00 a.m. with this new prop job. Sometimes I can get stuck $500 before I have a chance to drink a cup of coffee. Then the game breaks and I might play some 2/4 stud with the house dropping the antes before the hand begins. Despite this, all is well so far. Anyway, gotta go and hopefully I'll get my usual four hours sleep.
Rick -- That was an unusual situation stemming from a long late night session in LA. I can't make it a habit since I'm not in the Young Turks' age bracket, but once in a while...
I am in SB, in the BB is a good player, but who usually defends his BB just a little too frequently, but this is 5 handed.
I have AhQd...everyone folds....I raise. He calls.
Flop is Ac8d3c
I bet, he calls
Turn is a 9s
I check. He bets, I think, I think, I restrain myself from raising....I call.
RIver is a 2s.
I check, he bets. I call.
He turns over Kc6c, missing his club draw.
I'm not sure if I like my play. In particular, the play on the turn makes me wonder if I should have checkraised or bet out. In retrospect, I think I should have bet out, because I don't mind a raise (since it will probably be from just a weaker A) and I definitely don't want to give a free card to a club draw (although he would probably bet it as he did here).
In fact, the more I think about it, I think now that the best actions are 1. bet out, 2. check raise, 3 check call...in that order.
Given that I check/called on the turn, I think it is appropriate to check/raise on the river and either induce a bluff or check/raise for value.
Thoughts please, particularly on the turn.
I'd bet the turn for sure, maybe even in the dark. There's just not enough info to prefer a check-raise attempt over a value bet.
Tommy
Against an aggressive player I would either check on the turn with the intention of checkraising or lead. When I am playing against the same opponents I like to mix up my play and hopefully I avoid becoming too predictable. By leading you still may get two bets in on the turn because he may raise you with his big draw hoping you don't have an Ace. Against a passive player I would bet because he will probably check along with me.
Bruce
5 handed, high limit.
It's a wild shootout, lots of raising, semibluffing, as one would expect since its 5 handed.
I am in SB. everyone folds to the button, he limps (this is very unusual, I note, as he is usually very aggressive, even with crap, but then again, I saw him limp in with T6 one time also).
I have AA. I raise.
BB (a 20/40 player, sure to lose all his money sooner or later) calls. button calls.
FLop comes 669 (no flush draw). I bet, BB calls, button calls. turn is a 2. I bet, BB folds, button raises.
I just call.
River is a 3.
I check, he bets, I call.
He turns over KK.
thoughts?
The way you described him, I'd put him on AA or KK before the flop, possibly QQ or AK, I suppose, but most likely AA or KK. Gawd, I've fallen for that trap so many times that these days I put them on a big pair when they limp like that and stick with it. If I don't hit the flop hard, better than top pair, I'm out. Take it.
With AA I would keep hammering away, possibly stopping if it went to four or five bets on the turn or on the river. He's the one who must fear that I have a six, so if he's willing to put five bets in on one of the later streets, I'd just have to shrug and accept that the preflop read was wrong, and then pay off, and most likely look at a six in his hand.
Tommy
Perhaps you missed a betor two, but I don't know for sure. Had he raised BTF you would be able to play your hand more aggressively. But by him limping it certainly is possible he played a rag like 67. Basically it all depends on your read of him. No real big deal in the overall scheme of things.
Bruce
HE could have limped with pocket nines and flopped a set (full house)?? Maybe you did the right thing:)Depending on whether this guy would have bet a monster straight out like that, would tell you the play.
40-80 five handed game. I am in the SB, everyone else has passed. I have pocket Jacks and I raise. The big blind calls. This is my first time playing with him. He seems to play reasonably well although he appears to be overly aggressive and he has been caught bluffing twice.
The flop comes Q 8 6 rainbow. I bet and he raises. I call. A blank comes on the turn. He bets and I call. A blank comes on the river. He bets and I call. He turns over QTo.
In a shorthanded game with an aggressive player am I locked in with my hand. Should I have folded on the turn or river?
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
I like to think that I routinely save one small bet in spots like this.
For starters, I always reraise the flop and bet the turn. Doubtful he'll fold a hand that has me beat, but at least he's paying the max when he doesn't.
Another purpose is to save that half bet. Let's say he calls my turn bet. Then I check the river, and FOLD if he bets. He might have had me all the way. He might have sucked out. Either way, most players are glad to check behind on the river after all that flurry. If he can still bet, I'm sure he's got me.
Total small-bets-per-player after the flop by calling his raise on the flop and then checkcalling him down: 6
Total small bets as decribed above: 5
Tommy
Against certain players that may be a good strategy, but in So. Cal. against an aggressive opponent what happens when you get 4 bet on the flop. In heads-up play that is a distinct possibility with second pair Ace kicker. Unless you know your opponent you now have to pass and you very well may have the best hand. But, that certainly isn't a bad approach in general.
Bruce
Bruce -- as others have suggested, I think that unless you know this player is very conservative and won't raise you and keep betting here with less than a queen, you have to go to the river. Often, in short handed play, an in-between pair like the JJ you had here is considered a pretty good hand, even worth a check-raise and follow-up bets. Of course it all depends on your opponent and what he thinks of your play, and how he's been playing against you. Yesterday in a short handed LA 80-160 game, I lost a pot when I bet middle pair with A8s, on a flop that was something like K-8-6, got check-raised, called it down and got to look at 99. I hate when that happens!
.
Tommy -- Yes, I agree that that's an approach worth considering, and using, at least against some opps. Just be careful of anyone who may be observant enough to have seen what you're doing, and so learned to bet on the river to steal it from you.
It's also an idea we should keep in mind as something some tough opps may be doing, as my observation is that Tommy is not the only one who uses it, or something similar.
I love shorthanded. I like the way you played your hand. You simply cannot fold this hand at any point with this type of opponent. Additionally, your check call strategy will gain you profit all those times he will bet his bluffs or weaker hands trying to get you to drop. Of course you know all this.
As for folding on the river for one more bet with second pair head to head, I think the question that needs to be asked is whether you prefer diesel or gasoline in them bulldozers. Dropping at this point against an aggressive opponent: Your ship will be flotsam. IMHO.
Good luck.
bruce,
I don't like these laydowns head up. You feel dumb after calling and losing with so few outs but there are so many lesser hands an aggressive opponent will bet that laydowns just have to cost you money. This play hurts your pride more than your wallet (in the long run).
Regards,
Rick
An alternative and much more deceptive method of playing the hand is to not raise in the SB preflop. Since very few players will release their BB against a raise, this play either saves you a half-bet when the flop comes big, keeps you from getting trapped in there, and sets you up nicely when the flop comes to your liking. Conversely, I have no problem with the way you played your hand, although a good read on an opponent could have saved you several bets.
PL O high only, 1 blind for 2. 9 handed, extremly loose table. UTG raises to 4 (doesn´t mean nothing at all),next two players call, I call with Kd Qh Jh 9c. All the other players call too (as expected).
Flop comes Qd Qc Jd. First player (extremly bad) bets pot (=36). He has about 150 before betting, UTG (pre flop raiser, he has about 2000) calls, others fold to me, I raise up to 100 (I got ~1100 before raising), all players fold to the blind und UTG, both of them call.
Turn: Kc.
Check, check, I bet the pot (I know that first player will call me with any hande, even with a flush draw), first player calls all in, UTG raises pot!
When I call this raise I´m all in. Call or fold?
I will post what happenend afterwards.
Regards
M.A.
Does he HAVE to have KK in order to make this bet? The only reasonable hands he can have here at all are AT or T9 for straight (very unlikely unless he really sucks), JJ (from unlikely to quite likely, depending upon the player), QJ (pretty likely, decided to slowplay flop, and is ignoring the chance that you just beat him), QK (unless he has the J also, he just sucked out a tie), and KK. This latter hand is the only one that is ahead of you, as you win or tie the others. Also note that the only way you lose, other than him having KK, is if he has AQ and catches an A on the river.
Against most players, I would call here. Against a few, I would fold. However, if you didn't have a K in your hand, this would become a clear fold against most players, IMO. Not because you'd lose to KK that much more often, but because you'd lose to KQ quite often. The other question you have to ask here is what is the chance that this guy would call your big raise on the flop with KK and no Q, and what are the chances that he had KKQ?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If a guy hits a one-outer on me after I have invested a significant % of my stack (even in Omaha), I JUST GOTTA SEE IT!!
I rarely have the pleasure of playing with guys so bad/predictable that I can fold here with a clear conscience.
M.A.,
I would put UTG on K's but it's hard to tell without knowledge of these player's. If UTG doesn't have K's then he must have AKQ figuring you only have QJ and he has you. I would definitely CALL by your description of these players.
Paul
ps: probably an A pops and you lose it all!!!!
AKQ is a nice freeroll here, but not enough to justify a fold given the size of the pot in relation to the size of the last bet.
Michael 7,
"I would definitely CALL by your description of these players."
I'm agreeing with you.
paul
I like FossilMan's read on this. I would like to add that there are two straight flush draws on the board. I know a lot of PLO players who love to draw to the Royals. I think you may have a call here.
One thing not yet mentioned is the money. If I understand right, you bet about $300 on the turn, and his check-raise meant you had to call $700 more to get to a showdown, right?
I have no idea what I would do. I'm just wondering if the amount of the call could/would/should affect the decision.
Tommy
That´s true. What to do when both players still have a stack worth a full pot sized bet in front of them? (Fortunatly I didn´t have it, since I probably would still sit on the table and think what to do :-) )?
M.A.
I called the bet, being pretty sure, that the best thing happening to me could be a tie. But I still thought, that for 80% he shouldn´t have KK. The hand I feared more was AKQx.
After I put all my money in I asked the other player, if he had KK, and he said yes. Funny thing was, that I wasn´t really upset, not even really disappointed, I just wondered, what he called with. It was KK with 76d, making him a flushdraw on the flop :-).
I was drawing dead, since the player in the blind had the case Q in hand and rivered a full house, when a 5 fell. I almost had to lough out loud, when he shouted "FULL HOUSE", but of course it wasn´t worth anything at all.
I still wonder, whether I played the hand correct. Maybe I made a mistake on the flop and should have raised pot. It´s possible, that the player with KK would have mucked it, but I had such a stong hand. It was possible that both were drawing dead (Qxxx and JJxx), and in worst scenario the player with the big stack had 3 outs (AA + a straight flush draw or AAKK or something like that). So I thought that a cheap card wouldn´t be so bad. If an A fell, I would have bet and folded, when someone raised me, but the K was really a tough one)
Regards
M.A.
The guy called your bets on the flop with a bad flush draw and a paired board. If he's counting those outs as much of anything, he's a weak player. He should be counting 2 outs, the other kings (he doesn't know you have one of them). With him holding at most 2 outs (like if he had AA), you want him to call your flop bet, and you'd rather he called here than if you had bet more and he (correctly) folded. This was a very profitable situation for you on the flop, and your recurring field was increased significantly (Roy-speak). It's just too bad he caught his 1-outer.
Whether you should have called his big raise depends upon what you know about him. There are few players I would fold against here, and most of the time those players would have shown down KKQx or AAKK, not KK76.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
PLaying a very loose 50/50/50/100 Holdem home game. I'm on the button. 4 limpers to me w/ AA. I raise the blinds and make it 70 to go(10 & 20 dollar blinds). Very loose / plenty aggressive / somewhat tricky weathly pot limit player in SB calls as does one limper.
Flop : 662 SB : bet Limper : call Hero : Raise SB : Re-raise Limper : Call Hero : call
I check and call the SB down to see 65o. Did I cost myself a turn and / or river bet too much?
This game should be incredibly easy to beat. When you have all those loose players in a game with tiny blinds, it's easy for a good player to make a killing. Play tighter than usual. Don't worry if people respect your raises - it looks to me as though they will still try to test you anyway.
You played the hand fine. I would have done exactly the same thing. Most tricky players would not play the hand this way. They would play the flop slowly and then raise you later. Actually, since the betting structure is atypical and the flop bet is the same size as the turn bet, I guess it made little difference. But he could have tried to keep the other limper in the hand longer.
There is one player in my game - he will ALWAYS slow play the flop when he flops trips, so I know that if he bets or raises me he doesn't have it. If he does I won't find out till the turn.
File this bit of info away for later. You have some insight into how this player plays his hands.
In general, though, you can't lay AA down against a player like this if it is heads up. If you do you will become a target and he, and possibly others, will start bluffing at you.
As a last word of advice, play much tighter in this type of game. Play tighter on the flop too since implied odds are reduced from what they would normally be in the more commonly structured games. With the small ante structure and the other loose players this game should be a goldmine if you play tight.
-SmoothB-
I should add something.
You should play tighter in this game. In this type of game I believe that position becomes even more important. With small blinds, it is cheap to limp in, and the implied odds mean that some players will limp in with a few more mediocre hands. There is some merit to this - think about no limit - the implied odds make the difference.
Let's say that you played no limit heads up with an opponent who always got dealt AA, and you knew what he had. Let's say it cost you one penny to see a flop, and Mr. AA couldn't raise preflop.
You would be correct to see every flop, obviously. If you are first to act, always check. If he bets and you have him beat, push all in. You just won enough to make up for all the lost pennies.
Let's say you are last to act. If he bets every time, you push all in when you have a hand and take his money. If he checks to you, bet if you have something or check along and draw for free. In this type of game, you must ALWAYS beat AA. Your information advantage is infinitely valuable.
Let's get back to your game. Since they have greater implied odds, they can limp in with junk somewhat more cheaply because they have the implied odds. So you should only play great hands in good position, and bring it in for a raise when you do. You cut down a lot on their greater implied odds and make them pay to take their trash up against your superior hand.
In this type of game, it might be correct to limp in in late position after many limpers with lesser hands, again because of implied odds. But I don't prescribe to this point of view.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. :)
-SmoothB-
Because of the small blind structure lessor hands can most definitely be played in the back for a single bet. I would play all pocket pairs, most suited connectors including one gappers and perhaps two gappers, and big non-suited connectors. Depending upon the caliber of the opposition I would probably also include Ax, Kx, and maybe even Qx and Jx suited for a single bet.
Bruce
I agree in a game where the blinds are proportionatly less than a "regular structured game" it is advisable to loosen up ala PL - see more flops and out play the opposition post flop.
I'm not so sure about the KQ&Jx plays here I want at least an 8or9>for the X but I get your drift.
When you say you would play lesser hands I hope you are talking about playing them based on your position. If so I totally agree.
Of course, I will not limp in with a piece of cheese. These are button and perhaps cutoff plays.
bruce
Flop : 662 SB : bet Limper : call Hero : Raise SB : Re-raise Limper : Call Hero : call
i think if i had raised going in and had called on the flop like that and got raised and reraised i would fold on the flop unless i knew something here. the stakes are too high for all that action without someone having a six since there are no draws to force. its a good flop for 2 aces but when the action goes as such they go in the can.
I know there are 2 schools of thought regarding games with small blinds/ante structures. I will explain why I think the logical choice is to play tighter, not looser as many recommend.
When you play poker, what are you doing? You are trying to make money - to finish with more money than you started. What are the forces at work here?
Well, some of the dynamics of the game force you to lose money. This is what the blinds are for. You are forced to make losing bets every round. This is an essential part of the game - it creates action, and there would be no game without the antes to struggle over.
There are other forces at work that allow you to win money. And hopefully you will win more than you lose.
To win money, you make some winning bets where you have an advantage. In order to win overall, you must make more winning bets than losing bets.
If you make an adjustment in the game that allows you to make fewer losing bets, you need to make fewer winning bets to still be ahead. You may now be more selective and can focus on bets that have a significant edge, and you don't have to worry about squeezing a few bucks out of marginally profitable hands.
-SmoothB-
I never thought I'd be debating the side of looser play - I am usually considered a tight player BUT in a game like pot limit with baby blinds it is simply silly to tighten up when the ultimate size of the pot is so large and lopsided compared to the pre flop betting.
It is foolish not to be playing potentially monster hands for a small bet when the implied odds are so great. I'm talking about small pairs early and small med connected in mid to late position along with big suited.
I don't know how much PL HE you have played but I used to think just like you until I began playing it (when I could find a game as it is not regurally spread in casinos I frequent).
If you play like you say ultra tight you will be cut up real bad by expert players trapping big hands like the ones you propose to be playing.
Rounder, I could not agree with you more regarding playing in pot limit and no limit games. There are some sessions where I have literally limped in with ANY 2 (reasonable) cards on the button.
But these are games where the implied odds are huge in comparison to the blinds. The type of game that Steve is talking about is really quite different from both no limit and structured limit as most know it.
It is a game where the blind structure is small, but the implied odds are not really that much greater than in regular structured limit play.
In these types of games, what normally happens is that a number of people limp in, and then are faced with a bet on the flop that is quite large in relation to the size of the pot. (Assuming there was no preflop raise.)
If people are playing correctly, they will play very tightly from the flop on. In many cases even great draws become unplayable.
In many of these games, the hands become contested 2 or 3 way AT MOST from the flop on.
Consequently, even 4 flushes and open enders can become unplayable out of position. And it is a rare case where one could conceivably bet these draws.
Large offsuit hands tend to go up in value in these games. In a game like this, you very much want to flop top pair with a good kicker and keep people in drawing against you. Their draws will be marginal at best.
Semibluffs also tend to go up in value because good players will play more tightly - in these cases, it may be profitable to RAISE with good draws in good position if you stand a good chance of making a tight better fold the best hand. But again, the pots are small early in the hand, so you will need to have the flop bettor fold a somewhat larger percentage of the time.
These games without question require more skill than more commonly structured games do, and poor players tend to go broke faster. But I adhere to my theory that tighter play is in order.
Look at it as a tug of war - blinds and losing bets tugging on one side, bets with positive EV on the other.
If the blinds side is weaker, you don't need to have as much force coming from the +EV side to still win.
Furthermore, if your opponents are playing more tightly (as they should) then you aren't getting the odds to play borderline hands.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.
-SmoothB-
The trick to this game isn't playing tighter or looser, it's both!
When you can see the flop for $20, you should do so with any hand that is capable of flopping really big and trapping opponents. This is typically small to medium pairs. It might also include suited connectors and suited Aces.
The other trick is to play super tight, when there has been a raise, or if there is a good chance someone will raise behind you. You can't afford to be playing for full bets or multiple bets preflop with a marginal hand, because there is less blind (dead) money to fight over. Every time you win one of these pots where the blinds have folded to a raise, you're only getting about 1/2 a bet, instead of 1.5 bets, in blind money. That's about a full small bet per pot, which obviously will make a big difference in your average earn.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I suppose that whether to play loose or tight depends on the lineup you are against more than it does in more commonly structured games.
I have played in very tight games like this and it is MISERABLE. The games are not fun because you can't play very many hands. There are no blinds to steal because your raise is large in proportion to what you might win.
Many times semibluffing just won't work because the pots are so small early on that you need your opponent/s to fold at a higher rate. And bets/raises with even good draws often don't have +EV. And if you get caught doing it too often you'll find yourself getting 3 bet trying to contest a (formerly) tiny pot with a draw.
If the game is really LOOSE, you have an extremely profitable game here. Especially if it is loose passive! There is no way you can make as much money in a more commonly structured game than you can in a loose passive game of this nature.
If you did nothing more than play solid and tight in a game like this, I am sure that you could book a win in nearly any session.
These games are enormously profitable if the competition is just right. If the others all play correctly as well, the games are no fun and you'll hardly make a dime.
-SmoothB-
Five handed lively Omaha high pot-limit game with $10 and $15 blinds with a live $30 straddle for this hand. First player to act makes it $100 and everyone calls. I am in the big blind with Ah Qs Js 9h and call. The straddle also calls so there is $500 in the pot.
The flop comes 8 9 T rainbow with one spade. The initial raiser bets $400 and everyone passes. I call and the straddle passes. I have another $4000 and my opponent has another $1500 left. My opponent is an action player who for the session was stuck big time and has been on borderline tilt playing very aggressively. There is now $1300 in the pot.
On the turn comes a Deuce. There is now a club draw. I check and my opponent bets $600 and I call his raise and reraise another $900. He calls and is now all in.
A Jack comes on the river. My opponent mucks his pocket Tens. I win a $4300 pot.
I am a relatively inexperienced pot-limit Omaha player, but preflop I felt like I had a relatively good starting hand. The game was very lively and several players were on tilt. On the flop I had a straight with a backdoor flush draw. I did not want to commit all my chips until the turn. If the board pairs I can get off my hand. I was not real happy when the turn brought a flush draw, but I really read my opponent for a set or even a straight and since he was relatively short stacked moving in seemed like the best play.
Comments are appreciated.
Bruce
Bruce,
I think the call preflop given the other players being very aggressive is fine.
On the flop I´d either bet out and hope that everybody folds or check call just as you did. This might depend on the other players, and how deep they are.
What I definitly do not like is the checkraise on the turn. In Omaha, the nuts on the flop is by far no guarantee, that they will be good on the river. So bet out pot on the turn. Your opponent should have to make the decission whether he wants to gamble with his set or not. When he bets and gets checkraised, he´s in way too deep in the pot, so he has to call. When he has a set and picked up a flushdraw on the turn, you aren´t much of a favorite.
Anyway, nice pot.
Regards
M.A.
Whether you should bet on the turn depends almost totally on whether he will bet without the nuts. If he often will the check raise is fine.
My opponent did not have a flush draw on the turn. All he had was top set. I felt strongly by me checking he would bet and I could get him all in. If he had the same size stack as me becuause of the flush draw I probably would not have moved him all in and I would have played my hand more carefully. He could have been freerolling on me.
bruce
Last night myself and two of my friends were playing some shorthanded limit Hold 'em. My stack had been shortened a bit by a few beats, so I suggested we switch to Pot Limit, which I think suits me better.
Anyway, once we got started playing, the following question came up: When you want to come over the top of someone, how much can you reraise? When you're opening, the limit is obvious - it's the size of the pot. When reraising, however, it's a little different. We saw three alternatives. One, you can consider the amount of the pot prior to your opponent's raise your limit. Two, you can consider your limit the size of the pot when it gets to you (I though this the most likely choice). Three, you can consider the pot size after you've called your opponent's bet your limit (e.g. your opponent raises $5 on a $10 pot, you call the $5 for a total of $20 in the pot and reraise him $20).
Which of these three is the correct way to play? I apologize if this is a really stupid question.
When coming over the top, you call your opponents raise...then count the pot. From there you can go ahead and raise at least what the in itial raiser, raised.
Hope this helps.
Adam.
When coming over the top, you call your opponents raise...then count the pot. From there you can go ahead and raise at least what the in intial raiser raised, and up to the amount of the pot.
Hope this helps.
Adam.
If a player bets the pot, mulitply that amount times four. That is your maximum raise.
I use this sometimes when it isn't the maximum raise, just because I like to play fast, and not have to think about the amounts. Let's say there is $120 in the pot and a player bets $100. If I want to raise, I'll just put out $400. That is less the maximum I could have bet. But it's fast.
Tommy
I also wanted to be able to make raises fast. Thanks for your advice.
There is another way of betting that has different names but is (was) sometimes called pot limit. Let's say there are 4 players and 25$ in the pot. Player A can and does bet 25$. It is 25$ to player B. The amount he has to call is the amount he can raise. He calls 25$ and raises 25$. It's 50$ to player C. Player C can call and raise 50$ making it 100$ to Player D. He calls 100$ and raises 100$ makinf it 175$ to Player A.
In certain situations, this is a good system to use. It makes the game go faster when dealing with neophyte or onerous bettors. Continual counting of the pot is not required. It can also give the fish a feeling that they have a better chance to draw out, although this isn't always the case.
I haven't seen a game spread this way in years, but it's not a bad system. I don't think you will ever see it described as "Pot Limit" in a public card room, if you ever see it at all.
We've also made changes to the game at Foxwoods to make it easier than adding up the pot, we switched to NO LIMIT! It is obviously easier to do the math, and some of the beginners like it, because they've played in the NL tourney but have never played PL before.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As a fish^h^h^h^h newbie, I must say this is true. I played in this game a few weeks ago at Fossilman's suggestion and had a good time. It'll probably be easier to deal with PL now that the "Wow that's a big bet" jitters are out of the way somewhat having played NL.
Pre flop - you may raise the pot (say the blinds are 5-10) $30 to $60 dollars. That is considering the sb as a full bet add your $10 call now you may bet the pot.
Pot is $60 - player makes it $60 to go for a $120 pot you may call his $60 and raise $180. Get it.
Your third method is the only that I've seen in a public cardroom.
Conceptually, the person raising first puts in the amount to make the call, and can then raise up the total amount that is then in the pot.
As an aside, once at FW we were playing, and this guy just wouldn't believe that this was the case. Even after 9 players, the dealer, the floorman, and the shift supervisor, all told him so. Apparently he had played for years in a home game that used a modified system, and he was sure we were trying to screw him (yes, all 12 of us).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
When you're opening, the limit is obvious - it's the size of the pot.
BTW, many pot limit ring games allow you to raise four or five times the big blind before the flop. For example, in a 5 10 game, if you are UTG you can push 50 or 60 into the pot.
First timer to Hollywood Park. MANY things there I like and appreciate, besides the action.
In a 5-5 blind pot limit holdem game, I watched a couple deals get made. Am I a fuddy duddy purist? Does anyone else think that deal-making hurts the game?
A funny story. I was in and out of the game several times. The last time through the game was five handed, with not much money on the table. Everyone was kinda tight, so I was mixing it up.
My opponent on this hand had about $400. I had him covered. I made it $10 UTG with 6-5. Two callers, both blinds folded. Flop came: 8-7-4. Sweet!
I bet $20. Both called. Turn was a three. I bet $65, trying to be fair, trying to give them a hint as to what my hand was. :-)
The first player folded. The second guy asked me if I wanted to make a deal.
Okay folks, I can understand that if the pot is enormous and two guys are a little nervous that they might want to make a deal on the flop or turn after one of them is all in.
But on this hand, not only was no one all in, the guy hadn't even called my bet yet! lol Isn't this just a touch deal-happy?
Tommy
I´ve playes at HP in this PL game 2 years ago several times. I can´t remember, that anyone in this game ever suggestet making a deal. I would have refused it anyway. I think making deals is bad for the game in limit, but even worse in PL. It should be forbidden. (Exept when you deal 2 rivercards in PL O, which, as far as I know, is pretty common heads up in the USA).
Regards
M.A.
It should not be allowed in a live game - so much opportunity for collusion it isn't even funny.
I stopped playing in this game because of this. It slows down the game so much, I had to take naps between hands.
Brett
I've got nothing against deals, but the player should be all-in first. If you then want to show your cards and either cut up the pot according to your equities or deal multiple cards for the river, that's fine with me. The only problem is if it slows down the game when we're paying time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
By asking you a question before he acted, the other player was trying to size up the strength of your hand by the way you would respond (words, eye movements, breathing, tonality, break in voice, pitch of voice, gestures, etc.). When this happens, talk to the dealer and tell him to tell that player that he must act first before you consider making a deal. Treat the semi-angle shooter's communication with you as something unofficial.
THE BEST POLICY I KNOW IS NO DEALS (PREIOD). I'M THERE BECAUSE I ENJOY THE GAME AND I WANT TO WIN. OF COURSE,IF I HAVE A BAD HAND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A DEAL,BUT THEN I'D SHOW WEAKNESS,SO WHY GIVE ANYONE ANY MORE INFORMATION THEN THEY CAN PICK UP ABOUT MY PLAY. I GIVE NO QUARTER AND ASK FOR NONE. FRIENDSHIPS ARE ONE THING AND POKER IS ANOTHER. THIS IS MY JOB!
Actually, it's when I have a great hand that I'd most want to make a deal. Here's a recent example where I should have made one.
Board: 5h6h9c7s Me: 9h9d Him: 6s6c Pot: $1055.
We were all-in on the flop, and I knew he did not have the straight. The dealer dealt the turn card, and I should have told him to stop before dealing the river. I then should have asked the guy to show his hand, and offered him $25 to muck it. This costs me about $1 in equity, but saves me a LOT of variance. The river was the case 6, and then I was really kicking myself. This guy would have taken the deal, most likely. Actually, I would have offered $20 and glad paid $25. I don't know if I'd have paid $30.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Because I don't recall ever seeing you post anything rude or condescending I find myself able to suppress an almost irresistable urge to offer a reply DRIPPING in sarcasm.
Instead I'll just point out the "fuzzy thinking" to which you fell victim.
Your opponent had $71.93 worth of equity in that pot, ASSUMING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE HIM HIS HALF IF AN "8" FELL ON THE RIVER.
Only deals you make should be with the I.R.S. NOT with people at the poker table ... THIS IS TOTALY OUTRAGEOUS
To further illustrate my point, lets look at 2 hypothetical games at the extremes.
First, consider a game that has 1-2 blinds, and the structure is 2-4-8-16.
In this game, you would be correct to limp in with all sorts of hands because the implied odds are enormous compared to the size of the blinds. Position would now be the single most important consideration in the game - it would be incorrect to play almost anything in early position, and almost any 2 cards should be profitable on the button.
Now let's consider the other extreme. Take a game with this structure - 50-100 blinds, with limits of 100-50-25-10.
In this game, you must play extremely tightly preflop. Draws are almost completely worthless. In this game hands like KJ offsuit are far more valuable than hands like JT offsuit. Here, you would have to flop big to be able to continue. And what hands tend to flop big? Big pairs (no flop needed), AK, and the like.
So where does a game like the one described in the 50/100 thread fit into all of this? It does not resemble either very closely, but compared to the Vegas style structured limit games, I believe it is closer to the latter. Lower implied odds on later streets necessitates tighter play early in the hand.
-SmoothB-
Smooth, if the game were 50-50-50-100 with
.
You're still missing your text. So much for web-tv.
Fat-Charlie
The game in the post you refer to - "FOLD AA IN 50 - 100" was described as having a $50 limit: b/t/f/, on the flop, and on the turn, with a $100 limit on the river. (Actually 'limit' is the wrong word since the author of the post seemed to indicate that the betting was structured.) This being the case you are correct about there being smaller implied odds available, since in limit holdem you do accumulate alot of profit on the turn and in this game the turn bet is only 50% of what it would be in a normal 50-100 game.
The point which I believe you missed (and it is a crucial one) was the size of the blinds - 10 and 20.
With blinds this [proportianately] small, there would be little if any penalty for loose pre-flop play, as long as you were just calling the [$20] big blind. If you limped in weakly and the pot was then raised [$50, to a total of $70] you would of course muck any holding(s) that was relying on big imp.odds to show a profit; small pairs, small and medium suited connectors and Ax suited come to mind, but there are others.
In some sense,this game plays alot like N/L (referring to pre-flop) where it is often correct to limp in with these types of hands, only to have to muck them if there is even a moderate raise.
Much of what you said was right on the ball, but with blinds this small you do not get hurt by limping in with alot of below avg. hands as long as you don't get completely out of hand - assuming of course that you remember to get rid of them quickly it there is a raise BTF.
You could probably beat this game for a moderate amount, and with a very low varience, if you simply played bone-tight pre-flop; but you wouldn't get as much out of it as was possible, and even the least observant of your opponents would soon stop giving you action on your good hands. As many others before me have pointed out ( Mr. Malmuth in particular ) this is the exact problem with N/L when played with very small blinds; there is almost no punishment for playing so tight that you squeak - there is also almost no chance of winning anything worthwhile unless you are playing against complete morons or action junkies. Regretably, there are not enough of the former to go around, and action junkies are not going to stay around for long if you don't give them the action they came for.
This post is already much longer than I had intended, so I'll end it here. In the very near future, however, I will be posting the format (structure) of a home game I play in whenever I'm in that part of the country that combines the desirable features of N/L but does not allow for extremely tight play. If your interested I intend to have it on the GENERAL TOPICS - HOLDEM forum under the heading, "action packed limit holdem".
best wishes,
Chris
I was in vegas a few weeks ago, and was at the Strat for their no limit tourney. I missed sign in, so I watched the tourney for a bit watching a few people I had played this tourney with a few days before get beat out by trash hands that hit the river. But after the tables started shrinking they opened a no limit game. Blinds 1 and 2 and a 100 min buy in. I watched a bit, finally bought in with 100 and won a few nice hands. But I learned a good lesson in a hand I folded.
Let me preface this by saying all these players were pretty good players. No real fish to the table, occasionally a new guy would sit, go all in with his houndred and then leave, but they were gone.
I was in the BB with a 87o when two to my left made it 60 to stay. all fold to the 10 seat who made it 160 to stay. Some ears started perking up, all fold, including me, to the orriginal raiser who goes all in for 500. 10 seat calls with his 360 that he has left. The first better turns over pocket aces and the 10 seat turns over kings. Sure as all fate a king rivers and the original better looks like the dealer just crushed his puppy dog...he bitches and calls for another rack of red.
I understand the 10 seat reraising with kings, figuring the raiser might be on a medium pair or high suited cards, but when that guy went all in for more than he had how would you play that? Since I have never been in that situation I don't know...what do y'all say?
It really depends on the players assessment of the raiser a limit player would make this move with AK or maybe even QQ or JJ - the guy with KK is committed the the pot at this stage and isn't gonna fold the KK so he makes the wise choice of getting all in to see all the cards.
Hey what's up with the game this weekend am I uninvited or what. Mike
This is a clear call for KK. KK is getting about 2:1 odds on this call when you include the dead money in the pot.
Now, when you think of all of the hands that would go all in, only one of them beats KK (that's AA of course). QQ, KK, AK might go all in here depending on the player. Some will push all in with JJ or TT.
Even if his opponent DOES have aces, as was the case here, KK is not as far behind as many think. KK just needs to hit a set to win, and this will happen rougly 20% of the time. (Take away a bit for the times when they both hit sets, etc etc.)
If KK KNEW that AA was out there, he should fold. But if there is any uncertainty, a call is correct.
-SmoothB-
I disagree somewhat. In a vacuum where you know nothing about the players, your analysis is probably right. But NL HE is all about knowing the player. There are players who just simply have the AA every time they move all in pre-flop when the stacks are healthy. (I'm considering 500 against $2 blind a healthy stack). 2:1 pot odds is not a consideration in this case. "Does he have AA" is the only consideration.
If he has AA, you're getting a 2:1 on a 7.5:1 shot. Terrible. IF there's a 50% chance that he has AA - you've seen him move all-in 4 times and twice he had AA - it's still bad because you're only getting 2:1 with a hand that has a 50% of being ahead and a 50% chance of needing a 7.5:1 shot to win. That is definitely not the best use of your stack in a NL game.
You basically shouldn't consider pot odds playing a live NL game. You'll almost never be getting pot odds to play hands that require it.
So, the question is how sure are you he had AA? If your even half convinced you should probably muck KK in my opinion. It's a no limit game. You shouldn't be putting your whole stack in the pot unless you are damn sure you are a big favorite.
If you've seen him go all-in SEVERAL times and he never showed AA then that's a different story. With NL it's all about knowing the player and you simply cannot make decisions like that without knowing something about your opponent. In a limit game you can get away with sitting down and playing the pot blind (i.e. only considering odds etc.) until you get a handle on the players and you won't suffer too badly. In NL you'll get murdered. Take it easy at first until you know the table and don't get involved with bigstack confrontations until you do. I'd say for the first 30 minutes you should only be willing to go all-in with AA.
natedogg
The odds of KK beating AA are better than 7.5:1. KK has 5 chances to hit a king, so thats roughly a 20% chance or 4:1 (roughly).
So, if you ARE only 50% sure that he has AA, you should definitely call with KK. And pot odds do matter in a no limit cash game - most definitely in an all in situation.
IE if you flop a 4 flush to the nuts and there just so happen to be a bettor and 3 callers, you can call all in. (Although this would probably never really happen in no limit - but you get the idea.)
You have to figure out the probability that he has AA or QQ or is going all in with AK, whatever. If he suspects you of trying to make a move he might very well push all in with QQ.
When you factor in that uncertaintly, and your roughly 4:1 odds of beating AA, I think you can call in this big pot.
-SmoothB-
What the heck was the guy with AA raising to 60 for? There was $3 of dead money from the blinds. I am not a very experienced NL player, but that seems like a bad play to me. If he only massively overbets the pot when he has AA then it is easy for everyone else to fold. IF he consistently overbets the pot with hands like AK, JJ, TT, then he is going to get cleaned out when someone else has a big hand. Does anyone else agree with me or am I missing something?
You are not missing something. Pushing large opening bets into small blinds (I call is "sliding") is a sure sign of a weak player.
Their mentality is "I don't have enough skill to play post flop and I am afraid I may get busted with these Aces if I let someone in cheaply but they are Aces/Kings so I got to play them so I'll put in a huge raise and hope to get called or reraised by some idiot/unfortunate sole holding AK or QQ."
That's losing poker.
Yeah thats a dumb play. This guy probably sits around all night waiting for AA, pushes lots of chips in, and then wonders why he gets no action.
I think 4 bets is kind of the standard (ie 3X BB raise).
I can't see any merit to betting 20X the pot under any circumstances, unless you are sure that you are bets and you are sure you'll get called.
-SmoothB-
Here is a great "slider" story. Two years ago at the $500 buy-in NLH event at the USPC, it was down to 3 tables. Noted poker author and monday morning quarterback Mike Paulle was one of the chip leaders. He and 3 other guys had nearly half the chips in play. The blinds are something like 300-600 with no antes. Mike is UTG and slides in his entire stack, which must be something like 12k in chips.
Its folded to the button, this other unknown guy with a really large stack. He starts to act very nervous, making faces, wiping ing his brow, and squeezing his cards. You just KNOW this guy wants to muck his hand, play tightly against the other big stacks, and mpove into a decent payout. But he just CAN'T do it. He must have a big hand. Must be Kings.
He finally grimaces and makes the call after someone puts a clock on him. He leans over to to his buddies on the rail and says "what can I do?", before rolling over, not kings, but ACES!
Mike, of course, doesn't show his hand.
The board comes out pretty harmless looking, but does have 3 hearts. Mike checks his cards again, and then rolls over AhKh. The other guy looks like he just got punched in the stomach and stumbles over to the rail to get consoled by his buddies.
It is really more about what standard raises have been going on at the table - we don't know that - also with the size of the stacks described the $60 might very well be a good bet. It's not pot limit it is NO LIMIT and $60 might not be over bettting the pot IF they previous opening bets heve been in that range.
I a scenario like this I want to isolate one player with my AA - a player who has a hand I dominate like KK> or AK> - I really don't want a family pot cuz I am gonna be putting a lot of money in the pot and want my best % of winning and that is heads up and I am looking to double up my stack.
You don't get AA very often and when I do I want to double up with it in a NL game.
40-80 Holdem. Usual collection of loosey-goosey players. Lively player in mid-position opens for a raise. All pass to me. I hold KJo in the SB and muck my hand. The only problem is when I muck my cards they bounce off the table and they are accidentally exposed. Perhaps about 20 percent of the time I may play KJo in this situation and normally for a re-raise. The whole table is shocked. They can't imagine how I can possibly fold this hand. I quickly explain how KJ especially with a red jack is my unlucky hand. Nevertheless I was very embarassed. I normally am very careful mucking my hand to prevent this from happening.
Bruce
Sounds like it's time to start stealing pots. =).
Max
x
You're not giving up much if you played it zero % of the time ( in the SB ). You still have the BB to contend with.
From the BB ( assuming the SB folds ), I probably call [ or re-raise ] most of the time against an action player.
It may be the most difficult hand in the deck to play; it definitely is for me.
Cute story though, and quick thinking on your "comeback"
Chris -
From the big blind it's pretty much an automatic call. From the small blind it's pretty much a piece of cheese. When you are a tight ass and you have that image among the live ones it just further reinforces it. I have been practicing my mucking motion at home with a deck of cards using left handed english. May my cards never flip over again!
Bruce
Nothing wrong or embaressing here - it just reenforces your tight image and maybe it is the reason the AJ folded in the post above.
Different game though.
Bruce
Same thing happened to me early in my poker career playing in a very loose 3-6 game. However, my accidental exposure was KQo UTG. Like you, no one else at the table could believe that I folded that hand. None of them ever even consider folding KQ preflop. My bets were the only ones able to thin the field for quite a while that night.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There was a fella in my game who had an irritating habit of constantly flipping up folded preflop hands. They were always hands such as KQ, Ac9c, 55 and the like in early position. He would never "accidently" flip up 82 offsuit and the like. It was clear to me that he was doing this just because of some crazy ego considerations. That is, he wanted the table to "oooh and aaah" at the great preflop laydowns he was making and consider him to be a very knowledgable player or something.
I don't know...sure seemed goofy to me. It was not as if he would then put his tight image to use by stealing a couple of pots later.
Five handed 40-80 hold-em game. I am UTG with ATs and decide to limp. Normally in a short handed game I would automatically raise with this hand, but since I have raised preflop or three bet BTF on 4 of the previous 5 hands I decide to call. I have a large stack of chips in front of me and I have shown down nothing but big hands, but because I have raised so many of the previous hands I decide to limp. As a side note ATs plays reasonably well in a family pot and has definite high power potential. If the hand was offsuit I would definetely raise BTF. Anyway the button calls and the small blind calls. The big blind decides to raise. The big blind is a fairly live player who is stuck and on tilt. When he raises I make it three bets. In this situation he can be raising with just about anything. He can have a big hand, but he is equally as likely to have a real piece of cheese. Everyone else folds. I have a tight image and I am very happy to be heads-up with position against a player who I can outplay. The flop comes K46 rainbow. He checks and I bet. The turn brings a Deuce. I bet and after a brief moment of hesitation my opponent mucks his hand. He exposes his AJo. Obviously I had an inferior hand compared to my opponent, but my reraise before the flop created a great degree of uncertainity plus I had position. In the eyes of my opponent I am also a very tight player, who is very likely to have AK, AA, or KK. Another key point is my opponent not flopping anything. Commnets appreciated.
Bruce
You played it very well and you got lucky that your opponent missed completely. Your actions were well thought out...it just so happened that the maniac had a hand and you were an underdog pre-flop. Most people only limp re-raise with huge hands, mainly AA, KK, so that may have prompted the other 2 ppl in the hand to fold. Do you think the hand would have played out the same way if you just raised UTG? Since you had raised the previous 4 of 5, I'm guessing probably no. So you played it well and it worked out for you. It's nice when that happens isn't it? Good job Bruce!
I think your logic here is pretty sound. ATs does play well in family pots, plus it is a great short handed starting hand. Given your description of the recent action, your limping is fine BTF. The limp-reraise is quite a clever move. You took advantage of the other player's image of you to make a "move". I like your flop bet, would you have raised if he bet though? Betting the turn is almost automatic if he checks again, IMO. Good hand.
dave in cali
Aggression can often turn the inferior hand into a winner. If he had bet out instead of checked, it would've been you mucking the hand on the turn.
x
Obvious he put you on slow playing KK, AK or KQ, KJ because you limped . Sounds like you had some good Rock Equity built up. Good tight aggressive play with a nice rush to send'em steaming.
How should you play in a pot limit HE game (blinds typically 5-10, sometimes 10-20) stacked with absolute live ones who play like it was low limit HE? every flop will have from 4 to 7 players even with double raises pre-flop. the game is almost unreadable, only rarely can you knock someone out and if someone has any semblance of anything on the flop they will go, and possibly raise, till the end. They buy in for $400 or so but their pockets are deep and they just rebuy. if you buy in for say $800-1000 and have another $1500 in reserve, what's the optimum strategy that will give you the best chance of doubling up before a bad beat wipes out your stack?
Optimum strategy is don't tell any good players where the game is and do all you can to keep it going.
Andy.
The only trick here is to stick to hands that can flop big. This is primarily pairs. In this game, any pair must be good to play preflop, since you're getting the price, with pot odds and implied odds, to flop your set.
You could also play big suited Aces, but maybe only AK and AQ. Here you're looking to flop top pair with the nut draw, or some other very big flop (e.g., top 2 pair).
A lot of other hands could be played profitably if you're a good enough player after the flop, but sticking to the above, and being even mediocre in your postflop play, will probably turn a good profit, given your description of the game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The game is no-limit hold'em, with a variation. No one knows anyone else's stack size. I have an openended straightflush draw on the flop. Is there a recommended way to play this hand that doesn't depend on what's in the pot, or my stack? I don't believe that pushing all-in is optimal.
I have never heard of that variant - not knowing other people's stack size - but it sounds interesting.
Anyway, with an open ended straight flush draw, you have a very powerful hand. You have over 50% chance of completing one of those draws. The only hand you are an underdog to is a flopped set. And you aren't an underdog by much.
If your cards are both overcards, your hand is worth that much more.
If there is already a lot of dead money in the pot, and you are checked to, an all in move is probably not a bad idea. If you get called, you have over 50% chance of making your hand.
You could also just make a lead bet designed to lure people in. Maybe the size of the pot. Hopefully anyone with a bigger flush draw won't call.
If someone makes a modest bet at the pot it is probably best to raise. You might force them out of the pot, and take it right there, and if they call they will probably check to you on the turn.
If they call, and then you don't hit on the turn, and they make a very large bet, you should probably lay it down. If the bet is too big you might not have the odds to call. Especially if you can't expect to get paid off if you do hit on the river (ie one of you is shortstacked or all in.)
-SmoothB-
!
I'm playing no-limit hold'em with a friend of mine, $1 big, no small $20 buy in(dealer puts in no blind, acts first pre-flop and has last position on all other betting rounds). I have $23 and he has more than that, I had a $20 chip lead till i over played A,k. Anyways, I deal myself 2 jacks and just smooth call the dollar blind(?) my friend checks along. I'm not sure how good an idea this is, I just called rather than raised mainly for deceptive purposes, he will call a small raise ($3 all day) preflop with very weak hands (ie 8,To) but he thinks i raise preflop with all my pairs (he goes all in with 2's everytime preflop, even if its been raised) and is quite surprised when i show him a pair that i didn't raise with. Either way I was prepared to lay the J's if a scarry flop came. Instead the board was 3,3,4 with a flush draw in the suit of one of my jacks. He checks, like he normally does on the flop, and I bet 3 bucks. I am trying to win the pot right here or make him pay to chase a straight or flush (which he will do with draws). Instead he makes it $10, my first thoughts are that he either has a four or a large flush draw, less likely an open ender. He wouldn't play a 3 like this, he would check, call that on the flop. He doesn't put me on a three he knows i don't play small cards like that very often, he's not a moron he just plays like one. I'm about 90% sure that i have the best hand and I want to get all my chips in the middle before something shows up to make me think twice about it, so i raise him back with my last 12 dollars and he makes a crying call. I show my hand and he turns over 4,9 spades(obviously no flush draw), and this is one of those hands that he would have called a preflop raise with. the turn is a blank, and of course the river is a f'n four. I couldn't do anything except compliment him on his hand and go get high on the couch with my friends.
p.s. I don't know the figures on how big an underdog one hand is to another in certain situations, so if anyone knows how i can find this out if you would please tell me, that would be cool,
Thanx
That's a bad beat. With two cards to come he has a 8.4% chance of outdrawing you. That does not include the chances of him catching running Nines, which adds minimally to his hand.
Bruce
I was playing in the $40-$80 game at Oceanside last week when the following hand came up involving our own John Feeney. John is in the small blind with the KhKd. Two players fold and I limp in from early position with 9h9d. The next player limps and another player raises to $80. The cutoff folds and the button makes it $120. John just calls. Everyone else calls. There is $720 in the pot and six players.
The flop is: Ad8s5h
Everyone checks.
The turn is: 7c
Everyone checks to the button who bets $80. John now raises to $160. The big blind folds. I would not mind taking a card off here for $80 since I have a gutshot straight draw with any Six (4 outs) plus a Nine could be an out giving me a set (2 outs). But I don't believe the odds are there to call $160 cold with only 4-6 outs plus it could get popped again. I fold. The other players fold except the button who calls. There is $1040 in the pot and two players.
The river is: 8c
John bets $80 and the button calls. John wins a $1200 pot as the button mucks.
I think John played this hand well but what does everyone else think?
I think I'm going to be making a trip to Oceanside very soon. Not to play with JF, but I like the rest of the lineup.
Brett
I too think he played it well.
I suppose the most debatable part of his play is the check on the turn. But I think it is a good one because although the button most likely does not have an Ace, John can't rule out an Ace in the hands of the fella who made it $80 (i.e he may be looking for a checkraise on the flop) or the hands of others such as you if you happened to limp in with an Ace suited or something.
Once the field checks again on the turn, John has, IMO, an easy raise of the button bet because really there is no way that the button would have slowplayed even AA on the flop let alone AK (unless he was planning on doing one of those fancy 21st Century "thin the field on the turn" raises with his AK).
I assume John didn't cap pre flop in that he thought the original raiser would cap and the money would go in without him giving away his hand. But if he didn't think this would happen, it seems that capping is in order. For one, it might fold the big blind and the middle limpers. This has to be good.
On the turn I like a lead bet from the small blind more than the check with the hope of getting in a checkraise. I can't see the original raiser trying for a check raise on the flop with any ace, even if he thinks he has kicker trouble (e.g., AJ). With this many bets and opponents, getting raised by a better ace (held by the three bettor) is not so bad. He should want the field thinned more than getting even more bets in the pot.
I also think you are right that the three better would be very likely to bet any ace, including trip aces. If anything, both pre flop raisers should fear that it was John who was going for the checkraise on the flop (with an ace) and missed.
I wonder what John thinks of a lead bet on the turn as compared to the play he actually made?
Regards,
Rick
There are certainly pros and cons. After the flop was checked around I was more concerned about someone else having an ace than I was either of the preflop raisers. I wasn't worried about overcards, of course. I basically wanted to see the action, avoid betting and being raised, and hopefully get a bet out of someone in a late position. (One of the original aggressors might now decide to take a shot at it, or...) But it could have happened, for instance, that an early player would have bet, then others folded, and I could have either just called, or possibly raised him. On the other hand he might have bet and been raised, pretty much forcing me to fold. It seems like a tougher decision now than when I made it. :-/
Oh, yeah, this is playing results, but one thing that probably would have actually happened had I bet the turn is that the big blind would have called. When I won the pot, he lamented that he'd had an 8. So the check-raise did save me the pot. But, again, let us not playeth results.
I thought the river went check, check. But now that I think about it, I don't remember for sure.
Well, I think you should bet.
If the button has an Ace, he will likely bet and you will call. He also is unlikely to raise with just an Ace if you bet.
If the button has QQ or worse, he will not bet if you check but may call if you bet. I suggest that he will likely call.
It is unlikely that the button is on any kind of hand that he can never call with but may bluff with if you check. In other words, this is probably not a spot where "inducing a bluff" should factor into your thinking.
But see my follow up (possible) correction. I think I should just stay out of this for a while now. These things are complicated enough without someone who was involved jumping in making a bunch of changes to that action. :-/
Now, as I think about it, I thought the player one off the button was the three bettor, and the button called the 3 bets cold. That would explain why I may have been concerned that the button could have an eight. (He's a fairly loose, sort of "casual" player, shall we say.)
John,
Who are we supposed to believe on the way this hand was actually played? A meticulous former NASA engineer who helped put men in space? Or a traffic crazed, veggie-eating Californian who has already changed his mind three times on how this hand went down?
Regards,
Rick
You've got a point there, Rick. I have a cold right now too.
Turn: A857 of various suits.
Pot size: 18 small bets
Your hand: 99
Your position: Only the 2 preflop aggressors are left to act. You should know that the button does not have an Ace.
Really, the only considerations you should have are:
1. Does the fellow who made it $80 have an Ace with which he will now raise?
2. Will the fellow who made it $120 refuse to lay down his KK, QQ or whatever?
Given the size of the pot, I would likely bet the turn with 99. I would also add that point No. 2 is nowhere near as important as point No. 1. After all, there is a chance that the button will fold his KK or QQ. You also have 6 outs against this fella even if he calls. Your bet may also cause someone with a 9 to fold thereby giving you the full pot as opposed to having the action checked through, hitting a 6 and having to share the pot with another player.
What do you think?
Jim Brier can always tell you the basic straightforward best play, but you have to look to players like skp, Louie Landale and sometimes small caps scott to point out the trickier plays that are certainly worth considering. Good job skp!
I definitely think Jim should have at least considered betting the turn; he gives no mention in his post of whether he did or not. Of course, it's also quite possible that the texture of the game did not suggest such a course of action, etc.
David
This was pretty simple straight-forward play. A lot of action pre-flop and nobody bets the flop with an ace. Either someone has an A and checked or they don't. Feeney read the table for no A and played accordingly. Conversely. Any one of the players on that flop could have checked a big ace on the flop. The play of this hand was a simple coin-flop after the flop got checked around.
natedogg.
Why not?
I would think the possiblity of knocking out the limpers with an Ace is alone worth the preflop cap - forget about disguising your hand here. By flat-calling you almost give it away anyway.
What does everyone think?
Puggy
Puggy,
I posted some thoughts on this in reply to skp above before I saw your post.
BTW, do you really think that flat calling gives John's hand away? With this many opponents, it would be a viable option with a wide range of hands (e.g., ATs, 77, JTs, QJs, etc.)
On the other hand, neither does capping, as it only costs one more bet (in California), and should probably done in a multi-way pot with hands like KQs, AQs and AKs in addition to the biggest pairs.
Regards,
Rick
You guys have a point about the capping narrowing your hand down preflop over smooth calling. But as Rick stated, capping is still an option here with AKs, KQs, etc. so maybe it doesn't give your hand away TOO much.
Still, I think the chances of reducing the field in what is going to be a very large pot are probably worth it. John, I like your idea of going for the checkraise on the flop. In your estimation, could you sometimes cap preflop and than still checkraise the flop against this bunch?
SKP, I also like the turn bet by Jim for another reason. That is, you'll be hating yourself if the turn gets checked around only to see a Q on the river which lets some guy with KQ take the pot.
So in summary, everybody's right! Gosh, poker is easy.
Puggy
"SKP, I also like the turn bet by Jim for another reason. That is, you'll be hating yourself if the turn gets checked around only to see a Q on the river which lets some guy with KQ take the pot."
Good point, Puggy. That's one reason why I think a bet from Jim is more critical than a bet from John on the turn. 2 other reasons favoring a bet from Jim (as opposed to John) are:
1. Jim probably has only one worry: does the guy to his immediate left have an Ace. OTOH, John has 4 guys to act after him who could have an Ace
2. If either of their bets is called by a better hand, Jim has up to 6 outs while John only has 2.
"I like your idea of going for the checkraise on the flop. In your estimation, could you sometimes cap preflop and than still checkraise the flop against this bunch?"
Yes, that is another viable option, I think. I do think you can often get in a check raise (hopefully of a late position bettor) against a bunch of players, even when you've show a lot of strength from one of the binds. You do reduce the chance you'll be able to do it, but I think you can still do it surpisingly often
Just to follow up a bit, this was the kind of hand where enough people were in, with the pot being big enough, that preflop I was thinking of a check-raise on the flop *or maybe on the turn, thinking that it might take that kind of power to drive enough players out. Certainly it could have been played a few different ways.
"I would think the possiblity of knocking out the limpers with an Ace is alone worth the preflop cap"
You have a point, but they had to call two bets cold anyway. I'm not sure making it 3 instead of two would change things that much. But maybe.
"forget about disguising your hand here."
I wasn't that concerned with disguising my hand per se. All the aggression (raise and reraise) had come from later positioned players. I called in order to let the 3-bettor retain the initiative (Well, okay, that does involve disguising my hand.) so that I could check-raise him on either the flop or turn and knock out the in-between players. The tricky question, I guess, is whether 3-betting would have knocked out enough (any?) of them preflop to compensate for reducing the ability to go for the check-raise after the flop.
"By flat-calling you almost give it away anyway."
As much as you do by capping? No, I don't think so. It may vary a bit according to the pariticular player, but if I cap it, a lot of players will assume AA, KK...
"The tricky question, I guess, is whether 3-betting would have..."
meant capping
geez. can't you get anything right? everywhere i look you're correcting something.
alex and i wrote the review for the school paper. i'll send you a copy. it's damn funny, if i may say so myself.
scott
Oh, good, a review in the Columbia paper. Now my book is beginnig to develop the prestige and Ivy League status it so rightfully deserves. I look forward to it.
BTW, I think Jim did very well this trip to Oceanside. That may be why he didn't bother to post a couple of more, uhm, "goofy" hands I played. Like the one where I raised with 44, got 3-bet by Bob "The Phantom" Morgon (who was in town as well to do to me what he'd done to Roy Cooke) flopped something like 3-6-8, and went to the turn where I spiked a set to beat Bob's 99. Now THAT is, well, I'm not sure. But I won the pot!
"flopped something like 3-6-8"
Hehe, just remembered, the flop was more like 3-5-8. I remember the backdoor straight draw being part of my grand strategy.
Skp,
With so many sub-forums, it is so easy to miss a great thread. Anyway, you are in fine form here. I like a lead bet on the turn by Jim also. I think he may have taken the pot right there often enough combined with his outs if he doesn't that it just has to be right. I also think if he gets popped, he doesn't have to pay off the river unless he makes his hand. BTW, with seven players in, your point about getting a nine to fold is very important. For example, the big blind could easily have a nine and fold to a raise of Jim's bet fearing being trapped.
I also wonder why not raise coming in with 99 after two have folded in a nine handed game? If you don't start attacking with this hand, what exactly are you waiting for? However, if the game is soft (based on this hand it may have been), limping is probably OK.
Regards,
Rick
"I also wonder why not raise coming in with 99 after two have folded in a nine handed game?"
Actually I think Jim was one after UTG. i.e., he still had 5 players left to act behind him. Oops, there I go again!
I tend to limp in early position with 99. IMO, the value of the hand still lies in attracting other callers and then flopping a set or overpair.
Raising with 99 in early position causes a lot of problems particularly if the players in late position play well i.e. it is too easy to be outplayed when you have this hand and a flop like J74 or something comes down.
A raise of course would be called for if you think you have a good shot of either stealing the blinds or going heads-up against one of the blinds as then you have position and cannot as easily be outplayed on a J74 flop.
Here's my 2cents:
I think John played his hand brilliantly. I prefer calling from the small blind in this spot, primarily because of my poor position and hopefully being able to check-raise on later streets. By capping BTF you have pretty much given your hand away and check-raising when you pretty much have to lead becomes technically very difficult. Checking on the turn is a risky play, but with aggressive players in the back there is a good chance John will be able to check-raise. His worst possbile dilemna is if someone like Jim bets and an aggressive player in the back raises, John is pretty much forced to give up. As far as Jim's play go, I prefer if I am second to act to raise with pocket Nines. Yes it is a tough hand to play with poor position, but I think it warrants a raise. Jim perhaps should have bet on the turn. If a player in the back raises Jim may have won the pot. Yes, it is easy being a Monday morning quarterback and be results oriented.
Bruce
Bruce Your comments are always worth more than 2cents ;-). I would call in the small blind pre flop only if I was pretty sure it would get capped anyway. And since I will cap for one more bet with big suited cards in multi-way pots, I don’t think I give that much away as compared to calling 2.5 bets cold.
I still like a bet from Jim into the field on the turn; it is a high-risk high reward play I think one needs to make in order to play the bigger games.
Regards,
Rick
Richard,
I think the gist is that if you think you can knock players out postflop as easily (or close to it) after capping (noting possible negation of your ability to get in a check-raise, and possible tie on effect of bigger pot), then capping should be right. That's where there may be a tough judgement call.
I want to thank everyone for their great comments. For what it is worth, here are my thoughts:
Pre-flop, I think John should cap the betting with pocket Kings unless he is certain someone else will cap. The reason is because he probably has the best hand and his raise will pull into the pot another 5 bets or $200. We have had this debate before, but deception is not worth giving up all that pre-flop equity. In a jammed pot with lots of players it will take the best hand to win. At this point John has the best hand so he should cap it my opinion.
On the flop, it is amazing that 6 players pay 4 bets to take a flop and no one had an Ace.
On the turn, a bet by me has some merit. But there were 3 players yet to act (a limper, the initial raiser, and the button) and I did not want to have to pay more than one bet to take off a card. I would be delighted to get a free card. When you bet you run the risk of getting raised and then having to call the raise. John's check-raise here was brilliant. I am not a big fan of check-raising but here it makes a ton of sense. He probably has the best hand. One of the hyper-aggressive players will surely bet since they cannot stand to have it checked around twice. Anyone who cold-calls his raise is probably playing bad poker. This is exactly what the top players do. They induce bad poker on the part of their weaker playing opponents.
Ya sorry Jim, I had misread your initial post. I assumed that there were only 2 players left to act behind when in fact there were 3.
Nevertheless, I think I would bet the turn although cleraly I would prefer to have just 2 players act after me rather than 3.
BTW, what say you about Feeney's numerous corrections and retractions of corrections:)
...now don't make me retract that.
x
"BTW, what do you say about John's corrections and retractions to corrections?" I hope he gets over his cold soon.
In all seriousness, I believe my account of what happened is reasonably accurate since I wrote it down right after the hand was over. I am certain John bet the river and was called. His recollection about the cutoff 3 betting pre-flop and the button cold-calling might be right but I did not write it down that way. Fortunately, it does not change the thrust of the post.
...You could be right, especially about the river bet. Is that a retraction?
As the hand played out, John's play worked beautifully. But I think that only calling preflop is a bad move, for reasons already mentioned, and for one more. I WANT them to know I have KK or AA so I can lay the hand down later with certainty if it's right to do so. It's a rare player who will try to bluff out a known overpair on the river if the board is scattered.
What I'm wondering is, what would John have done if there was action on the flop? John? Were you planning to check raise the flop and then likely go to the river? I can't imagine that you were. In that case, isn't it better to cap preflop and bet out, even when the ace comes, just to insure that lesser hands pay a price, and that you can be sure an ace is out before you fold later?
As to Jim's hand, well, I was there. I saw the action. Limping with 99 up front is certainly reasonable in a game like that, though it's doubtful I'd do it. As the hand went down, I would bet Jim's 99 on the turn as a value/probing bet. Who knows, it might have even won the pot for him, since John knows how Jim plays, and since John only had three small bets in the pot, John might have layed down for Jim on the turn.
I would not lay down for Jim, but only because I like younger guys. :-)
Tommmy
" I WANT them to know I have KK or AA so I can lay the hand down later with certainty if it's right to do so."
Well, that's another factor, yes. But again, it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons, with no absolute answers, I think. "Telling" them your hand has the plus you mention, but keeping them in the dark can certainly increase profits many times too. (e.g., had the flop come small cards and my KK gone up against a pair like QQ.)
In this case, with the pot quite big, my main focus was maximizing my chance of winning it (within reason). I made the play I thought did so, knowingly sacrificing some immediate EV. It's a trade-off, and clearly different players' "feels" for the game lead to different opinions about which is the best way to go. Sometimes in these multiway, big pot situations my sense is that that trade-off of immediate EV in the interest of increasing my chance of winning the pot leads to greater overall EV on the hand. But I could be wrong.
"What I'm wondering is, what would John have done if there was action on the flop? John? Were you planning to check raise the flop and then likely go to the river? I can't imagine that you were. In that case, isn't it better to cap preflop and bet out, even when the ace comes, just to insure that lesser hands pay a price, and that you can be sure an ace is out before you fold later?"
Had no ace come, yeah I would have either check-raised the flop or turn, and gone to the river barring some intense action or threatening board that would tell me I was clearly beaten. With the ace, the idea of capping it does have the advantage you mention of helping you be more sure, based on the action, that an ace is out there. Having not capped it, with the pot containing something like 18 small bets preflop, I would have taken a card off for one bet on the flop, and watched the action on the turn, very possibly having to fold (if I didn't hit a set).
All in all, a good example of the issue that's been debated here before: How do you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of capping (or 4-betting in Vegas, which changes things some I suppose) versus just calling in a spot like this? It's a tough one.
BTW, of all players Jim probably would have had the best chance of making me fold on the turn. But that doesn't mean I'd lay down for him. ;-)
Good points. I'll experiment with not capping it from the blind with AA or KK, but I'd have be on valium. With the usual quart of coffee in my system, I don't think I could it.
You and Mason and some others can apparently copy and paste here. Wanna share the secret? Email is fine if that's the proper prcedure. Thanks.
Tommy
copy-paste: in netscape I just highlight the text, then click copy and paste as appropriate from the menu at the top of the screen. Ctrl-C works for copying too. Can't remember the keystroke comand for paste. There's also stuff you can do with html, like bold or itallics, but that's another story. Well, click here to read about it.
Tommy,
Another way is to keep your word processor open. I have a document called “Spell Check Work Area” that I use for all kinds of things, including posting. I’ll copy and paste the post I am replying too into the work area and then write my reply. Then I spell check it and cut and paste it back into the forums message box. Use the right mouse for most of these actions.
By the way, good post ;-).
Rick
Oh yeah, that's actually how you should do it so that you store your posts on your computer. I just get lazy.
John,
I don't store my posts except for my rare longer lead posts which are actually pretty rare since I don't always have time to stay with them. I just use MS Word as my scratch pad and then paste my finished work back in the box (unless it is a little one like this where I dont carr if i mispel sum wordes).
Rick
Rick and John,
Turns out that if I use the edit menu (my usual method), "copy" does not even show up as an option here. But if I right-click to get a drop down menu, like I just tried, it works. Weird. Anyway, I'm a copy and paste junkie, out of withdrawal. Thanks.
I use something similar to Rick's method, but instead of using WORD, I use email. That way, if I'm in mid-post and need to stop, I can just email the partial post to myself and it serves as a record AND a reminder during the next session.
Tommy
Tommy,
You email to yourself. I'll top that. I call my own answering machine at home with no one there to remind myself to things I need to do.
Rick
Tommy,
You wrote: “As the hand played out, John's play worked beautifully. But I think that only calling preflop is a bad move, for reasons already mentioned, and for one more. I WANT them to know I have KK or AA so I can lay the hand down later with certainty if it's right to do so. It's a rare player who will try to bluff out a known overpair on the river if the board is scattered.”
I like the reraise but I wouldn’t ever want my opponents to know I have one of the top two pairs. When they can narrow you down this much, there is just so much opportunity for them to put the squeeze on you later. And this means you will often be laying down the best hand or a hand that at least has redraws to a better hand.
BTW, if you want to see one way how bold and italics are done, use the right mouse and select View Source. Look in the HTML text file where the message is and you will see the tags that enable you to do this. Don’t be intimidated, as bold, italics, and providing links is all I know (and need to know) right now.
Regards,
Rick
Befroe reading any other posts I would say he played it perfect.
if he bet/raises the flop it adds too much to the pot odds for others tocal an obvious turn bet with even an 8.
By waiting till the turn to make it tough for middle pair to call he has gained much more equity while others are gambling with lower pot odds for it. More often this is the time to get take down a pot. I will use this play often if I believe no-one had the ace good kicker from the flop play.
Ever since this hand, I've had trouble folding K-7 of diamonds before the flop.
No-limit. $10-10-$20 blinds, with a minimum $40 open. Anyone but the button can "kill" the pot by posting $40 before the flop. Then the minimum open is $80, and the killer acts last before the flop.
I was one off the button with K-7 of diamonds. Joe had a kill out in the big blind. Yeah, I know, that seems like a strange play, but Joe has deeper pockets than everyone combined. He's often made this play in order to build a big pot that he can steal before or after the flop.
My stack was medium-small sized, about $2700. Joe had me and everyone else covered. Four players limped for $80. Most unusual. So I limped to. The button called, the other blind folded. If Joe wanted to steal this pot, his standard bet would be $2000 right now, before the flop. He didn't do that. He raised it $300, just enough to keep players in and build a monster. Everyone called. The pot was now about $2300, and I had about $2300 left.
The flop came K-Q-5, rainbow. Joe had his standard $2000 in one-hundred dollar chips in hand and ready to pounce, as he so often does. Sure enough, as soon as the flop hit, Joe bet $2000. Everyone folded to me.
My thinking was that I had him beat or I didn't. How's THAT for solid reasoning? Seriously though, I could have him nearly drawing dead, of I could be crushed. There was no way to tell. Given that I was getting 2-1, it seemed like a good spot to get my money in. So I did it fast, all-in for an additional $300, on the off chance that my confidence would get the button to fold a good hand.
The button folded. Joe called the $300. I said, "I've got top pair only." Joe turned over his hand. Pocket fives. He flopped bottom set. Woops.
Turn came a king. Everyone knew that I had outs now, by either pairing the board or hitting my undisclosed kicker.
River, a beautiful seven. I turned over right away, Joe said nice hand, and on we went.
Later that night, with the game in a much tamer mood, We were talking about the above hand when I picked up K-7 of diamonds again. I put in a small push before the flop. The flop came Q-10-5, all clubs. I check-raised the flop and took it down. For the first time in years, I felt obligated to show a bluff, and sing the praises of K-7 of diamonds.
Now I know what "road hand" means.
Tommy
Where are the good no-limit games spread? In Chicago there are none that I know of. I am thinking about moving out to Vegas or L.A. pretty soon though.
There are none in the L.A. area. Vegas has a small game at the Stratospere. Pot-limit is regularly spread in the L.A. area at the Hustler Casino. There will never be a no-limit game spread on a regular basis. It is impossible for a poor player to win and they will all eventually go broke, most rather quickly.
Bruce
The ElDOrado in Reno spreads a Strat type NLHE with $200 buy in regurally and I have played NL HE at Commerce in LA.
I wish it were spread more often along with PL HE.
Besides the Stratosphere, the Plaza spreads a $1-$2 blind PLHE game. These lower limit big bet style games are a GREAT way for us inexperienced big bet players to learn the game without losing the house. I really enjoyed both games on my Vegas trip last June, and I'm looking forward to both of them on my trip next month.
I'd like to see more PL/NL hands analyzed in the posts here. It's entertaining and an inexpensive learning tool. Thanx to all of you who do post these hands.
Fat-Charlie
That answers two of my main questions about NL games.
1) How are there fish that can afford to play NL on a consistent basis. 2) Why don't great NL players just play in these very lucrative NL games.
Now I understand the relative scarcity of NL games.
I think the relative scarcity of no-limit games is due to casino economics, not the game itself.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, no-limit games have been spread almost nightly since California legalized hold'em in the late 80's. And they are still going strong, like no where else in the country. The existence of these games damages the presumtion that no-limit games "dry up" because the good players get all the money faster.
Poker games often dry up or have the potential to do so. That's just the way it is, limit or not. There is no reason to assume that no-limit would speed the drying, especially when you consider that no-limit might actually INCREASE the money pool, by sending less of it to the house and keeping more of it in circulation. For instance, if a 6-12 player walks into a casino and sits in a no-limit game and busts out after one hand, he really lost money that would have gone to the house if he had played his normal number of hours. And now that money is in player's pockets.
It's understandable that casinos would want to "protect" the smaller-bankrolled cliental by discouring the spreading of no-limit games. In many cases, that is the best decision for their bottom line.
Tommy
I think the numerous big bet games and higher limit games in the SF area are due to the influx of dot.com money in the area. there's no poker game in the world that's going to bleed the computer money dry around here. most scufflers in cardrooms make a bad big bet call and drop a few grand then you don't hear from them for a while. with the dot.commers, they just excercise a few of their options and they're back in the game.
In a way I think this reinforces what Tommy is saying. Conventional wisdom has it that Big Bet is bad for fish, but in reality it may just be bad for casinos.
Your hypothetical dot.commer can keep buying in, suck out on a couple of hands, and not only get even but break the whole table. In a limit game you don't see the fish getting their chance to strike terror in the hearts of the scufflers in quite the same way. A grinder bitching about losing five big bets to a suck-out artist has an entirely different look than a grinder who just lost five months rent to the same guy.
In parts of the country (and the world) Big Bet is the prevalent form of poker. The fish still lose, but they can get more bang for their buck.
2d,
You make a good point, but then, so does Phat Mack. I think the reality is somewhere between. It smells like an evolutionary process, with many forces at play, and small, gradual changes.
Okay, so I've been reading some Richard Dawkins lately. Can you tell? lol
Hey 2D, do you live around here? Do we know each other? I'm the dude in the one seat at Lucky Chances.
Tommy
I made a bizarre looking play last week at Ocean's Eleven. Jim and Bob were in the game. It was my first time playing with an overbutton. I have no idea if this was a good play or not. Whaddya think?
The game was 20-40, with five over-buttons out. An overbutton open-raised from middle position. Everyone folded behind. I had 7-7 in the BB. I called.
Then, before the dealer could burn and turn, I had a chance to think, something I try to avoid in mid-battle.
If I get a low or ragged flop, and I check raise, the other guy will take one off with many hands, and I'm going to have potential trouble when the bets are out of whack to the pot sizes as I'm used to them developing.
In a way, I got scared. I bet the flop in the dark, at the last second before the thumbroll. Call a preflop raise then bet dark. Hmmm. If nothing else, its different!
An added benefit that flashed through my mind was that maybe an ace or king would flop and he'd fold an underpair that either beat my sevens, or that he could have successfully bluffed with given a high-card flop.
Also, if he raised me on the flop, I could lay down easier, with the $80 bets coming up.
Flop came paired, nothing higher that a ten.
The other guy thought for a while, flashed an ace, and mucked. I felt good about the hand because apparently I wasn't ready to tangle for double-stakes, heads up, out of position, when most pots were multi-way at the time and I could put that money to better use. So there was an emotional element as well. Thoughts?
Tommy
pm
I will explain.
Let's say you are playing in a 20-40 game. Let's say that 5 people have overs buttons.
If the only people remaining in the hand are people who have overs buttons, then the stakes automatically go up to the predetermined level. Commonly this would mean going from 20-40 to 40-80. But sometimes you cal play no limit overs and then the game becomes no limit after the only people left have buttons.
I have actually played where we had 5 different people with buttons playing 3 different overs! It was a 10-20 game. One guy declared 20-40 overs. Another player was doing 40-80 overs. And the other 2 were in no limit overs.
If the types in a hand were mixed, the game became the lowest limit. IE 20-40 guy vs both no limit guys, game was 20-40.
-SmoothB-
pm
Rick,
Not having any experience here (but planning on moving to San Diego next summer and so hopefully I will meet this whole Oceans 11 crew), I would actually think that I would like being one of the few people at a table without an overs button.
I would guess that the overbutton-holders (nice word, huh?) continuously want to eliminate the non-button holders from contention in the pot. This means much more aggressive play against you, which of course is not a good thing, but I believe that it can actually increase your EV if you play very very tight preflop and realize what they are trying to do to you. I.e. on your big hands, you will likely make a lot of money even though you might have to give up some marginally profitable hands.
Just my thoughts - and I could easily be wrong!
Puggy
I don't like "overs" buttons for several reasons:
1. It can dramatically impact your drawing hands like suited cards, especially suited connectors. You take a card off on the flop because you have a decent draw and on the turn you find that you are faced with a quadruple bet because only players with "overs" buttons happen to be in the hand. This makes continuing on with your draw highly problematic especially since it might get raised another quadruple bet after you call.
2. To play in a game like this is to basically be playing with a lower blind structure but a much higher betting structure. I don't think this is a good way to play hold-em.
3. It has the potential to greatly increase your variance since some of the hands you are playing are double the stakes. You could easily lose a few tough hands to suckouts or holdovers when the stakes happen to be double and your winning hands could occur when the stakes are normal. Therefore, you end up booking a losing session. As a good player, your advantage is statistical not absolute. Why would you want such a large percentage of your session result to hinge upon the outcome of a few hands where the stakes happen to be double what they normally are?
4. The presence of "overs" buttons slows down the game for players who do not wish to play "overs". A significant percentage of the time everyone forgets that the "overs" is in effect and bets and raises which are made have to be retracted and the betting round starts over again once the dealer realizes that "overs" are operating. Furthermore, the chip structure is not designed to handle "overs" situations. Playing $20-$40 with "overs" buttons is like playing $40-$80 with $5 chips instead of $10 chips. It takes forever for players to count out $80 or $160 in $5 chips further slowing the game down.
5. I believe that playing "overs" has the effect of jacking up the stakes with players playing too high for their bankroll and not realizing it. It has the potential to bust out regular players.
6. The buy-ins for $20-$40 and $40-$80 are too low to begin with and adding "overs" but not increasing the buy-in results in players going all-in more often. I don't like this either.
Jim,
Your comments make a lot of sense as usual. I thought I read a thread where you were one of the players with the overs button but I couldn't find it (all these forums are driving me crazy). Because 20/40 is still at the edge of my comfort zone, keep in mind that I plan not to take an overs button (assuming at least a few others were doing the same - I would not want to be the spoilsport).
You wrote: "1. It can dramatically impact your drawing hands like suited cards, especially suited connectors. You take a card off on the flop because you have a decent draw and on the turn you find that you are faced with a quadruple bet because only players with "overs" buttons happen to be in the hand. This makes continuing on with your draw highly problematic especially since it might get raised another quadruple bet after you call.
Let's say you are without the button and have a marginal drawing hand against a couple with the button. Will they put more pressure than usual on you in order to get you out so the stakes can go up?
"2. To play in a game like this is to basically be playing with a lower blind structure but a much higher betting structure. I don't think this is a good way to play hold-em."
I agree in the sense that it may not be good for the long-term health of the game. But it seems to me that if you don't have the overs button, you can be in a situation (especially acting last) where you have a hand with reverse implied odds (e.g., big offsuit connectors such as AK or AQ). Let's say several with overs have limped in front of you. They may be playing loose hoping to exploit later betting rounds with hands that need implied odds (small pairs, Ax suited, middle suited connectors). Now you raise building the pot but foiling their hopes. Does this make any sense?
"3. It has the potential to greatly increase your variance since some of the hands you are playing are double the stakes. You could easily lose a few tough hands to suckouts or holdovers when the stakes happen to be double and your winning hands could occur when the stakes are normal. Therefore, you end up booking a losing session. As a good player, your advantage is statistical not absolute. Why would you want such a large percentage of your session result to hinge upon the outcome of a few hands where the stakes happen to be double what they normally are?"
This makes sense but doesn't seem to apply if I don't have the button. If anything, I wonder if the half the table that wants to play bigger (I would assume all with overs will be on the list for the 40/80) would be a bit sloppy.
"4. The presence of "overs" buttons slows down the game for players who do not wish to play "overs". A significant percentage of the time everyone forgets that the "overs" is in effect and bets and raises which are made have to be retracted and the betting round starts over again once the dealer realizes that "overs" are operating. Furthermore, the chip structure is not designed to handle "overs" situations. Playing $20-$40 with "overs" buttons is like playing $40-$80 with $5 chips instead of $10 chips. It takes forever for players to count out $80 or $160 in $5 chips further slowing the game down."
Good point. I've played enough 4/8 full kill Omaha H/L to know what that is like. At least they take a rake rather than charge time, which is bonus for we tighties.
"5. I believe that playing "overs" has the effect of jacking up the stakes with players playing too high for their bankroll and not realizing it. It has the potential to bust out regular players."
Aren't the guys with overs the ones who want to play 40/80? If so, they should be playing a lot looser since the money seems like chump change.
"6. The buy-ins for $20-$40 and $40-$80 are too low to begin with and adding "overs" but not increasing the buy-in results in players going all-in more often. I don't like this either."
I never go all in, but have some strategic problems playing against players who do.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
Regards,
Rick
If you play without an "overs" button then some of my comments don't apply. John Feeney feels that playing "overs" actually helps the implied odds for suited connectors and he may be right. Strategy changes for playing with "overs" would be a good topic for David Sklansky or Mason Malmuth to write about.
Your other point about how players with "overs" buttons might react when a player who does not have an "overs" button is in the hand is interesting. Some players may in fact play more aggressively in an attempt to get the player who doesn't have "overs" out of the hand. I don't know but it is a good point.
Jim,
Regarding the pressure that others may put on you in an attempt to get the non overs player out, I think Puggy and Greg should get the credit for the idea.
Regards,
Rick
I was told at Ocean's 11 that in order for a player to take an overbutton, they must have double the minimum buy in on the table. I was impressed by that sensible rule.
Also, is a player HAS an overbutton, and then decides to go back to normal by removing the overbutton, they must wait at least one hour before they can take an overbutton again. This is a GREAT rule. See, this was my first time in an overbutton game, and the first thing that came to mind was the idea of playing with an overbutton for only two hands per round: button and cutoff. The rulemakers saw me coming! That is not allowed.
Jim, I was surprised by your remark that buy-ins, in general, are "too low." Is there some standard by which to judge a "proper" buy in? I don't think so. I think of buy-ins as one of the many things that evolve naturally over time, eventually reaching a workable balance that is best for all. Plus, like most rules, buy-in amounts are arbitrary, with no absolute rights and wrongs. I could understand someone having an opinion that buy-ins are too low, and wishing they were higher. But such thoughts could never be more than opinions and wishes, right?
Tommy
At Oceans 11, the $40-$80 buy-in is only $400. This is way too low for a game this big. It should be at least $800. $400 might not get you through one hand. At the Bellagio, the buy-in is only $150 for $15-$30 but it is $500 for $30-$60. At the higher limit games, the players prefer larger buy-in amounts because they don't like their opponents constantly going all-in and taking cheap shots in the game. Furthermore, the higher limit games play much faster with more raising especially pre-flop so a larger buy-in is needed.
The "Jim Brier" recommended table minimums are usually around 10 big bets not 10 small bets. I also would not allow any short buy ins once a player goes all-in.
Jim,
I agree that the minimum buy in is all too low. But in bigger games, few buy in for the minimum. This practice does plaque the small games though. Among other problems, it drives up costs (more chip runners are needed) and slows down the game.
I am in complete agreement regarding short re-buys after going all-in. A player from Colorado named Steve Fox wrote an excellent article in Card Player several years ago as to why this practice should never be allowed. If anyone knows what issue it is in (or can come within a month or two of when it was written), I would appreciate it.
Regards,
Rick
I think of the short-buy rule as being like the little girl who asked her mommy why she always sliced off one third of the turkey before putting it in the oven.
The mother says, "Cuz my mom did it that way."
So the girl goes and asks grandma why she does it.
Grandma says, "Cuz my mom did it that way."
So the girl goes to her great-grandmother, and asks what's up with hacking off one third of the turkey before cooking it?
Great grandma relies, "In the old days, I only had one pan, and it wasn't very big. I had to hack off a chunk of the turkey so it would fit in the pan."
Tommy
But Jim, when you say "it should be $800," my reflex reaction is, "says who?"
It's the casino's job to provide a product that the players want. It's to their best interest. In makes them more money. Since the players want bigger buy-ins at the Bellagio, why doesn't the management make them bigger?
If I were to start playing poker today, and learned about the buy-ins, I would presume that they are what they are because it strikes a balance between what the players want, and what the casino wants.
Also, how many people really take cheap shots with $400 in a 40-80 game? Also, so what if they do? That means they will go all-in in mid hand many times during the course of their lives, which in my experience means more profit to the big stacks.
If you agree that the cheap-shotters going all-in is good for guys like you and me who always have ample chips, then I would think you should LIKE the 10xSB buy-in. I like them, for that very reason.
Tommy
I essentially agree with Puggy. I have played in games with overs buttons when I lived in SD county, and you will find that a significant portion of the overs players will try to pressure out the non-overs players on the flop and/or turn so that they can finish the hand at the higher stakes. Thus, you need to look for this, and to keep it in mind, when you have a marginal made hand and are considering whether to call a bet and/or raise. As you can imagine, it is very important to know and remember who has a button. When you first sit down, ask who has a button. Look at them for a second, and then say "You guys are too tough. No button for me." ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
This makes sense. My impression is that you did not take the overs button. If so and the game looks good, I think I will play and try to make the proper adjustments. But I would think one would be at a disadvantage (and perhaps not well liked) if I were one of only two or three that did not take the button.
Regards,
Rick
I doubt anyone will "dislike" you for not taking a button. And if they do dislike you for doing this, when it is obviously an intended part of the game (i.e., that you decide yes OR no about the button), then F*** 'em. If they wanted to play only 40-80, then they should quit this game and start a new game of 40-80.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Generally speaking, overs players only resent 'unders' players (players without a button) when they are loose and go too far with their hands.
I played an overs game one time where 6 out of 9 of us had overs buttons, but 2 of the other 3 were loose passive calling stations. You won't believe it, but we got no more than a half dozen overs opportunities in 4 hours. They were great for the game though. :)
-SmoothB-
high limit game....I'm not in the hand, but I still thought it was interesting.
UTG (tough, solid player), raises. Loose/Passive guy calls Tough, solid player calls Button calls, who is tough/aggressive (too aggressive maybe, but I haven't played with him too often.) Small blind folds Big Blind - tight player, calls
5 BB, 5 players. Flop is KT5, all diamonds.
BB checks UTG, preflop raiser bets. everyone one folds, except button calls. BB folds.
turn is a 3s.
UTG bets, button checks his cards, and calls.
river is a 8d
UTG checks, button checks.
UTG turns over QQ (no diamond). Button turns over 44, with the 4d...and wins the pot.
Given what I saw in this hand, I downgraded the button's ability a couple of notches. Sure, the 44 is a marginal call pre-flop, given there were a couple other callers as well. The flop call is marginal, and the call on the turn is bad, I think.
UTG was clearly a tight/good player...and the button should have known that, so he must have put him on at least a pair, with possibly a diamond as well.
Given this play, would you agree to drop your opinion on the button's ability a couple of notches, or do you think he made the correct play cause the pot was big enough?
I'd demote him to loose aggressive.
If the bettor has neither a set or a diamond, 44 has eleven outs. He also occasionally will win without improving when the bettor only has the ace of diamonds and gives up on the end. The pot was barely big enough to make calling right. But even if it wasn't quite big enough, it is important to remember that not making mistakes like this, is one of the least important attributes of a great player.
So, are you saying that it wasn't really that important because its close anyway? And I shouldn't really change my originally opinion of the player?
If he was loose aggressive, he would have raised with his monster draw. And he would have bet the turn.
His analysis, whether good or bad, was probably similar to what Sklansky went through.
His thinking could be: "If UTG has big Ace w/diamond, then I've got him beat right now." (This is probably what he was thinking.) "If not, I likely have eleven outs -- at least nine." (But he probably hoped that he was best.)
The interesting question is: what if UTG bets out when the 4th diamond comes. Does he call? Obviously, he didn't have high confidence in his read that UTG had no diamond, or he would have bet out on the river. Given that lack of a river bet, I think a high % of time, he would have mucked to a bet on the river.
- NW Card Hack
Doc,
I’ll try this one before looking at Rounder and El Supremo’s responses. If I look foolish I’ll stick to 15/30 and 20/40 until I retire ;-).
I don’t think that the button made a bad play. The UTG raiser almost has an obligatory bet when the flop comes KT5 (all diamonds). To not bet is to give up on the pot right there. By the time it comes to the button, two opponents have folded. When the big blind folds, there is now over three big bets of dead money in the pot and the button can see the river for one bet per round or less (since the river will often get checked unless UTG has at least trips or a big flush).
There is a good chance the pre flop aggressor could have AQ or a pair with no diamond. Once I felt I would not be squeezed, I would look at the cost of calling him down (an average of about two big bets) versus what I can win (about seven big bets). Note that I can win when:
1) I hit my set and he doesn’t have a flush – but if he did I could fill up if I hit it on the turn.
2) He has the big pair but I hit my flush and he doesn’t have a diamond.
3) He missed the flop and I snap off his river bluff (e.g., AQ)
Surely the above two possibilities indicate a call getting 3.5 to 1.
Regards,
Rick
I am not sure that once the flop came, the button's play was all that bad for the reasons David Sklansky and Rick Nebiolo mention. But I cannot see the UTG, a tough/solid player, leading at the flop into 4 other players with a hand like Ace-Queen offsuit and no Diamond. However, I do believe it is weak poker to be calling pre-flop raises even on the button with small pocket pairs especially when only 3 players are in the hand although the possibility of further raising is minimized.
I have noticed a number of top players make questionable pre-flop plays with small pocket pairs. For example, I twice saw John Feeney limp in from early position in the $40-$80 game with small pocket pairs (pocket Deuces once and pocket Fours once). Now this is a game with a lot of pre-flop raising and frequently has only a small number of players taking a flop. Nevertheless, in one of these hands he managed to flop a small set and win a huge pot. I think a lot of top players have a good feel for how much money they might win in certain situations against a specific player line-up if they happen to catch a good flop. This allows them to "jump the fence" more often than sound poker dictates.
On the turn, there are 6 BB. UTG has bet, so the button is getting 7:1.
These are the possibilities :
1. UTG has a pocket pair or a K with no diamonds - then button has 9 outs - which makes it a good call.
2. UTG has no pair, but a diamond and a straight draw (AQ, AJ, QJ) - UTG has 8 outs for a flush, 4 (or 8) outs for a straight, 6 outs for a higher pair, total is 18 outs (using AQ, AJ with 4 outs for the straight rather than QJ, as it is less likely for UTG to raise with QJo).
3. UTG has a pair along with a diamond - button has 2 outs.
4. UTG has a flush already - button has zero outs
Notice I am giving UTG a lot of credit for playing correctly in this case.
Odds of button winning the pot :
1. 9/44 = 20.5% 2. 26/44 = 59% 3. 2/44 = 4.5% 4. 0/44 = 0%
what are the odds of UTG having each of the following type of hands and betting on the flop (into 4 other players), and then also on the turn (into only one player)?
1. it would make sense for UTG to bet on flop and turn 2. it would make sense for UTG to bet on flop and turn 3. it would make sense for UTG to bet on flop and turn 4. it would make sense for UTG to bet on flop and turn
so, for the sake of this exercise, let's say that he either has a hand in 1,2,3 or 4.
these are the possible hands and probability of having those hands :
1. AA (3), KK (2), QQ (3), JJ (3), TT (3), 99 (3), 88 (3), 55 (1) (let's assume he'd check with 77, 66) - remember no diamond in this particular scenario - total is 21.
2. AdQx (4), AdJx (4), QdJx (4) - total is 12
3. AA (3), QQ (3), JJ (3), TT (3) 99 (3) 88 (3) - total is 18 cards
4. UTG had raised with AQd, AJd or QJd - total is 3 cards.
So, the sum of scenarios 1,2,3,4 is 54, making the probabilities of each holdings being :
1. 21/54 = 39% 2. 12/54 = 22% 3. 18/54 = 33% 4. 3/54 = 6%
when we cross multiply the table of probabilisitic holdings versus the percentage times the button will win under each scenario, we get that the button will win eactly 22.6% (21/54 x 9/44 + 12/54 x 26/44 + 18/54 x 2/44 + 3/54 x 0/44) of the time.
Now, let's assume there is no bet on the river to make things easier.
Well, clearly if the button can win 22.6% of the time, and he is getting 7:1 odds, its a good call.
So, my conclusion is to not change my estimation of this player at all. I'm still not so sure about the flop call, but at the worst, I can only see the call on the flop as marginal. But clearly the turn call is fine.
Hopefully I didn't make a mistake with the math.
I agree in principle that it is okay to call ignoring river betting.
However, 2 problems.
1. What card, besides a 4, is the caller hoping for? A diamond may put him in the lead, as in case 1, or it may kill him as in case 2. This lack of knowledge leads to problem 2:
2. The caller may have to call a bet on the river. If he is commiting himself to do this, he needs better than 7-1 pot odds to call. Maybe he thinks if the river gets bet, he can safely fold, but I'm not sure this is true. And since he has zero sure win outs, and only two likely win outs, he has no implied odds to speak of.
Due to these problems, I probably would not have called at any point in this hand. But it may be closer than I think.
David
Something that may have been overlooked is that when the 2 players between UTG and the button folded after UTG bet (both of whom had cold-called his pre-flop raise), this significantly increased the likelihood that UTG held a king and/or a high diamond. When the big blind (a tight player) departed, matters only worsened. And while it's true that if UTG held a king, since it couldn't be a diamond, the chances of him possessing a high diamond went way back down, this was not the case for the other most likely hands: AA, QQ, JJ, or AQ.
All in all, I'd say the button misplayed the hand from start to the penultimate round.
The last time I used the word "penultimate" in one of my posts, Mr. Lepore was letting me have it for months. Look out!
Last time I used it I was living in England and at the Jump races - you know the "penultimate" jump.
I don't take back my comment though on the guy with the 44's I think he belongs in the loose aggressove category this don't make him bad just loose aggressive.
why loose aggressive and not loose passive? after all, he checked the winning hand
With so many chances he is beat I think anyone would check call the 4 high flush.
It don't change much.
Rick,
I can't see why it could possibly hurt you to play at an overs table without an overs button, but it could help you!
Without the button the game will just stay the same limit as long as you are in the hand. So it makes no difference to you.
On the other hand, the other players might well be limping in with a few more marginal hands because of the greater implied odds they will be getting if the hand goes into overs. People might be more inclined to play 45 suited etc.
So again I don't see how it could hurt you, but it could help you by loosening up the game.
Another possible consequence is this:
People will change their strategy toward YOU if you are the only overs player left in the hand.
Someone who is drawing on the flop might want to keep you in the hand so that they will pay 1/2 as much to draw on the turn if they don't hit yet. So they might be less aggressive with their draws.
Someone else who flops a pretty big hand might be more inclined to try to get you out so that they can charge the others more on the later streets for their draws/marginal hands. So they might be less inclined to slowplay.
All in all overs buttons give the advantage to solid, tight players. give it a shot!
-SmoothB-
I observed the following while watching a very large Pot Limit HE game at the Taj last week.
Unfortunately, I did not witness the entire hand so there may not be enough info to voice your opinions, but I'll take a shot and describe what I can. (NOTE: The pots in this game became so huge that oftentimes players would expose their cards to,I guess, either get a reaction from their opponent(s) or to display the best hand and prevent an inferior hand from drawing out-figuring they wouldn't mind taking the pot right now.)
I walked up to the table during a very big hand when it was down to two opponents. The first to act had his cards displayed face up-J spades 9 clubs. The board was J diamonds, 5 6 Q all clubs, J hearts giving this guy the set, but clearly a vulnerable holding. He checked.
The single opponet who had not exposed his cards bet the pot (9,000 $$$). The guy with the set of Jacks thought for about 20 minutes and then folded.
The winner offered to show the guy who folded what he had, but the loser declined to even look at his opponents' cards.
Can anyone comment on whether the folder made a mistake by folding--maybe one of you was even there last Friday and observed this very same hand?
I think the folder made a big mistake by checking and then exposing his hand. To me that's a pretty weak play. I suspect the better had a flush or fullhouse or even made a big bluff at the pot suspecting weakness.
Bruce
I believe his (the bettor's) hand was exposed much earlier in the hand and that the cards fell just so to give his opponent the possibility of a higher holding, as well as the opportunity to bluff successfully as well. I don't know much about pot-limit, but does the bet have to be the size of the pot? In No-Limit sometimes an overbet is a bluff. If the bettor did have a winning hand could he have bet less in the pot-limit format to encourage a call?
Yes, he could have bet less than the pot to encourage a call. He could also bet less than the pot to make it look like he was encouraging a call.
I play in this game on a pretty regular basis. Usually there will be a few scenarios. Rarely only a few players will have the button. I tend not to take an overs button in this setting. The overs situation comes up rarely, dealers don't keep track of the button, players hide the button, etc. It's not worth it and there really is no strategic advantage even if the liveliest player at the table has the button. By the time the button comes into play the live one will either muck on the river when you bet or raise you $160 with his miracle catch. The most common scenario has around 5 or 6 players with the button. Usually 1 or 2 tight players don't have a button so they are a non-entity anyway. Occasionaly a 20-40 player taking a shot at the bigger game will also not take the button. There are a few live ones who also won't play with the button. In this scenario the overs comes into play perhaps every 3 or 4 hands. I have never noticed any hostility towards non-overs players. I really haven't noticed any over aggression towards non-overs players trying to drive them out. Rarely I have played in a game where everyone has had an overs button.
I have found the overs button in general to kill the action. Even the live one doesn't chase as much when the betting doubles on the turn when it is two or three handed. From a solid players perspective more pots are picked up on the turn for a big bet or a raise. Variance does not increase as much as one would expect because of the tighter play. The poorer players are playing more correctly. Pots tend to be larger when there is no overs button.
Bruce
40-80 Hold-em
Seven handed game. UTG and lively aggressive player both limp and the button raises. Button is even more aggressive than the limper, but plays slightly more solid. Limper is a plastic surgeon who likes to splash chips around and check-raise with draws on the turn. I make it three bets from the small blind with AJo. Big blind and UTG both fold so the pot is three handed.
Flop comes JQK with two hearts. I have no hearts. I lead and there is a call followed by a raise. We both call. A third heart comes on the turn. I check,limper checks, and the button bets. I fold and limper calls. A blank comes on the end. Check followed by a check. Limper has Ten high and the button has A4 with the Four of hearts.
Did I give up too prematurely? Comments appreciated.
Bruce
No, not all. That is a horrifying flop for your hand especially with the two flush. You are almost certainly badly beaten and have hardly any outs. A Ten gives you a straight but anyone with an Ace has the same straight. An Ace gives you two pair but anyone with a Ten has a better hand. A Heart could give someone a flush and if not, probably redraws to a flush. I am not sure I would have even called the raise on the flop.
Pre-flop, I think it was pretty sporting of you to 3 bet out of your small blind with Ace-Jack offsuit. The pot is only 7 handed and your 3 bet might drive out everyone except the button who you can isolate. But this is highly speculative and even when it works you are out of position. I guess if you know the button will raise after several players limp in with a piece of cheese like Ace-Four offsuit the play has merit but these clowns find a raise with their good hands as well. Furthermore, the other players at the table may figure out what you are up to and play anyway. If they do you are in very bad shape.
next time you'll get them when you have a set or KQ. that's all you can hope for...if you can't be bluffed out on a hand like this, then can be my new best friend.
I would think that you got out of line pre-flop but then with what your opponents had it looks like you didn't. However, when you make it three bets pre-flop, bet out on the flop, get raised and only call the raise when a KQJ falls with two hearts what do you think your opponents put you on? It wasn't a set of Q's I know that.
I'm not real sure I got out of line BTF. After watching the button raise with similar garbage like that for the last two hours and not having played a hand for a seemingly long time, I felt like my hand was definitely playable. If I am going to put in 2 bets why not reraise and take control and also thin the field. The only problem and a major one at the least was the flop. I have no flush draw and have bottum pair. I am pretty much paralyzed and I have the worst possible position. I guess that's why they say hold-em is a game of position. When the third heart comes on the turn about all I can beat is a bluff against two players. Even if they have nothing at that point, with one card to come they collectively have multiple outs. When the button bets I felt like my choices were either folding or check-raising. Unfortunateley I opted for the former. Generally speaking I have no problem gambling with live ones, but I prefer when I am in a position of strength.
Bruce
Three betting with AJ in the big blind is WAY out of line and is pure gambling regardless of the quality of hands the button had been raising with before the flop. The only purpose of your preflop reraising was building the pot. I don't understand how you could have "taken control" over anything when you were the small blind having to act first the rest of the hand.
Why did you bet the flop in a raised pot against loose players? They weren't going to fold. I would have checked and called unless someone raised.
I especially didn't like your check on the turn. A bet was mandatory BECAUSE you didn't have a good flush draw. The third heart on the turn would have looked as scary to them as it did to you unless they make a flush. If you bet the turn and they raise then you can fold knowing you're beat. If you had a high heart in your hand THEN you should have checked the turn.
Your approach to the game lacks congruity. You say you "have no problem gambling with live ones," but then you fold against them when a scare card comes on the turn. Then you say you prefer to "to be in a position of strength," but then you re-raise before the flop with the worst position.
I can't argue with you about my play of the hand on the turn. Leading because I don't have a draw makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. It certainly is a better option than check-raising. As far as my pre-flop play if I choose to play the hand I think three betting is a better option than calling. I will certainly thin the field, but yes, I do have to contend with my positional disadvantage. I really did pre-flop feel, like I did have the best hand. As Jim B. pointed out three betting from the SB is a sporting type of play and I certainly can't argue with him, but if you feel like your hand is the best it makes some degree of sense.
Bruce
You write in part:
>>I really did pre-flop feel, like I did have the best hand. <<
You were right but you backed off. My basic point was that with the flop that came out and you're strong play pre-flop marked you for having a strong hand on the flop. When you back off your opponents had an easy read.
>>I will certainly thin the field, but yes, I do have to contend with my positional disadvantage.<<
Right which means you have to put some money in the pot that you don't really want to put in but maybe you should have.
Bruce I think you probably took my post the wrong way. All I meant was that your pre-flop read was correct and IMO there was enough of a possibility that you would show down the best hand on the turn that it was wrong to fold. AJ was the best hand going pre-flop. So what hands could your late raising opponent have that beats your hand after the flop that were worse than AJ before the flop? That aren't enough of them to fold IMO.
The more I think about this and read what everyone else has to say, I definitely think you are correct. If I choose to three bet it preflop then play the hand strongly, otherwise I can easily be outplayed.
Bruce
Your reason for three betting before the flop, to take control of the pot, is solid however if three-betting won't make your opponents play more timidly, and you think that your opponent will play his hand very aggressively you probably should adopt a strategy of checking and calling. Also that is a rather poor flop for your hand, so even if you threebet before the flop you might want to check and call the whole way, especially because you have a weak draw.
Now keep in mind I only think this strategy is profitable against the most aggressive players, however your competition seems to fall into this category.
Shawn Keller
Button raised pre-flop into two limpers with A-4 offsuit and then, after you made it 3 bets pre-flop, raised the two of you again into a board of K-Q-J with just an Ace and a back door flush draw to his 4 of hearts. And this player is slightly more solid than the plastic surgeon?
You're going to get these guys' money by playing solid cards, not by re-raising out of position with A-J or by sticking around with bottom pair and a 4-outer (more likely 3; 10 of hearts is trouble) for a straight.
By the way, a plastic surgeon should never limp.
Here's a hand I played last night in a 40-80 game, which has been bothering me. It's late at night and the game is six handed. Two very live players limp in and the small blind, who is equally as live, raises. I am in the big blind with J8o and call. My intent with this thread is to discuss play from the flop on. My call before the flop I realize is very marginal at best, but I made the call and I need to optimize my play from that point on.
The flop comes 8 2s 3s. The SB checks and I bet. The player next to me raises followed by a call and the SB calls. I call. I briefly considered three betting it, but I felt like my holding, although on the flop was probably the best, was quite vulnerable. I put the SB on two overcards. On my left one opponent was probably on a flush draw and the other one probably had a small pair.
On the turn came a red Seven. The SB checked and I checked. The opponent on my left bet followed by a call, call, and my call. I really felt like I had the best hand at this point. My biggest problem was being out of position trying to thin the field. On the turn I considered leading and hoping the next player would raise. I also considered check-raising, but I would be the last player to act and nobody would have to call a double bet.
Anyway on the river a Queen came. The SB led and I was the only caller. The SB had KQ to win the pot. The opponent on my left flashed his pocket Sixes. I did have the best hand until the last card.
Comments greatly appreciated.
Bruce
You played the hand well. There was no way for you to win. The SB played horribly, cold calling a raise on the flop with just overcards. If you had led the turn I doubt the pocket 6's would have raised. One question though, if you felt that your hand was best on the flop why not make it 3 bets when you have the best of it? Though your hand is vulnurable with 4 way action you are still getting value on your raises.
Two choices, 3 bet, muck. vulnerable hand for sure. top pair, chances are better to get players out with 3 bet. Lead turn. If raised and not heads-up and sb still called I muck figuring 8 no good. if heads up, check call.
It was sheer agony reading this story. I know you said you didn't want to talk about your preflop call, but I think it is an abolute MUST to lay down hands like this, and even much better ones, when the SB raises and the hand will be multi way.
As it went down, I like your bet on the flop. The player who raised you on the flop might have you beat, but the others surely don't. Good info. I think it's okay to only call the flop raise instead of reraising, just to keep the pot small enough so that two overcards will take you seriously when you bet the turn, and lay down. Except that you didn't bet the turn. I think you should. If you get raised by, say, QJ on your left, you can muck and save a bet over check-call-turn, check-call-river. If you don't get raised, you gotta like your hand. When the overcard comes and the SB bets, I'd fold. I mean, you had him read perfectly, right? And then changed your mind.
Side note: I am more likely to fold shakey hands from the BB when it is the SB that raises. It's amazing to me how routinely thoughtful players call this raise from the BB.
Even if the BB is a little out of line, like this guy was, you know for sure he they are not stealing with two limpers already in. They have some kind of hand, which means you're going to run into kicker problems and big pocket pairs, and more importantly, you'll need cooperation to blast out the SB out since you are behind him.
Tommy
There is no doubt the correct play for me was to fold when the SB raised. I have the worst possible position and I will have a difficult time protecting my hand if I do flop anything. The nature of the game and the lineup makes it very difficult for me at times to make these laydowns BTF despite knowing better. I know I will be getting such large implied odds that I have a tough time passing on these type of hands from the blinds. The opposition is so weak in general that I lose my objectivity.
Bruce
Bruce,
This hand doesn't have good implied odds with no flush, two gaps (much worse than one gap in my opinion), and below average high card strength. Even against weak opposition you need the type of hand that can at least flop something decent when you have three opponents and bad position. Jack-eight offsuit rarely flops more than a mediocre hand.
Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse here since you know this but I'm writing this for my own benefit since I have played some shaky hands in the big blind lately against a raise and multiple weak opponents.
Regards,
Rick
First of all, what is a "LIVE player(s)?" Do they play loose, well, poorly, or what?
Secondly, calling one bet before the flop in the big blind with J8o is mandatory. You're getting 7-1 on your money on that call alone.
When two people COLD CALLLED on the flop you KNEW that at least one of them was on a flush draw.
Nothing is gained from three-betting on the flop. The other players aren't going anywhere and I don't see the point in building the pot when holding potentially the worst hand. That is, if the raiser has an overpair or a set and another player is on a draw then J8o is a huge MONEY underdog at that point.
Therefore there's NO VALUE in putting in more money in the pot when getting the worst of it. You were correct by not re-raising. There's too much money in the pot to fold when you're getting 15-1 to call.
I would have bet again on the turn. If the player to your right raises again you know he has a set and you can safely fold. He won't raise again with a flush draw or an overpair. The other players won't raise either. If the small blind has a set he'd be making a mistake by slowplaying.
The problem with checking on the turn is you STILL won't know where you stand if the flop raiser bets on the turn, the other two players call, and it's up to you. Also, you risk giving a free card to the drawing hands, since the flop raiser may also be on the come.
Being "out of position trying to thin the field" was the LEAST of your problems. It's rare to get someone off a draw or a better hand than yours in a multiway hand in limit poker. Your real problem was being trapped in a big pot and not knowing where you stood while having to sweat it out. But as someone else has already said, the small blind played poorly and your loss was unavoidable.
"Secondly, calling one bet before the flop in the big blind with J8o is mandatory. You're getting 7-1 on your money on that call alone. >>
Yikes! Your reason for calling is the same as my reason for folding. In your mind the odds are plenty good enough. In my mind, the odds are dreadfully poor.
< Agreed. That's why I fold before the flop.
Tommy
It's also about implied odds. That is, if J8o flops something good he may win many bets and a decent pot. Or he may flop a draw. But if he flops nothing he can get out cheaply. Folding before the flop is simply giving up too much, unless it's a full table low-limit California game where pots are routinely capped before the flop.
I hate to criticize anyone who makes a legimate and well constructed post.
Dear Backdoor:
Not "having time to elaborate" on my analysis of Bruce's hand, while criticizing me at the same time, is a pure cop-out by you.
Had you actually pointed out some holes in my logic it might have been constructive to the forum. Instead, you chose the ad-hominem attack of my post being "seemingly well thought out." Of course this is common in places like this with anonymous posters.
If your lazy approach to logic carries over to the tables expect to lose when your luck runs out.
Take the Points,
I couldn't agree with you anymore. My preflop call opened a pandora's box. It was a bad play on my part and when you start with a relatively poor hand with bad position it is difficult to fight an uphill battle. I try to be open minded and objective when I post here and if I just presented my brilliant plays I would just be fooling myself and everyone else. I make my share of bonehead plays although I like to think they are few and far between.
Bruce
Bruce,
I admire your attitude and honesty. Someone that is honest with himself and works on his game in a thoughtful manner has a great chance to reach the upper echelons of poker and STAY THERE!
Regards,
Rick
Dear Bruce:
I wish you had posted this analysis the first time around instead of what I had interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as a personal pot-shot against me. At least now I know you're not an intellectual lightweight.
I do concede your points about domination and reverse implied odds. But I've always believed those two principles are only relevant for play ON the flop. Of course catching "a piece of the flop" with J8o can be very dangerous, especially with top pair/bad kicker with nothing else to go with it.
Re-raising top pair on the flop against probable draws is a tactical mistake. This is a principle from Sklansky's Theory of Poker. He explains it very well. Remember that Bruce may have already been behind on the flop. And if TWO people COLD call a raise on the flop with two suited cards, I'd bet my my life savings that someone is on a flush draw in that situation. People do not cold call on the flop with random holdings.
Also, betting on the turn without a drawing hand and checking on the turn with drawing hands is a general strategy from S&M's Hold'em for Advanced Players.
Another idea from the same book is to raise with a set if a third suited card comes on the turn and someone bets into you. Had Bruce bet the turn, another player holding a set (or less likely two pair) would have make a mistake by only calling.
I don't remember making any sweeping generalizations. I was discussing reading hands in this one case because I felt that Bruce's hand was a clear-cut example. How many people will raise with an overpair (especially without holding the suited ace) on the turn when a third suited card hits and someone has bet?
I like betting in SOME situations where others would check IF I feel I can get information from the other players and can better read their hands. Of course "misreads" are possible, but I don't get married to initial reads.
Respectfully, T.T.P.
Uh, I meant "Dear Backdoor:"
Posted by: Take The Points (TakeThePoints@webtv.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 September 2000, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Sunday, 24 September 2000, at 1:35 a.m.
It is very rare to find a post that is literate and seemingly well thought out that is so mistaken. But I believe you are incorrect on every single point of contention. This most assuredly includes the call with J 8 off. This absolutely blows shorthanded. All your other points need to be rethought as well, in my opinion. But take this as you will.
Take care and good luck. I have no time to elaborate. By the way bruce's posts are usually extremely well played hands; this is not one of them.
Posted by: Take The Points
Posted on: Sunday, 24 September 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Sunday, 24 September 2000, at 8:13 p.m.
I have time now, if you will indulge me.
The first point is the preflop call. This is why the hand seems difficult to play after the flop. You get one of your better flops (a Jack high flop is more likely to be dominated.) and yet you are hanging there still guessing. A good rule of thumb, I believe suggested by Ciafonne (but I wont speak for him), is to ask your self whether you would call this hand in late position for no raise. J 8 offsuit (suited isnt much better), should rarely be played except as a steal hand against the blinds or sometimes in the small blind ( I wouldn't personally though, although a case can be made for it mathematically). For excellent discussion in preflop strategy see the web page of Abdul Jalib (there is a link here). It is important to consider that this is a shorthand game where high card power rules. Regarding this hand and implied odds, all hands have implied odds to some degree; this particular one has more in the way of reverse implied odds and is in serious danger of being dominated. Anything further on this call would be belabouring the point.
Your post indicates that bruce knew from the cold calls that someone was on a flush draw. Or should know. While sometimes this is true there is no valid reason to come to this conclusion. The cold calls could indicate almost anything. But the presence of a flush draw does not alter your strategy anyway at this point. You should definitely continue raising if you are against known draws. Perhaps you are considering the Morton concept, which shows us that the strongest draws benefit from the this type of flop action. If this is the case, then your post should mention this because, the Morton concepts and their implications are little known. But even if this is true, the leading hand is still the leading hand. bruce's judgement told him he was still leading so there he might as well get his money in there. Playing very aggressively short handed is a winning strategy.
I like your idea of betting the turn, but assuming someone who raises has a set (which is unlikely) is incorrect. Many players would and should raise here with an overpair or even a hand such as a high flush with overcards. It is difficult to explain this; you must have experience with high limit shorthanded poker. This happens all the time.
Checking the turn may be a mistake, but it has nothing to do with seeing where you are at. This idea is not valid. The correct reason for betting is to maximize your chances of winning and getting more money in as the likely favorite. To bet or raise to find out where you are at is a common mistake made by players who do not understand fundamentals.
You other point about his position being the least of his problems is not true either. His position vis a vis the flop aggressor is a very large consideration. This is also why betting the turn is usually better because a raise from the flop aggressor would possibly knock out the small blind.
But to be more general about why your post is incorrect is mainly because you are making sweeping assumptions that simply are not likely to be true. Assuming people are on flush draws, or have sets because they put in one raise, or will not raise with an overpair is setting yourself up for consistent and constant misreads. But this is your choice.
To recap, the biggest mistake was preflop, which bruce believes is marginal, and I believe is serious. All the future indecision and so called mistakes flow from this first mistake. If you read bruce's posts you will see that he plays a strong aggressive game and has good judgement. This was a rare lapse.
Regarding your post, I rarely criticize someone who has made a legimate effort. But I strongly believe all your points are off base, and should be thought out. I realize this post of mine doesnt explain much, but it takes a great deal of time to get into fundamental theory and all its subtle implications. I dont have the time or inclination for more.
Good luck and take care. Apoplogies in advance for all the typos, misspells and all that.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 12:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 2:58 a.m.
Posted by: TakeThePoints
Posted on: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: TakeThePoints
Posted on: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 3:20 a.m.
Sounds more like a 2-4 game with the loose play your table is initiating in.
Trust me, it doesn't play much differently.
Bruce
2 errors:
1. Preflop call which you already know
2. Turn check (see Tommy's post)
But what about the sb's play: Horrible at best. He raises preflop out of sb with KQ. Checks flop. Then calls two bets cold (truly horrible). Then calls turn bet (marginal).
But then again I have no experience playing Shorthanded (well 2 hours experience last night on Planet Poker which I would rather not talk about:)), so I could be way off on sb's play (but I doubt it).
skp- It surprises me that you haven't played much shorthanded. I 'read' you as the type of guy who would jump at the chance to play three or four handed.
The great thing about shorthanded play is that even if you're running bad you still have a blast. All my great poker stories come from shorthanded games.
GD,
Re: my lack of sh experience: It's more a lack of opportunity as opposed to a lack of willingness on my part. Here in Vancouver, there are very few players who play shorthanded and accordingly, the casinos will not even start a new game until there are 9 people on the list. Then, if the game starts and if a couple of guys leave, no one else wants to keep playing.
That said, there is of course plenty of opportunity to play sh on the net (and particularly Planet). I wanted to wait until I built up a a bit of a Planet bankroll before wading into the sh games. I did that a few days ago and got my ass kicked but...it was fun and just like Arnie..I'll be back.
skp,
i have read your posts and think you will do very well short handed. Its a much more profitable and fun game for a thinking player.
I love shorthanded. You can make two bigs an hour easily with good game selection, and excellent play.
good luck.
x
Small blind was truely a very poor player having made many similar plays through out the night, but the poker gods were with him for that particular session. He cashed out with nine racks of brown chips when it was all said and done.
Bruce
I don't doubt he was horrible. But you have to give him credit for having the stones to bet his hand once he got there.
Bruce,
Is this the Oceans11 $40-80 game?
Puggy
Yes
Raising out of the SB with KQ shorthanded is not too bad. I agree the rest of his play was terrible.
Bruce,
I haven't read the other responses yet but will after posting.
You wrote: "The flop comes 8 2s 3s. The SB checks and I bet. The player next to me raises followed by a call and the SB calls. I call. I briefly considered three betting it, but I felt like my holding, although on the flop was probably the best, was quite vulnerable. I put the SB on two overcards. On my left one opponent was probably on a flush draw and the other one probably had a small pair."
I can see putting the SB on overcards with some reliability put I can't see putting the other players on much yet. If you think you have a probably best but vulnerable hand you should either raise again or lead on the turn if a flush card or ace does not come. I lean towards raising.
"On the turn came a red Seven. The SB checked and I checked. The opponent on my left bet followed by a call, call, and my call. I really felt like I had the best hand at this point. My biggest problem was being out of position trying to thin the field. On the turn I considered leading and hoping the next player would raise. I also considered check-raising, but I would be the last player to act and nobody would have to call a double bet."
I like the lead bet given this is a semi-blank and the fact you checked the flop. Your hand is not strong enough for a check raise and as you mention, it wouldn't thin the field anyway.
"Anyway on the river a Queen came. The SB led and I was the only caller. The SB had KQ to win the pot. The opponent on my left flashed his pocket Sixes. I did have the best hand until the last card."
The pot was protected when the queen came and the SB led into three opponents who had been betting or calling on previous rounds. Unless the SB was a maniac, you probably should get out.
If I were as strong a player as you, I would let this hand bother me too ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Calling on the river was very borderline at best. SB was on a roll and was definetely capable of firing into the pot with a Queen on the river. From his perspective it didn't make a difference if there were two or nine players left. He had made previous bluffs on the river trying to represent hands. I called because I really didn't put my two opponents on my left on anything. The player who bet on the turn was a habitual bluffer and semi-bluffer. When I called on the river I even thought about raising hoping not to get an overcall if my assessment was off of the other two players.
Bruce
Bruce,
By what you say a call or raise on the river is almost mandatory. When a player is "on a roll" they can do the craziest things and you just have to slow him down or snap him off.
Regards,
Rick
The game broke when Bobby had to catch a plane home to LA. I gave him a ride to the airport. I am soooo impressed by this man. We've been playing once a week for the last month at the $10-$10-$20, $40 to go, no-limit game at Lucky Chances.
He busted me tonight on a fairly routine hand (below).
I had already played several times, three hours sessions. I like to recycle through the must-move game after an hour of 6-12 to unwind. It's just so intense. After three or four hours I'm fried. Sometimes I come home and nap and go back, like I did last night.
When I went back the game was breaking up. We kept it going three-handed. Me, Bobby, and a third player I'll call Joe. Bobby was on my left. Joe had $2000, Bobby had way more than that. I bought in for $2000, planning to stay away from Bobby. I have a HUGE edge against Joe. So I very much liked the game, and my seating position.
The first few times Bobby had the button, he mucked and I tangled with Joe.
Then Bobby made it $120 on the button. Joe folded. I look down to find AA. Not much thinking at this point. I gotta make a move now, or trap. I went for option two. I don't think there is a right or wrong here that can be expressed in words. It felt right at the time, so I went with it.
I called the $120.
Flop came Q-J-5, with two of one suit. I checked, Bobby bet $300, I check raised all in. Bobby called fast. Gulp. Then he said, "I sure hope you didn't flop a set of fives." I knew instantly that he had QJ, top two. I said, "QJ is good."
He turned it over, the standard courtesy in these situations, even though he was calling me. Two blanks came, and I mucked face down. He might think I had a good draw, since check-raising big with those hands is fairly common. I'm very glad I did not have to show my hand. It's a war of information, and in a very real and important way, I won this battle.
Soon after, Bobby said he had to leave in an hour to catch a plane. That affected my play on the next confrontation. Bobby made it $220 on the button. Joe folded. I had AK. My gut told me to shove in, but the time crunch made me just call. Against a player like Bobby, it'd be better to just fold the damn thing and play against Joe as planned. I hated the call. It was a terrible play. But I did it. Flop came 10-9-x. I checked. Bobby bet $500. I folded, and quit immediately, partly to lock up the remaining profit from earlier, and partly to talk to Bobby for a while. I even asked him if I could post about him here.
When I grow up, I want to be like Bobby Hoff. The guy is all class, and all balls.
Tommy
In no limit, a good reason not to reraise a raiser when your hand is merely very good, is that you will usually only get called when you are beaten and thus "waste" the value of your hand. That is why you will often see great no limit players make this play with J5 offsuit but not KQ suited. In the case of AA however, when you do get called you still have the best hand. Against a player of Bobby Hoff's calibre you should almost always reraise with those aces, especially when you are out of position.
"you will usually only get called when you are beaten and thus "waste" the value of your hand."
Can you elaborate on this?
Waddayaknow, I think *I* can actually elaborate on this. When you reraise with a very good, but not great hand, you turn your hand into 72, as David puts it in an essay in _P,G, & L_. That is, now, because your opponent has to either fold or call a very big bet, he will usually only call with something even better than your "very good" hand. So your bet has essentially become the same as an outright bluff with, say, 72. On the other hand, when you reraise with a huge hand, you *hope to be called, because little if anything can beat you.
This makes total sense. Thanks, John. I got hung up on the use of the word 'waste'.
If the decision to reraise or not should be based on Bobby Hoff's ability as you say, and I agree that it should in part, then clearly the best play is to NOT reraise, since he is capable of mucking QQ or KK before the flop. If he has one of those two hands, or even JJ or 10-10, my best shot at busting him is to only call his preflop raise, and then check the flop.
If my goal was to win the money in the pot, I would of course had reraised and taken it down.
As usual, the most important thing above all in these situations is not the cards or the players, but the chip count. If we both had $100,000 and there was one dollar in the pot, then none of the discussion so far would apply. Likewise, if one of us only had $300 to start the hand,and the blinds were $50-$100, all thinking would be adjusted.
The money happened to be within that zone where either way of playing the hand had the same long-run expectation. I could either take down the pot right there before the flop, or risk my stack by taking a shot at his stack with AA. The risk of getting aces cracked equalled the gain of getting him to move in when they weren't cracked. I knew it was an even-money choice at the time, so I just picked one and went with it.
Tommy
Well either you or David are right but not both.
I would be interested in further exploration of your statement that either way of playing the hand had the same expectation.
If you reraised enough to win the pot right there your hand had an expectation of $120 plus the blinds. If you just called your hand had an expectation of approximately whatever equity you had in the pot at the time plus your chances of trapping Bobby for future bets (probably your stack) minus your chances of losing future bets (probably your stack). Note that while fewer flops are more favorable to him than to you, you are more tied onto the pot than he is: if he doesn't hit the flop hard he may take a reasonable stab at it and release in the face of too much strength. So your chances of losing your stack versus doubling it may indeed be roughly 50-50. However much depends on his personal likelihood of comitting fully with, say, only top pair with hardly a kicker in a relatively small pot.
Now what about the scenario in which you might reraise enough to warrant a call but not enough to blow him out. Now your expectation is your equity in the now larger pot plus and minus the same factors above. If your stack was smaller I could see where a certain reraise would more or less make you both pot-committed and that is what you ideally want. However your stacks are larger so you cannot bet enough to ensure that all the money goes in either now or on the flop. Still, a reraise that almost forces him to call not only increases your equity at present but also increases the likelihood that he will be tied on by flopping, say, top pair. You stand to gain further equity if he goes all-in when he flops top pair if your preflop reraise (called) was the right amount. In fact this is rather what you seemed to be hoping for the way you played the hand. So it appears that a significant but callable reraise on your part would have had two advantages. It would not have adversely affected your postflop calling much because, except with the very worst flops, you were pretty much comitted to call anyway.
The value of deception here is directly related to the whether the value of deception outweighs the greater immediate equity of a callable reraise and the further factor that a larger pot ties him on more as well, minus the factor that he may perceive what you are trying to accomplish and fold anyway. This is why the amount of the reraise is critical. I know your stacks are large enough that you can't raise a level that is perfect for him to call and be fully pot-committed, but I think that should be your goal as close as possible. You don't want to reraise so little that he is getting plenty of odds yet the pot is so small he will fold on the flop easily. If I were playing in this game I would just try to ballpark it and I am still wondering just where. Probably I would make it about 2/3 or 3/4 of the size of a full pot-limit raise if you had 2K in front of you. This is just a guesstimate and probably not the very best amount. He would have a hard time not calling because of his odds and implied odds, but you are not giving him a free shot at the flop, and you are tying him onto the pot somewhat. If you had more I would make it somewhat more. The worst scenario is what happened--if that is going to happen you don't want to allow him free odds for it to occur.
Of course if he is extremely aggressive your way of playing it may have more merit than it seems. However, I doubt that he is so aggressive as to not use judgment as the hand progresses. This is why I favor building the pot to tie him on and to reduce his initial odds.
M wrote:
"I would be interested in further exploration of your statement that either way of playing the hand had the same expectation."
Okay.
" . . . if he doesn't hit the flop hard he may take a reasonable stab at it and release in the face of too much strength."
Eggzactly. My read was that he would bet the flop over 99% of the time if I checked. Since he had me covered, the amount he would bet would be somewhere between the size of the pot and half of my chips. Or all in, which is unlikely.
Let's presume that he would fold after I check-raise all-in if he did not flop two pair or better. This means I rate to win whatever he bets on the flop most of the time.
Already we have several things that, if precisely known, could help determine mathematically the most reasonable course of action.
1) The likelihood that he will bet the flop after I check 2) The amount he would bet 3) The likelihood of him flopping two pair or better (knowable)
As to number one, well, I made a read, and I still think it was right. It'd take forever to explain why. If that read was wrong, then I agree strongly that making some sort of move before the flop would have been best. In other words, if I thought there was a remote chance he would check behind me on the flop, I would have definitely NOT slowplayed, and we would not be exploring this line of play.
Next is the amount he would have bet. I think the most likely bet from him was around $400, based on history and hunch. If he then folds after I check-raise, I gain $400 by slowplaying. I did NOT like my chances of getting all his chips. That is the strongest case against the slowplay; that I stood to gain at most half of his chips, or lose all of mine.
What we're left with is a range of profit I stood to make if he did not flop two pair or better, and a definite amount I stood to lose if he did (all my chips). If we weigh the profit range against the chances of him hitting the flop hard, and factor in the all-chips risk, we are left with a range of possibilities that corrolates to the profit range. As best I can figure, that range straddles 50-50.
Another item in the fray is those times that he has KK, QQ or JJ. Because of this particular flop, Q-J-5, my hope of trapping those hands was 2/3 dashed. In retrospect, this made the decision to carry through with the check-raise all-in less profitable. With that flop, it might have been better to check raise only half my chips on the flop. That might have been enough to get him off a bluff or a one-pair hand or even an open ender. And if he then reraised the rest of my chips on the flop, I could have saved some money.
Yet another consideration. There was two of a suit on the flop. Check-raising big with a big draw is a play we see often here. There is a distinct chance that Bobby might gamble with me with one pair if he thought there was a good enough likelihood that I was drawing. This variable is impossible for me to even guess at. I move my chips plenty, but I have no idea if Bobby thinks I would make this play.
Wow, there are so many things. Who knows how this hand might affect future hands? If anyone stands to gain from this hand down the road, I think it is me, if for no other reason that Bobby now knows I'm not afraid to play a pot. (This was our first all-in confrontation in our 20-hour history.) There's an intangible value in that. This hand might keep him from running over me in pot and pot and pot in the future, and that adds up. He might sometimes choose to launch his harpoon at tamer sharks. I definitely know I will! lol
On preflop options, you wrote:
"Now what about the scenario in which you might reraise enough to warrant a call but not enough to blow him out. Now your expectation is your equity in the now larger pot plus and minus the same factors above. If your stack was smaller I could see where a certain reraise would more or less make you both pot-committed and that is what you ideally want. However your stacks are larger so you cannot bet enough to ensure that all the money goes in either now or on the flop. Still, a reraise that almost forces him to call not only increases your equity at present but also increases the likelihood that he will be tied on by flopping, say, top pair. You stand to gain further equity if he goes all-in when he flops top pair if your preflop reraise (called) was the right amount. In fact this is rather what you seemed to be hoping for the way you played the hand. So it appears that a significant but callable reraise on your part would have had two advantages. It would not have adversely affected your postflop calling much because, except with the very worst flops, you were pretty much comitted to call anyway. >>
Excellent!
" . . . the amount of the reraise is critical.>>
Agreed.
"You don't want to reraise so little that he is getting plenty of odds yet the pot is so small he will fold on the flop easily. . . . Probably I would make it about 2/3 or 3/4 of the size of a full pot-limit raise if you had 2K in front of you.>>
3/4 would be somewhere around a $280 raise, meaning I would chunk $400 out there (120+280). So happens I like to bet with only hundreds if that is the order of magnitute at the time. That means he would be calling $280 to try to win $2120 or so (all of my chips plus his $120 already in. That is a VERY good number to string him out with, if that is the chosen course. I do think he would play for that amount with any hand that he would open for $120, because he has the extra bonus of possibly reading weakness in me and bluffing.
But I'd tend to make it at least $600 total, and more likely half my chips. Why? Here's a funny dialogue from just the other night to explain. I was not in the hand.
One player made a push at a pot before the flop. The other raised, but not too big. The first player shoved all in, $5000. The other player said, "What are you afraid of?" And folded.
Think about that. One guy bets $5000, and the opponent CORRECTLY interprets this as FEAR! lol I love that!
Well, when it comes to trapping or not with aces out of position when the other guy opens large, I either set the trap, or I get scared, and reraise a bunch before the flop, either half my chips or all, depending on the stack sizes. You helped me face my weakness, and forced me to consider other options. Thanks.
< Yeah, that was a key factor not brought up the first time around.
Great post, M. Thanks for your time.
Tommy
There is usually a lot going on in NL (as we can see from these analyses). You brought up some things I didn't consider, plus you know him 100% better than I do. Thanks for an interesting scenario to contemplate.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 6:14 a.m.
If the decision to reraise or not should be based on Bobby Hoff's ability as you say, and I agree that it should in part, then clearly the best play is to NOT reraise, since he is capable of mucking QQ or KK before the flop. If he has one of those two hands, or even JJ or 10-10, my best shot at busting him is to only call his preflop raise, and then check the flop.
If he is capable of making the pre-flop folds that you say he is then you are playing to predictably and not making enough speculateive pre-flop raises. (66, A5s, QTs, 87s, ATo, etc.)
When you are occasionally making these types of raises he will be more than happy to come over the top of you (sometimes just calling thinking he is trapping himself) with his bigger pairs and in my opinion this is the way to double through someone with pocket aces (and sometimes kings)-- NOT by "trapping yourself."
< I completely agree. We might have a mixup here.
I DO open MANY pots with these kinds of hands for more than the minimum open. (In the lingo here, the 'opener' is never a 'raiser,' no matter how much he opens for. That's because the minimum open is the TOTAL of the blinds, not the amount of the big blind. So there is no bet to "call," in the usual preflop manner. If the first player chunks $1000 in the pot, the dealer will say, "Open for $1000.")
In the hand with Bobby, he was the opener, and he opened big for the pave of the game at the time. If I raised him, that in a sense is a reraise (in normal syntax), not the type of thing I'm likely to do with the above hands. I'm pretty sure you are not suggesting that I should, correct?
< Agreed. That's a common play in this game. Related to that is a nifty thing about stealing preflop from the blinds after some tempting limp money in already in the pot. The only guy the theif has to look out for is the opener who might have slowplayed a big pair. If he's not the type to make that play, the dead money is often there for grabbing, depending on who the limpers are, and the stack sizes.
Let me clarify that I did NOT put Bobby on a big pair when he opened large. A big pair was one of many possible hands that he might hold. Part of the decision to trap was based on "what if he DOES have a big pair." In this case, one viable way of making money was to call before the flop and check the flop. Another way would be to make a move before the flop with half or less of my chips. But by doing that, I felt I would be giving up on the added chances of busting profiting when he had a hand that he would fold before the flop if I moved, but that he would bet the flop if I only called before the flop and then checked the flop.
Tommy
.
If I raised him, that in a sense is a reraise (in normal syntax), not the type of thing I'm likely to do with the above hands. I'm pretty sure you are not suggesting that I should, correct?
Not only am I suggesting that you should...you must! I guarantee you that he does it. (This is even more true playing short handed.)
Let me clarify that I did NOT put Bobby on a big pair when he opened large.
All the more reason to raise in most cases. If he doesn't have the big pair then the only future money you aim to win is what he puts out there as a bluff when he misses. You will also win some money win he hits, but since he will miss most of the time this is what you are shooting for. However, by just calling you are giving him infinite implied odds (relative to the size of your stack) to flop a monster for free, which is exactly what happened. He's 48 to one against flopping two pair and about 30 to one against flopping two pair, trips or a straight but when you just call those odds go out the window.
Also, how commited is he going to be flopping top pair with that hand in the face of a giant bet or raise. Do you really like your chances of busting him? I don't. Winning something yes, doubling through no. Unless of course he commits half or more of his stack pre-flop which is unlikely with that hand but very possible with a hand like ace-king or ace-queen suited.
Part of the decision to trap was based on "what if he DOES have a big pair." In this case, one viable way of making money was to call before the flop and check the flop
Here is where I disagree. If you are stabbing occasionally at pots, coming over the top, especially in cases where you think you can make him lay it down, he is going to take note of that and be more inclined to play back at you with big pairs. (In fact, the above case is a perfect example becuase if you had pocket 2-2 (or even 7-2 for that matter) you could have come over the top because you said "I did NOT put Bobby on a big pair when he opened large," therefore making him fold most of the time. Nothing works all the time so beware.) Now, when you DO have the big pair and he does to he is going to be more inclined to play back at you, commiting himself to the pot and giving you a great opportunity to double up. He will also play back at you once in a while with hands like ace-king or pocket eights because he knows he has to take a stand sometimes especially if you are the type of player that will try and take the pot away from him witout having much of a hand.
Jimmy,
You make many good points. No time to reply right now, but I will later. I just wanted to direct you to the exchange with "M" about this hand, in case you didn't already see it. We covered a lot of your reasoning there.
Tommy
Posted by: Tommy (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: Jimmy R.
Posted on: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Tommy your logic makes perfect sense to me BUT kills the old saying "if you limp with AA you will never go broke with AA."
I reserve that play or tactic for the times I flop a top set or a made hand.
Here is how I like to play AA - I want to make a nudge sort of raise maybe a pot sized raise. This is designed to get rid of the foggy hands and get me heads up with what I hope is a hand I really dominate like KK or AK - preferably KK QQ etc. A hand good eneough where I will still have them post flop.
I hate suprises like having a guy limp with a 9T and have a 678 hit the flop - I want this guy out of my life for the next few mins.
Rounder writes:
"Here is how I like to play AA - I want to make a nudge sort of raise maybe a pot sized raise. This is designed to get rid of the foggy hands and get me heads up with what I hope is a hand I really dominate like KK or AK - preferably KK QQ etc. A hand good eneough where I will still have them post flop. >>
Dang, I wish you could see this game one time. Then all future rantings from me would make so much more sense. There are plenty of players, including me, who will call these "pot-sized" preflop raises in certain situations with the same hands that you want out of your way. For example, if someone opens for $100, and everyone is out, and I've got 2-2, or even 7-5 suited, WITH position, I'll often call if the circumstances are just right, namely, that we both have tons of chips, and that the player tends to fall in love with his hand.
I had a hand the other day where a guy opened for $120 and I was the only caller. I had 5-3 offsuit on the button. The flop came A-10-10 with two of a suit. He bet $200. I thought he was worried. But raising here is still too risky, especially since it breaks Doyle's law about having at least some kind of out. So I just called. After I called I knew he was done with the hand. He checked the turn, I bet $300, and he folded.
Tommy
Maybe you are the type of player I might be trying to isolate with my smallish raise - If you are calling with that kinda crap - the key is to cut down on the collective out against me so I have the 88% chance of my AA holding up.
It is the under pairs I want heads up against my AA. But I'd settle for the 5-3 any time.
Oh, well, if you have aces, I won't play 5-3. lol
That 5-3 hand was a very rare situation, having everything to do with the nature of the other player and his current state of mind.
Tommy
Still, that seems like a weird call with 35s.
You said that you'll make this call if you're opponent has a lot of chips and tends to fall in love with his hand. But, judging from the turn play, I'd say he isn't the type to fall in love with his hand, which makes the pre-flop call look curious.
I'd rather be up against someone who will muck rather than someone who will always call in the situation you describe, since you'll make more bluffing with a hand like 35s than you ever will by hitting flops.
Oops. Sorry GD, I smashed a couple things into one. My fault.
The 'lots of chips' and 'falling in love with hand' remark was meant for calling with small pairs in position, even if the raise seems kinda big. If the raise is, say, 1/15 of our stack sizes, I'm in against a player who quickly commits with an overpair and a scattered board.
The 3-5 hand was a situation where I had been running exceptionally hot against the raiser for a couple months, having won a few big pots in that time, with the best hand start to finish. As soon as I called the flop, he started grumbling. When he bet the flop and I called, he had alrady given up.
Tommy
The reason I ballparked "15-1" in the prior post. instead of 9-1, is to account for those times that:
1) one of the blinds comes over the top big and I have to fold
2) I flop a set and lose
Tommy
"Against a player of Bobby Hoff's calibre you should almost always reraise with those aces, "
I am not a No Limit player yet I came to the same conclusion as Mr Wiz from Oz. It seems to me that Tommy played reverse poker here. He allowed his opponent to dictate the play of the hand. Hoff raised $120 before the flop and basically said that is how much I am willing to pay to see the flop. Tommy said o.k, thus giving Hoff in effect a free flop. Tommy hoped to trap Hoff. But if you look at the hands it is Hoff that actually has the better no limit post flop trapping hand. A,A is a preflop power house with little post flop trapping power. Trying to get as much money in the pot preflop with A,A in a heads up situation seems to be the correct strategy here. I'm not sure what the correct amount to reraise is here but a reraise is a must.
Vince.
" . . . thus giving Hoff in effect a free flop.>>
Yeah. That aspect of this hand made my knees ache.
< Agreed that it's not a good hand to trap for ALL chips, but it's likely to get something from the opener, especially with a preplanned, smooth check.
<< Trying to get as much money in the pot preflop with A,A in a heads up situation seems to be the correct strategy here. I'm not sure what the correct amount to reraise is here but a reraise is a must. >>
See M's post.
Tommy
Im going to be in Tunica in a couple of weeks and want to get my feet wet at no-limit holdem. Can anyone direct me to a no limit low buy-in game there if any?
Reduced variance.
There is no edge for either player in terms of monetary expectation. If you played it out with one board 1 million times, or dealt twice 1 million times, or whatever, your expectation per occurrence would remain the same.
However, since you get in 2 trials at half price in the same amount of time, your variance goes down.
I wish I had done it a couple of weeks ago when my opponent spiked quads on the river against my higher set. Then I would have gotten half the pot.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You are under the gun playing 80-160 and decide to open raise with 87s for deceptive purposes.
The flop comes 8-7-3.
Against one opponent that called behind you do you bet or check?
If you check and he bets do you checkraise?
If you both check what do you do on the turn? (Most people bet here)
1. Usually
2. Definitely
3. If it got to this point I would often check again.
BET YOUR HAND, I PLAY LOW LIMITS AND I UNDERSTAND THIS ONE BET!
80/160 hand. I am UTG (seat 3) with AsJs. I raise.
Seat 6 calls (loose/aggressive player). Seat 7 3 bets (semi-tight/aggressive player)
I put seat 6 on a myriad of possible hands. I put seat 7 on a big pair or AK, AQs
One of the blinds call, I call, seat 6 calls.
Flop is 876 with 2 spades.
I check, seat 6 bets, seat 7 raises, blind folds, I call.
turn is a 9s - giving me the nut flush.
I check, hoping to checkraise vs a big pair or a T. And I don't necessarily mind if both check too, because I don't mind a free card in this instance. And there's a good chance if I bet out, that they would both fold...however if it is checked around on the turn, I don't mind betting or check/raising on the river.
They both check.
River is a 9c - board is 99876 with 3 spades.
I decide to check again, because I am almost
....sorry, this is an incomplete post. To see the full post, please see the thread above this one.
40-80 Hold-em. Game is seven handed and the action is fast and furious. UTG, the most skillful player at the table raises. Two other players call. Small blind calls and I call in the BB with 9Tspades.
Flop comes 578 with two spades. Small blind and I check. UTG bets. Next player raises. Third player reraises. Small blind folds and I cap it.
A red King comes on the turn. UTG bets. Next player raises. He plays very aggressively and is stuck big time. His aggressiveness is to the point where it is detrimental to play. Another words he overplays his hands. Next player calls. I call. UTG reraises and the next player caps it. The following player calls and I call.
A blank comes on the river. UTG bets and everyone passes. UTG had 46s and the next player had KJ of spades. I don't know what the other player had.
My thinking is the following. I certainly didn't put UTG on a straight. I thought he had a set of kings. Regardless that really doesn't affect the value of my draw. I pretty much knew that my flush draw was no good and perhaps there was also another flush draw out as well. On the turn I certainly don't like putting four bets in, but when I called the first $160 I was getting the right price as well as with the final $160. Unfortunately I didn't get there.
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
Flop comes 578 with two spades. Small blind and I check. UTG bets. Next player raises. Third player reraises. Small blind folds and I cap it.
How can you cap this? You are getting 3-1 on your raise, but the flush won't work with this much action. That kills 2 of your straight cards too leaving 6 outs. Now you're less than 3-1 to make your hand, and we haven't started computing what happens when the board pairs, or you make both straight and flush.
Of course, I'm not a $40-$80 player and read this forum mostly for the pot-no limit hands. Still, your action seems too aggressive unless you have a chance at winning this pot without a showdown.
Fat-Charlie
It was going to get capped irregardless of whether I was the capper or someone else. By watching the other players it was real clear by their motions they were all going to call and put in four bets. Figuratively I was the capper, but it really meant absolutely nothing from a strategic sense. On the flop I am getting 6.5 to 1. I base this is on the assumption that there will be three other players putting in 4 bets on the flop, which turned out to be the case. I have 6 clean outs. With two outs to come my chances of making my hand are 3.14 to 1 so mathematically speaking my call is correct. On the turn my chances of winning decrease to 6.83 to 1. In affect on the turn what I did was put in $320 to win a pot that was going to have $2320. The odds progressively got worse on the turn for each $160 I had to put in, but overall the odds were there, plus you get to a point where you have put in so much money already you can't back off. I have never played a pot like this before, where I have had to put four bets in on the turn on a draw. Hopefully the next time I do I will get there.
Bruce
My thoughts were the same as usual while reading your story. Think of the value of your hand if it was on the button instead of from the blind. It doesn't matter what betting unfolds, you'd be in much better shape to make money or save money.
That's why I fold these hands from the blind, and save those preflop bets for when I have them on the button.
Tommy
I have really began to reassess my play from the blinds recently. I think my standards for calling a raise are quite a bit higher than most players, but I still don't think thats good enough. The game I play in is typically very loose with large multiway pots and I have a real tough time throwing away hands when I am getting 10 to 1 on my money. It becomes quite problematic when you have poor position with an aggressive field yet to act. Despite all this I still think playing my hand is the correct play BTF in this particular situation, but what you say in general about blind play sure makes a lot of sense. It just seems as I have become a more experience and successful player I find myself playing more hands thinking I can outplay my opponents. Of course there is a very fine line before you cost yourself money.
Bruce
As to getting "10-1," well, I think that's a poor reason to play 10-9. Because I am betting first, I need more like 25-1 to play that hand, to overcome all those times I hit the flop, put more money in, and lose.
And since the longest odds possible are 17-1 (nine handed in CA), I muck
When I watch someone rake in a pot, and hear them make excuses for their hand by citing their preflop calling odds, I just smile inside, delighted that this 'odd' decision-making process has become so common.
That you CAN outplay your opponents is great. I'd wait for better spots to do so.
Tommy
Tommy,
I think this is an easy call out of the big blind with both a straight and a flush draw and moderate high card strength. (BTW, Bruce is getting 9 to 1). I would think 7 to 1 should be profitable against all but the toughest opponents and I would call getting 5 to 1 against two weak tight opponents who I might lose with a bet or semi-bluff on the flop.
Are you sure you are not Rounder's evil twin :-).
Regards,
Rick
Could be, Rick. But I think Hollywood has trained you to presume that the late-arriving look-alike is the evil one. Oh no no no. It is Rounder who is evil! :-)
Seriously though, no one has answered this question yet since I've been here. When calling a raise from the big blind with middle-card hands, why does everyone seem to think in terms of 5-1 and 7-1 and 9-1 or whatever?
In one way, it's like have a three-sided die, a four-sided die, a five sided die, etc. And with each die the odds are adjusted to match the number of sides. So the longer odds given with a ten-sided die have no effect on my expectation.
Another angle: Let's way there is one raiser and everyone else is out. Now I'm getting only 3.5-1. But there is only person to beat. With those odds, doesn't that mean I should play everytime?
I don't see how it is possible to mathematically factor in things like 1) positional disadvantage 2) opponent tendencies 3) my (or your)tendencies 4) the cards themselves. If I'm right that those things (and others) cannot be expressed in numbers, then what sense is there in latching on to the one thing that CAN be expressed with a number (current pot size), and making that such a heavily weighted parameter?
Small pocket pairs are an exception to all this, since their hit-or-miss nature makes their value easier to gauge.
Also, big pairs and AK and AQ often rate to be the best hand, so their value is real, regardless of pot size.
But with hands like 6-7 and 10-9, hands that are certainly NOT the best hand going is, hands that will lose many times that they hit the flop, I just don't see how the number-of-bets-in-the-pot-before-the-flop became such a significant universally-accepted guideline.
Remarks?
Tommy
I'm going to repost the above post, "Someone please answer this," in the GENERAL area, because it seems to belong there. Hope I'm not breaking any protocol by doing so.
Tommy
"UTG, the most skillful player at the table raises."
Didn't you say he showed down 4-6s? Either you overestimate this player or this is the weakest 40-80 table known to mankind. Even if he felt like advertising, a raise UTG with 4-6 is kind of a silly way to do it....
As crazy as what I wrote that is true. Occasionally he will raise with goofy stuff in early position and he'll on occasion get there. But yes, he is a real expert. You don't have to hit the hand that often to make it a profitable play plus if no one else flops anything and you win an uncontested pot, thats another way to win. Me personally, I think thats pushing things a bit raising with garbage like that. It was also my big blind which also may have influenced things even though I wound up calling.
Bruce
Pot limit Omaha with 10 and 15 blinds. I happened to watch the conlusion of this hand so I don't know the exact sequence of betting, but I can accurately present the gist of the hand for everyone.
On fourth street the board is J J A Q with no flush.
The pot is heads-up and there is around $1500 in it. The big blind checks. The next player bets the pot. His opponent calls and moves all in for another $4000. He is called.
The player who moves all in is about the tightest player I know. I could make a good living playing his discards. Why he gets action I will never know. He is called by a fairly good player who has in general been beating the game on a pretty consistent basis. This player calls him with AAxx.
How he can call with Aces full I will never know. Even though he relatively speaking has a very strong hand there is only one possible hand his opponent can have in this situation, quads, especially with him having Aces. There is no way the tight player makes this play with AJ or pocket Queens. When it was all said and done he turned over his four Jacks and wins a big pot. In my eyes it was an early Christmas present.
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
Even against the tightest player in the world, and even in Omaha, it is pretty damn hard to muck aces full.
Doesn't this tight guy ever bluff?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you have pocket Aces in your hand and the tight player moves all in what can he possibly have? By process of elimination the only hand he can possibly have is quads. There is absolutely no way the tight player is going to move all in on a bluff esp. with that board. If he has nothing he has to give his opponent credit for something. I also really don't think the tight player is capable of making a bluff like this. There is simply no way he will bluff with his entire stack. He is not capable of doing it. Ace full is a tough hand to lay down, but in pot-limit or no-limit you have to be able to make a big laydown and you have to be able to read your opponents.
Bruce
I pretty much agree with bruce here. The aces full made quite a substantial bet and was check-raised the absolute max. by a very tight player. I can't imagine a player like this is going to be willing to go broke on anything less than aces full himself. Since he doesn't have that, he is surely not going broke on AJ or QQ. The bet was large in relation to the pot. It is too easy for the opponent to have some kind of full house, so a bluff is out of the question. There was really only one possibility. And the caller wasn't even getting multiple odds, as in limit, that he had the best hand.
Sure aces full is a tough laydown but you wouldn't want to bet your house on it either. How much more money (imagine deeper stacks)would have had to be bet for this guy to make the laydown?
I forgot to put the smiley-face at the end of my post.
Of course it can be correct to muck the second nuts, even when it's aces full. All I meant is that it is hard to do so, at least for most of us.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Sounds like good analysis.
Why raise if there are no worse hands that will call, but only better hands (many of which will reraise).
The only variable is how confident you are in your read of their hands. Since I wasn't there and I don't know these players, I can only go with your read.
Couldn't seat 6 somehow have a straight, but the flush card on the turn scared him into checking. Then, when it was checked behind, and you checked again on the river, he figures his straight is good and bets it? That would be my main reason for raising here.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg wrote : "Couldn't seat 6 somehow have a straight, but the flush card on the turn scared him into checking. Then, when it was checked behind, and you checked again on the river, he figures his straight is good and bets it? That would be my main reason for raising here. "
Yes, that is a possibility, however, I view this guy as very aggressive and I think he would have bet with the straight card, regardless of the possible flush (that's how aggressive he is)....so once he checked, I discounted the chance of him having a straight. With other players, I would have given them a chance to have straight, but not with this guy based on his check.
if he's that aggresive woulnt he also bet trips or two pair?
I think your play on the river is very close between calling, raising, and leading. The variable is how good is your read on seat 6. Did he flop a set. Most players if they flop a set with a highly coordinated board and a flush draw will play the flop more aggressively. He bet and was raised and that was it from him on the flop. This type of play leads me to believe that he didn't flop a set. The third spade froze the action on the turn. Your two opponets saw you call two bets cold on the flop. They have to be suspicious about you having a flush. None of them have the Ace of spades either. You again check the river so my best guess is that one of your opponents has a straight and the other has two pairs and you have the best hand. I really can't say without being there if I would raise or not, but I really don't think it is wrong one way or the other.
Bruce
I think you should bet the turn since you will get calls from anyone with a Ten or a Five. You might get calls from anyone with a big Spade who doesn't realize they are drawing dead. You will get calls from anyone with two pair. In these big games I have seen players check-raise only to have everyone immediately fold whereas if they bet, they frequently get called and then get crying calls at the river as well.
Having failed to bet the turn and with a running pair now showing up, you have an interesting problem. I think you are right about how you played the river but this again underscores why you should have bet the turn.
I totally agree with this analogy,bet your hand and make more money.not on the river you got yourself mixed up and are now afraid to raaise.
Here is a hand for all of you depraved souls (you know who you are=) ) who don't have a regularily spread no-limit game.
10-10-20 no limit at lucky chances, my first time playing any no limit game so I am a "little" intimidated by the prospect of losing all my chips in one hand. I have about 1500 in front of me and open for 80 with AdQd two off the button. Small blind (an aggressive action player calls) as well as the big blind (a good player who is sometimes to loose) calls.
Flop is Kd10d5s giving me a gut shot nut flush draw.
Small blind bets 100$ into the 250$ pot big blind folds I just call. Turn is 7h He bets 260$ I just call again
The river is a 2H he bets 300$ and I reluctantly fold.
I'll say right now I don't like the way I played this hand at all. The reason I just called was that I was thinking I could trap this player into possibly putting out a large bet if the flush or jack came. Also I had just gotten in the game, and I didn't want to get busted real quick out of my first no-limit game :( poor logic I know. I really shouldn't mind if he raises me all in because with my 12 outs I am even money against anything he can have.
Anyways I think I should have put in about a pot-size raise on the pot, especially since this player could be betting a myriad of hands on that flop such as an A10, maybe even a QJ. I think a pot size raise would make him fold a 10, and many kings as well. If he does call the raise I probably check the turn, even if the flush or the straight comes, hoping to trap him on the river.
Comments appreciated,
Shawn
I don't mond the flop call at all, as your opponent will likely be into you again on 4th street unless a really scary flush card like the q or J comes. If he has a real hand, he might even pay you off and you can double through, especially if you hit a gut shot.
Since his bet is so small on the flop (100 into a 250 pot), I don't see much value in raising him right there. He will probably fold if he has nothing and reraise you if he has a monster like a set And contrary to what you posted, your 12-outer against such a hand is a big dog since he has a major redraw to a full.
On the turn, if he really is aggessive, his underbet seems weak to me. I would probably pop him for another $700 right there and hope he folds. It will appear is if you slow-played a set and be tough for him to call or reraise with anything less. You are getting a nice price for this play. If he just calls, you have decent outs and he will have to pay you off if you hit given the size of your last bet in relation to the pot.
After just reading Michael's post, I retract mine. lol
A rough analogy between limit and no-limit is that limit is more digital, and no-limit is more analog.
It seems that while I'm posting, I think digitally, and while at the table, I'm analog. Thank goodness for that! In general, the digitals don't fair well at this no-limit game.
Tommy
I don't think in the future I'll have too much trouble playing fearlessly. Even if I lose all my chips on the table I bring enough so I can buy-in for more =)
I think I was still a little sore from the vicious beating I took in the 80-160 over the 4th of July.
Shawn
Your post had some food for thought, it would just not be my approach. You have position, and the prospect of making a big hand here, so why not use it to possibly win a big pot? Failing that, you are in good shape to steal a decent pot.
If you raise the opponent on the flop, you offset your positional advantage since he can reraise and force you to pot-commit. A call from me on that flop would be pretty scary to most guys I play against. It really forces THEM to decide if they are willing to play for all of their chips on 4th street since they have to act first.
This guy doesn't seem like he wants to.
You have an interesting point with just calling the flop and raising the turn. But doesn't it seem like I should go all in on the turn instead of just raising 700 since I would only have 360$ left. Is your argument that I save 360$ if I miss (and he calls) because I can check the river?
You definitely could be right though, because he might call for 1060 with any hand he would call for 700.
The only reason I like a big raise on the flop is because you can just check the turn if he calls, and I thought he would likely just call with an AK, KQ.
If he is an agressive player - and hes putting you on the timid side - then he probably is putting you on a flush draw. If he's good, he may still play the re-raise on 4th and set you all-in. His thinking would be that if you had a big made hand, like a set or at worse aces, you would make a move on the flop to get out the flush draw, not flat call and give it value. In fact a re-raise on fourth looks really fishy. And your odds are shot to hell then as well. I dont like calling on the flop as all your outs, including the gut shot, will (potentially) freeze the action. Moving in on the flop is the natural play, especially if you would do it with (a) a set (b) an overpair too. If he's got a set then youre a dog, but without checking the maths, probably only 2:1. You may get a call from a worse flush draw. It'll also show your agressive image - raise-check-check-pass isnt good no-limit poker.
good luck
dd
I think this is really excellent analysis. I have no experience playing no-limit/pot limit holdem (or even a large spread limit for that matter), however even I can see that to approach these types of games with the mindset of limit poker can be detrimental.
Hey Shawn!
I wouldn't raise on the flop unless you were definitely going to call all your chips if he comes over the top.
If he had bet the size of the pot, I'd be more inclined to just call, since he is more likely to commit. The problem there is that the pot size will have likely accelerated the point where he bets allin on the turn if a blank comes, and you have to fold. It is VERY common at no limit to flop a huge draw, miss the turn, and have to lay down on the turn.
His undersized bet on the flop means he either has a monster, of just a shakey pair, or a flat-out bluff, or a draw. Raising on the flop should cause two of those three hands to fold. If he plays on with a draw, then you have the best hand, and by just calling, you are giving him a free card to hit one pair and beat you.
This is a classic case of why I love to have an ace. Lots of times two players move in on a draw, and whoever started with an ace wins the hand. If you had a Q-J type of hand, I'd be much less inclined to raise on the flop.
Once you only call on the flop, I agree with only calling on the turn.
As to being timid because of the money and newness to no-limit, here's how I overcame that when I started.
I used to fear going busted, not so much because of the money, but because I wanted to keep playing. I loved the act of playing the game. As a result, I missed many chances to bluff, or take stands when I 'should.'
So what I did was change my outlook. I'd sit down having already envisioned the worst while in my car: going busted on the first hand and quitting. I knew I had to not fear that scenerio, so I literally practiced it, mentally, in my skull.
Eventually I sat down with no fear. Yeah, sounds hokey and corny, but hey, ya never know what'll work and what wont.
Tommy
Dear Shawn:
I would have given serious CONSIDERATION to calling on the end, especially if the bettor gave off some kind of tell. He could have easily had QJ or a busted flush draw.
What other possible hands could he have been holding to make three small-to-medium sized bets? I cannot think of any two cards that I would played the same way as the small blind. Wouldn't someone with top pair or two pair or a set bet a lot more on the flop to protect his hand? His suspicious betting would have coaxed me into paying to see what he had.
Go all in on the flop!
I hate this play.
He has over 1400 left and there is about 350 bucks in the pot after the other guys' bet. Consistently making "slider" plays like this makes it very difficult to win any money at big bet poker if your opponents have any skill.
As I advocated an all-in move higher in the thread, ild like to tackle this. Basically, i think that as a whole, all-in plays are made too often, normally by tight players who want to "protect" hands and normally before the flop. I would absolutely agree that before the flop all-ins happen too often, and this especially seems to be a trend in competitions, even with small antes.
However an all-in move on the flop is a useful and varied part of an agressive players game. It has to be mixed up with all-ins with made hands and all-ins with draws but it is a useful tool.
I think that in the example given where the guy is clearly "tight" by his own admission, then good players will not pay him off if he hits any of his outs on that complexion of flop. The only chance of being paid is going all-in on the flop and being ambivalent about being called - after all if the guy passes, winning the pot isnt the end of the world, especially as he is only a reasonable money favourite versus top pair.
I would agree with your strategy if the opponent was very weak and our hero had a rep of being very tricky - neither is said to be the case here. Also the opponent could check on the turn - what does our hero do then? Bet the pot as a dog and face being check-raised when he's no longer a potential money favourite? More than likely he checks too and still can make no more money if he hits on the end. So on the key decision point - the flop - he can either go allin and win whats there, with real chances of winning a big pot if called, or flat call, facing the real prospect of not winning another bean if the opponent turns of the action. I think the texture of the flop necessitates an all-in.
thoughts welcome.
good luck
dave d
I disagree. I'd rather play poker. The toughest decisions are made on the turn in no limit and pot limit and that is where I would rather due battle, especially when I have position and control over my opponents. Playing it your way makes it very difficult for my opponent to make a big mistake. If he folds a weak or moderate hand that was good on the flop, I have gained very little since it was probably a toss-up if he calls all-in. He ain't folding a set, which would be the only big mistake he could make.
And if these opponents are so weak or think I am so tight that they will check-fold every time a scare card hits, I will have better spots to take their money. With that board, my call should be terrifying. Am I slow-playing a set? Do I have only a gutshot? Do I have a flush draw? Do I have top two pair? Do I have an overcard and a flushdraw?
If I move all-in, its pretty simple. I either have a big hand or I have a big draw. Most decent opponents won't make a big mistake here.
I agree, but youre making some assumptions re - "control over opponents" and "opponents so weak". The assumptions of the original poster are quite the opposite - this is his first no limit game - and Ild be surprised if his opponents didnt "smell" this on him, if he didnt tell them himself! (this isnt meant to be insulting to the original poster, just that it is easier to spot big-bet novices than any other kind ;-)If you have the image you portray, then all the things you say in the post are true. Our hero clearly doesnt have this image.
Also, putting your notion of big mistakes to one side, i just dont see how our hero makes more money playing the hand your way - at best he gets an extra $450 - assuming a pot-ish size of bet on the turn, and mostly he gets nothing because his opponent may check-pass if really he has nothing and was just testing the hero. Also, as a novice, it is harder to make your play -mentally I mean.
Having said that, i would "personally" play the hand your way, but thats a function of my image. But I would consider the all-in on the flop too, especially if i felt the flop bet was a weak move, i.e. he's going to turn off now regardless of what comes.
dave d
Note: (I play in the game Shawn is talking about).
There are other considerations that favor the all-in play.
The absolute most important thing is the stack sizes. If both players had had, say $10,000, then obviously all in on the flop would be insane. If one of them only has, say, the size of the pot, then all-in by Shawn would more often be a good play.
As the hand went down, with the pot-size at about 1/5 Shawn's stack, all-in is a most reasonable play. Besides locking up a profit, or having ample outs if called, there is the ENORMOUS benefit of being DONE with the thinking. Yeah, that's sound weird, I know.
Once those magic words resound, "All my chips," there is only one person who even has a chance to make the wrong play: the other guy. And full pressure is on him. He has exactly NO implied odds. He has exactly NO additional info, such precious info, that comes in giant chunks with each additional betting round.
On top of that is the image value. "These chips ain't nailed down. Don't try to push me around, I'll shove back."
That is worth a fortune.
Yeah, come to think of it, given the stack sizes, and Shawn's greeness, all-in on the flop would have been a heckuva play.
Tommy
You are right. Once you have said "all my chips", the other guy is the only one who can make a mistake. You have already made yours.
I love to play against sliders in money games. If you are afraid to make decisions after the flop, you should keep your stack short or stick to tournaments.
Actually, Michael, you struck an important chord here.
One of the biggest mistakes people make with short stacks in this no-limit game is trying to make hands, instead of shoving in and taking down some pots to get their stacks past the "short" threshold, thereby making 'playing the hand' a better way to go.
I think of $1200-$1500 as the threshold in this game. Below $1200, you gotta be ready to shove in and take down some $300 pots. Above $1500, all that changes. Shawn was right on the cusp, given the size of the pot, in my opinion.
Tommy
Posted by: Dave D
Posted on: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dave D
Posted on: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 8:56 p.m.
I've been playing heads-up quite a bit lately. I'm not exactly sure why but I play mostly late at night and a lot of times the game gets short and we'll eventually be heads-up. We will play either 40-80 or 80-160. Of course I am very selective about my opponents. I will not play against somebody who I think can outplay me. I have no problems with my ego as far as that goes. If I think I have a significant edge I will play. I really up until the last few months don't have that much experience playing heads-up. I am just wondering what the consensus opinion is about a few situations. Is it a mistake to muck a hand from the button when you have half a bet out there? In heads-up the button has the small blind and is first to act. Most of my opponents tend to be passive not raising that much from the big blind. I guess I am referring to hands like 52 83 etc. How often should you be raising from the button epecially if your opponent will not lay down even his worst hands? Should you be raising with hands like K3o, Q6o J7 etc.? Obviously I will raise with my strong hands. If you call from the button and your opponent raises from the big blind is it correct to ever lay down a hand regardless of how bad it is? Obviously you have position and you already have one bet invested in the pot. When playing heads-up it is very unlikely that you will be dominated. If you play Q4 it is unlikely that your opponent will have you outkicked. I am just real curious what everyone has to say about this and perhaps more. I really find heads-up play to be both very enjoyable and challenging. It is very different then ring play and psychology and reading play a very big factor. It can also be quite frustrating when you haven't won a pot in ten consecutive hands when you don't flop a pair or a draw.
Bruce
Bruce
On the button you should fold between 0 and 20% of the time depending on your opponent. You should flat call between 0 and 30% depending on your opponent, but some of those calls should be with your better hands. If you have just called with a weak hand, you should fold a raise if your opponent usually needs an excellent hand to raise. If he doesn't you should call all raises.
does this mean you should raise 0 to 50% of the time from the small blind?
I believe it means you should raise 50-100% of the time from the SB.
lol, i didn't realize my stupid mistake until two seconds after i pointed and clicked the "post message" box. thanks.
I, too, like your analysis of the river, but I would have bet the turn. Seat 6 is very loose and very aggressive; give him a chance to be aggressive. After all, he bet into the 3-bettor on the flop. He's probably now going to check the turn, unless he made a flush, since A) seat 7 riased him on the flop; and B) he has to be concerned about both you and, to a lesser extent, the player behind him having made a flush. Give him a chance to call or raise on the turn. Tight-aggressive isn't going to bet his big pair into the straight/flush board.
When I am playing I pay particular attention to different ways I could have played a hand and how, if possible, could I have successfully bluffed at a pot. Sometimes I will go several sessions without a successful bluff, or good oppurtunities in my eyes just don't present themselves. By a successful bluff I am talking about a big pot, not when I raise BTF, make a bet on the flop with nothing, and everyone folds. Anyway I was playing 40-80 hold-em yesterday and I was on the button with QJs. There were five limpers and I raised and the big blind called. I don't routinely raise with this type of hand but I like to mix it up and raise with speculative hands like this on occasion.
The flop comes 2 9 T with a heart draw. I have two spades. The big blind bets and a player in middle position raises and I reraise on the button. The pot now has three players. Everyone else has folded. I have an open ended straight draw. Perhaps I only have six outs maybe eight. I figure one player has at least top pair or middle pair.
On the turn comes the Ace of hearts. Both players check and I bet. It seemed like a good oppurtunity for me. I have a tight image. It certainly looked like I was either on a draw or had a real hand on the flop from the eyes of my opponents. I also could have three bet it with Ace big. With my opponents not betting I felt like it was unlikely for them to have a flush. Anyway the big blind folded and the next player after much debate reluctantly threw his hand away. I was quite happy with the results.
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
Overall, well played.
Pre-flop your "button raise" with Queen-Jack suited cannot be too far wrong with all these limpers although I would not make it. I have seen top players even raise in this situation with a hand like Six-Five suited. The only "fly in the ointment" is when one of the players gets it in his head to re-raise just to juice up the pot and then someone else "puts a hat on it" just for the helluva it.
The re-raise on the flop with your open ended straight draw but a two flush on board is very speculative. However, I have found in these situations where someone leads into a crowd and someone else raises that the bettor and the raiser are usually not on flush draws at all but have some kind of made hand. It is when someone bets and you get three or four callers that a flush draw becomes a major concern.
On the turn, when the flush card comes plus a beautiful Ace over card the situation screams for a bet with only two players who have checked to you and a large pot like this. However, if you get even one caller than the King of Hearts or the Eight of Hearts are almost certainly not outs for you. Nevertheless, a Six outer is fine here given the large pot.
If you get one caller, maybe even two, and the river is a total blank I think you have to bet again if checked to since you don't have a hand to showdown. Would that in fact be your strategy?
On the river if it's checked to me I would almost definitely bet. I can not possibly win in a showdown and the pot odds that I am being offered are rather attractive for another attempt. Another way to look at an unsuccessful bluff is how it will help enhance your future image. Opponents will not automatically put you on a completed hand in the future, although they do have rather short memories.
Bruce
"Pre-flop your "button raise" with Queen-Jack suited cannot be too far wrong with all these limpers although I would not make it."
I would raise most every time in this spot. We discuss why this raise is usually correct in HPFAP-21.
The ostensible outs principle.
If you are going to bluff, make it a believable one i.e. bluff when you think that the card that just hit the felt is one that your opponent will think helped your hand. But do it only against thinking players and not calling stations (a caveat which I seem to have forgotten of late:)]
Trying to bluff a clueless idiot is next to impossible. They always find an excuse to call your bet, however feeble it may be.
Bruce
"On the turn comes the Ace of hearts. Both players check and I bet. It seemed like a good oppurtunity for me."
I like to make a similar play when I have a straight draw in late position and there is a two flush on board. That is I raise the flop and if a blank comes I check the turn and take a free card assuming it is checked to me. On the river I can bet if I make my straight or if a flush card comes. (Notice that I have played it just like I have a flush draw.) In your case, this play could be even stronger since you can also bet if an ace or a king comes.
Good post. These are the type of hands that seemingly always get me into trouble. The allure of a large pot and the fact that the lineup is attractive somehow sucks me into the pot with these type of hands from the blinds. I think your call is close preflop. From the big blind I definitely call and from the small blind I probably pass. On the flop your decision is real close between folding, raising, and calling. Had you reraised you may have gotten the maniac off of his hand, only you can answer that, but than the button may have capped it and now your stuck putting in four bets with a piece of garbage and not knowing where you are. I guess that's why they say hold-em is a game of position. On fourth street a call is mandatory. The pot is too big already and you may have the best hand. On the river with everyone else passing I would probably make a crying call also.
The more I think about it is becoming more obvious to me how difficult it is to play these hands with poor position. Unless you flop a monster which is unlikely it is a technical nightmare to play these hands. You really don't know where you stand on the flop and it is so easy to be outdrawn. For all you know the maniac could have been raising with A7 and you are drawing mighty thin.
I lost a big pot a few weeks ago when I playd J8s from the small blind in a raised pot. The live one on the button called a raise with A8o and two Eights came on the flop and I was tortured.
Bruce
if you go around calling raises (with smooth calls)with 87 you are headed for loosing sessions.
The mistake was getting in the hand with the weak holding and out of position.
The rest of the hand just compounded the origional mistake.
If these post-flop decisions are that tough for you, and you are reduced to playing so passively, you don't have enough control over the table to play 87o from the BB in a raised pot.
That said, I probably would have gotten a little trapped myself here. I would have reraised on the flop and taken it from there. If there is still a lot of action behind me, I might check-fold on that turned Queen as there are to many ways I can be beaten and don't want to call two more big bets.
doc,
"I am in small blind with 87o. UTG (loose player) calls. Seat 6 (maniac) raises. Seat 7 calls, button calls.
First decision for me - should I call or not?"
I would not of called especially since it was only raised by the "maniac". This tells me that everyone is on a drawing hand and probably is higher than mine or maybe a small pair. I think if anyone had a high pair it would be reraised against the maniac. Unfortunately maniacs can influence your play but they can also make for a great payday when you can isolate them. Since it didn't look like you could isolate the maniac with this hand I would of dropped.
paul
Doc,
I was too tired to answer last night so I'll take a stab at this one now. I haven't read the other responses yet.
You wrote "I am in small blind with 87o. UTG (loose player) calls. Seat 6 (maniac) raises. Seat 7 calls, button calls. First decision for me - should I call or not? I decide to call.
I think this is a terrible call, even in a structure where the small blind is 2/3 of a full bet. Your only draw is a straight draw and you have little high card strength. Note that when a maniac raises, it will usually be very expensive to make a draw post flop (since the action should be heavy) and your only draw is the straight draw. This hand needs to be suited to call (although Tommy may not agree!).
"BB and UTG both call - 6 players see the flop, 6 BB so far."
"Flop is 762 with two spades. I check, BB checks, UTG checks, maniac bets. Seat 7 (ok player) calls, button (tight/aggressive, solid player) raises."
Did you consider betting? One of the best scenarios is that you bet, the BB and UTG hold overcards and fold, the maniac raises with who knows what and you get head up. But even if the players following the maniac reraise or call at least you are driving the hand and get some feel for where you are. The late player's raise of a maniac could mean a lot of things. If they raise or reraise a lead bet from you, you are probably against a big draw or a bigger hand.
"Second decision for me - should I call or not? If no one reraises, I am getting good odds. Given the possibility of straight draws and flush draws, and I may actually have the best hand or turn two pair / trips, I decide to call. But I think either way (fold or call), that it is close. Possibly I should have raised? -- BB and UTG fold, maniac and Seat 6 calls. There are now 10BB in the pot"
If I was here after checking I fold to a bet and a raise. The fold is best because you can hit two pair and trips and still be vulnerable to straights and the flush on a redraw. With three opponents at least one probably has a better hand right now and you could be even drawing dead or close to it. Also note that you often will be reraised by an early limper. If I limp and a maniac is on my left I will check raise for value (figuring the maniac will auto bet) with my sets or big draws. Others do also.
"Turn is a Qc. I check, manaic bets...Seat 6 and button both call."
"At this point, I'm not sure I can pinpoint the maniac (pssibly has a Q, but maybe still only AK)...but I think I've pretty much pegged seat 6 and the button on draws, flush and/or straight draws. - - So, my hand may be good right now....I call - 14BB in the pot."
How can you pinpoint the maniac on anything? Once again, if I were here (and I wouldn't be) I would consider betting into the maniac and hope he raises with mystery cards putting pressure on the remaining players. But once you didn't bet the call is now OK since it can only cost you one bet. The pot has gotten so big you must take one more off.
"turn [should be river]is a 3h … I check. Maniac bets. Seat 6 and button both fold (I was correct, they were on draws)….So, I am faced with 15:1 on my call with 87 and the board is 762Q3…I call - maniac turns over QJ."
At this point this is an easy call against a maniac (or about anyone but a LOL or TOM) getting these odds. But you should have never gotten to that point.
Regards,
Rick
let's focus on the call preflop...because it seems that most people agree that the play on the flop and afterwards was marginal no matter what I did (call/fold/raise on the flop were all considerations without one standing tall above the other...while the turn and river were have-to-call-because-the-pot-is-too-big-and-only-the-maniac-is-betting)...but most people have a problem with the preflop call.
i still don't see the big problem with it, maybe its slightly bad, but not by too much. because the maniac was the rasier, and no one 3 bet. The key is the maniac. If I flop two pair, trips or a straight, I'm sure to get plenty of bets out of the maniac, and sure to get some bets out of people who are going to call/raise the maniac. The odds of 5:1 preflop was not important, it was the implied odds of a huge pot if I hit that interested me (although I agree this alone does not make it a good call, more on that below) On the other hand, if the flop misses me, and usually it will, I can dump it without hesitation (however in this specific case, it turned out I was left in limbo on the flop). In my opinion, this call is marginal, and at best/worst has a slightly pos/slightly neg expectancy. Again, the key is the maniac raised and no one 3 bet. Without the maniac or with a 3 bet or a raise from someone else, this hand is pure garbage...even with what happened, it was only marginal.
Yes, some people will argue that even if it was marginal and had zero ev, its not worth the play because it only increases volatility without increasing edge. I agree with that, and that alone is the strongest reason to fold the hand.
So, in retrospect, I would have (note to Paul Feeney - it is "would have" not "would of") folded because it has zero edge but adds volatility.
Thanks for all the comments, I appreciate it!
I agree that it can sometimes pay to call with such a weak hand if you stand to get some unreasonable action if you flop big but there's a flip side to that coin. You have to make sure that you are not the one giving the action when you catch just a piece of the flop which obvioulsy will be the case more often than not.
I would normally fold this hand in the sb. I will call if I think that I will get paid of handsomely in several places if I flop big. i.e. I would not call against a field that plays well but would against a field of poor players.
On the flop, I certainly would fold to a bet and raise.
Fold before the flop, in my opinion. It's fine to play a hand like this for 1/2 bet but I wouldn't for 1 1/2.
You have the worst position and are only getting a 25% discount. Would you play 87 offsuit for 1 bet on the button? I wouldn't! Then why play for 1 1/2 in worst position?
After the flop I am not sure what I would do because I don't have much experience playing marginal hands 1st in in a multiway pot. If I got a look at the flop for free with this hand, I might check and fold the flop if there was a bet and 2 callers.
-SmoothB-
Oops. I din't read closely enough. I too would muck here from the sb.
Obviously Doc would play this hand from the button for 1 bet. So his thinking 1 1/2 is ok from SB. I usually(not last nite)profit from just those players. And Doc will now be gunning for me after my two posts on this one. I will keep the score and make announcements as updates are needed!! Later
Larry, I'm not gunning for you only, I'm gunning for everyone! Actually, if you read one of my followup posts, I make it clear that I disliked my own preflop call, but for slightly different reasons than everyone else. I thought it was close to 0 ev to call preflop, and I conceded maybe even a little neg ev....but assuming it had 0 ev, I thought (afterwards, obviously), that it was a bad call because it only increases volatility with zero edge, which is bad.
Pre-flop, Eight-Seven offsuit is a clear fold even out of the small blind when it is raised to you. Make it suited and with this many players (at least 4 plus the big blind perhaps) you can call.
Once the flop comes, I don't see how you can lead into 5 opponents with top pair/no kicker especially with a two flush on board. I would check like you did. When it is bet and raised back to you, I think you have a clear fold here. You do not have enough hand to continue. You could be playing 3 outs (if someone has a bigger Seven) and the Eight of Spades could give one of your many opponents a Spade flush. You may have only 2 clean outs and a board of 8762 could give someone a straight. The solid player who is raising will frequently have a better hand than you not to mention the other players. Raising would be obscene.
On the turn when the Queen comes off, I would not necessarily put the button, a solid player, on a draw. Solid players don't normally raise flop bets on drawing hands with lots of players in the pot. If they have a flush draw, they want players in not out and it is silly to raise and get it heads-up with the best hand. I think the button has a good Seven and is worried about the Queen. You also have #6 to worry about as well as the Queen over card. I would fold.
At the river, when heads-up with the maniac and all that money in the pot I guess you have to call.
Here is case where your read on the other two opponents at the turn (#6 and the button) was accurate and you lost anyway. Now what happens in those cases where your read is wrong and the button has something like Ace-Seven suited and #6 has a Spade flush draw? Now you are playing a two outer (assuming your Eight was not a Spade).
I think you lost too much money on this hand and should have folded pre-flop.
Since stack size relative to the blinds is so important, you might want to have a minimum an dmaximum buy-in. Here is a structure I've used that works pretty well, but may foster too much tight play.
Two blinds of $5-$5.
Minumum buy-in of $400 and maximum of a grand.
That should work for any number of players, although I much prefer 9 over ten.
For a $400 buy-in, the blinds are 2.5% of a stack, which gives you a fair chance to find some hands to play without being blinded away.
If the game is too tight, you might dial the big blind up by 5 or add another $5 blind on the button.
Just curious....what's the difference between 9 and 10 players? Doesn't seem to me like much.
The game becomes tighter with more players. I have seen twelve handed limit hold-em games. Think about what you would want to play in the first two positions, maybe AA, KK, AK, etc. These games tend to be tighter and you really need to be selective about what you play in regards to your position.
Bruce
I've only seen 12-handed HE games in home games, and those were always goldmines of loose-passive players.
Since you always had 6-10 people seeing the flop for 1 bet, you could play all of your good drawing hands from every position. All pairs, all suited Aces, and most of your suited connectors/one-gappers.
The question is whether the other 11 guys are making the adjustments needed, and always folding hands like KJo.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well, the blinds out here are left over from the no-limit lowball days: three blinds, with one of them on the button.
And there's an optional "kill" from any seat, which basically allow the players, collectively or indiviually, to control the pace of the game, by essentially tripling to quadrupling th average pot size.
If you're going to run a two-blind game where the minimum open is equal to the big blind (normal tournament no-limit structure), I'd take the average amount in the pockets of the players when they arrive, divide by 100, and make that the big blind (and the small blind half that).
Example: Average amount in each players pocket: $1000. Big Blind: $10.
This would assume that busted players are replacable. If not, I would divide by 200.
Tommy
I accidentally posted a response to the no-limit thread below on the Medium Stakes forum.
is Sliders still on at the sci-fi channel?
I dont think youve answered my issues in your post. All the examples you quote are pre-flop and I agreed in my original post that this is a poor, overly prevalent play. My original response revolved around a particular hand and how it was played on the flop by a novice player. All things in "that" scenario considered, all in was a good play, but as I stated not the only play or the best play for an expert player. As to the comment about calling as an underdog, my point was about calling as a money underdog, i.e. pot odds or implied odds do not give you a positive expectation on the hand. In the exact hand in question i dont believe the hero has any implied odds as he wont get paid if he hits. Also his odds may crumble if the opponent makes a big or huge bet on the turn. The only favourable odds scenario for a flat call is bet-check-check. The reason i favour an all in in this case is the chance that an aggressive player may call with Kx (putting you on a draw), therby making you a money favourite for all your stack. If the extreme case of little bet on fourth again, he either passes and hero wins a few extra dollars or hero ends up all-in WITHOUT the right odds.
dd
Like most others in this thread, I thought it was a bad call preflop and would have folded on the flop facing a bet and raise after checking. But in my post above I mentioned that I would have considered betting when first to act on the flop. Anyway, here are a few reasons to bet:
1) The pot is fairly big (twelve small bets) and is worth a reasonable risk in order to try to increase your chances to win it.
2) You have a mediocre flop with top pair and no kicker. The pair is a middle pair that needs protection. By betting out you put pressure on the BB and UTG opponents, who should know the maniac probably would raise them. This puts pressure on them to fold many hands, most of which contain overcards. You should want this.
3) If the maniac does raise as expected, calls or reraises by players acting after the maniac have to respect your lead bet. This gives you a lot more information than a simple raise of a lead bet by the maniac.
There may be more good reasons to bet but those are the ones that come to mind. Does anyone else think that betting the flop has merit or am I out of my mind?
Regards,
Rick
yes, I do think that's a good point.
never shoulda been in there in my opinion. SB, calling raises, I will play with you anytime.
OK Larry, come to Lucky Chances and play the 40/80 - it usually goes Tuesday nights...but, I'd rather you play the 80/160 on Thursdays...it starts at 3pm. I'd be glad to have more people play that game...you are welcome to join.
You asked if you were a "stupid calling station" Doc. My answer was yes. But in reality I don't have the BR to play in that game. You will however see me in the 20-40 from time to time. Most often you will get punished playing that trash in the blinds, but you already know that. I have also watched a bit of the 40-80 @ LC. It is a much tougher game then 20-40 there. But occasionaly it gets a little stupid too. I just hope you let the others play the stupid end.
$1 and $1 blinds.
I am on the button with 66. One limper, I limp on the button, small blind raises 5. Limper calls, I call.
I deal the flop and it's J93 with two hearts.
Small blind checks and I put him on AQ or slowplaying JJ. Limper checks, and I check.
Question 1: Bet here or peel off a free one to hit the hidden set?
Turn is another 3 and the small blind bets 10. Still only two hearts on the board.
Limper folds and I call.
River is a Q giving a board of J933Q no flush possible.
Small blind bets 20.
I'm convinced he bet the turn with nothing and I should have raised and now I'm caught. I think about the hand for a couple minutes and then I muck.
Please think before you read the results. What would you do different?
Results below:
I mucked and he told me was was betting a big ace with no pair. He didn't actually show it but I believed him.
Why did you call on the turn with the intention of folding on the end?
If you were convinced he bet the turn with nothing, another queen on the end should have confirmed your suspicion. I usually call in these spots.
And this was a winning night for you or not?
Small blind checks and I put him on AQ or slowplaying JJ. Limper checks, and I check.
Question 1: Bet here or peel off a free one to hit the hidden set?
If you think he might be slowplaying JJ you might not want to hit a set. Now is the time to find out. Now you can both be the aggressor, and be able to get away from the hand if you meet resistance.
You don't mention stack sizes, but that is the determining factor. If you have $20 in front of you, go ahead and shove it in now. If you have $1,000 and are against $20 stacks - same thing. But if all of you have $1000, then your entire stack is at risk, and it's a completely different situation.
$1 and $2 blinds.
I am on the button with 66. One limper, I limp on the button, small blind raises 5. Limper calls, I call.
I deal the flop and it's J93 with two hearts.
Small blind checks and I put him on AQ or slowplaying JJ. Limper checks, and I check.
Question 1: Bet here or peel off a free one to hit the hidden set?
Turn is another 3 and the small blind bets 10. Still only two hearts on the board.
Limper folds and I call.
River is a Q giving a board of J933Q no flush possible.
Small blind bets 20.
I'm convinced he bet the turn with nothing and I should have raised and now I'm caught. I think about the hand for a couple minutes and then I muck.
Please think before you read the results. What would you do different?
Results below:
I mucked and he told me was was betting a big ace with no pair. He didn't actually show it but I believed him.
$1 and $2 blinds.
I'm on the button. One limper. I look down and see QQ.
I raise $5 (there's about 7 in the pot) the small blind calls and the big blind reraises $10.
I KNOW for sure he has a big pair. He could pull that move with TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA and maybe AK. That's about it.
I simply call knowing I have to hit a set on the flop to feel good and the small blind calls behind me. $50 in the pot.
Flop is 346 w/ 2 hearts.
Small blind checks, big blind bets the pot.
There's a slight chance he could be betting AhKh but I'm still reading him for a big pair and the aggressive bet tells me he's trying to protect a big pair against a possible flush draw.
So if he has a big pair, it has to be JJ KK or AA. I can only beat one of those of course. I decide my QQ is not a through ticket to the river in this case and I muck after thinking about for about five minutes.
natedogg
After I mucked he showed me KK.
natedogg
Nice fold.
Would it be better to reraise him before the flop? From your description of his play he wouldn't pop you back with AK and probably not with TT or JJ either. Now you'd know where you stand - unless he'd just call with AA and let you piss it all away.
Fat-Charlie
Dear Natedogg:
What were you thinking about during your five minutes of deliberation? I play big bet poker quickly as a carryover habit from limit and wonder what takes people so long to act sometimes.
well, I've learned from experience playing big-bet games during the last six months that sometimes it pays to just sit and think for a couple minutes. review in your mind what happened during each stage of the hand. Sometimes you will pick up on something that seals it for you.
During this hand, I thought very hard about what he could have and I believed that the pot-size bet on the flop was to protect a big pair. I also knew that my opponents impression of me was that I was a VERY tight player so I knew that HE knew I had a pair as well or at least AK suited. So I deduced that he knew he was either betting for value against a lower pair (unless i had Aces) or he was betting to take away my value if I held AhKh. I thought to myself: What could he have? Why would he make that bet?
A bluff on the flop didn't seem to fit the rest of the hand by the way it had been played so I folded.
nate
If all three of you had big stacks then folding QQ on the flop wasn't that wrong. Also, there was that matter of the third player.
However, if you knew the others pegged you as a very tight player then you also knew that they would bully you with their chips whether they had a hand or not.
When did you intend to take a stand, if not with an overpair on the flop?
What were the stack sizes of the players involved?
about $200 each.
The problem isn't the move per se, but the timing.
His raise wasn't big enough to get the TP to fold anything. The only way TP can fold AND be correct is if the last raiser has an overpair. Since TP cannot know that last raiser has an overpair, he needs to call here, even if he knows he's not in great shape.
Second, since you know he's on tilt, everyone else does too. Thus, all else being equal, he's the last guy they're going to fold to, especially on a play like this. The whole situation just screams that he doesn't have to have much either.
Hey, where is this game? ;-)
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It's tough to make a play when you don't have any chips to backup your move.
Bruce
Sounds like the player who went all in was on tournament mode. And so was the caller. I'm curious as to whether the player who went all in made a rebuy after he went broke.
This play might work when both players have deeper money. Now a TP in the big blind may need to risk his whole stack while out of position. Folding is now more attractive to BB giving MPP better odds.
I don't have the stones to make this play. I just HAVE to fold when BB plays back; he really can have a hand here. If he has stones and suspects I can't take the pressure, he'll blow me off the pot, and then the whole table will take turns playing kick the hippo. I rather have a full load when I start blasting.
Yep, I got that weak-tight disease.
Fat-Charlie
Ok, OK ,OK.
I agree, it was a shitty pre-flop call.
high limit game. I am in the cutoff seat with KcQc. Everyone folds to me. I raise. Button folds, SB folds, BB calls.
BB is a good player, but plays a few too many hands and is sometimes very tricky. Is willing to bluff a bit more than others.
Flop is AT6 rainbow.
BB checks, I bet, BB calls.
Turn is a 5, no flush draw. BB checks, I check.
River is a 2
BB bets.
Should I call? I am getting 4.25 - 1 to call and hope he was also on a straigt draw with something like KJ or QJ.
I think that if the BB is normally fairly aggressive and would have bet or check-raised on the flop with a T, or maybe even a 6, then it's a call for sure. If he'd often check and call with a T, it's closer, but I'd probably still call, simply because your check on the turn may easily have induced a bluff.
The only question, with some players, would be what he called with on the flop. As long as he'd call with those hands you mention (KJ, QJ...)(which he may well be correct to do), then the call seems fine. But, because there are no overcards to this flop, a player who wouldn't call with those would often need to have a pair to continue past the flop, I think.
I said:
"As long as he'd call with those hands you mention (KJ, QJ...)(which he may well be correct to do)..."
That last comment was probably a bit strong. For some reason I was thinking of a short handed game. In a ring game I think it would be somewhat less often correct to call with those in-between cards, though in this blind defense situation it should still be correct sometimes, depending on the opponent.
Also, I would think the opponent you describe would often semi-bluff with those cards in this spot -- which makes me worry a bit about the possibility that he was slowplaying something.
"But, because there are no overcards to this flop, a player who wouldn't call with those would often need to have a pair to continue past the flop, I think."
But would the bb bet a one pair hand on the river (other than a pair of Aces). Many would try to induce a bluff from the button. Some would be too scared to bet a Ten because they think that the button may have checked JJ or something on the turn because he himself feared the ace.
On that last point, I would note that it has less application in this instance because Doc raised from a steal position. Had he raised from UTG or something, bb would have to entertain the possibility that Doc checked JJ on the turn fearing an Ace in bb's hand.
A-T-6--5--2
"But would the bb bet a one pair hand on the river (other than a pair of Aces). Many would try to induce a bluff from the button. Some would be too scared to bet a Ten because they think that the button may have checked JJ or something on the turn because he himself feared the ace."
In addition to your follow up comment, I would just say that it's very player dependent, including depending on how he views your play. If he's pretty aggressive, tending to push small edges for value, and thinks you're pretty aggressive (such that you wouldn't check a hand like JJ there), he may bet a ten for value (hoping you'll call with some smaller pocket pair, or that you caught one of the small pairs, maybe?).
If the flop were, say, queen high, he might bet even one of the little pairs for value, hoping you'll call with ace-high. But in this hand, it's admittedly much more difficult for him to go for a very thin value bet, since he can't really *expect calls from king high.
I seem to always follow up with "correction" posts now. Well, this isn't so much a correction as a qualification. Though he could bet a ten for value, if we back up to the flop, it looks like he doesn't have one, at least if he's the kind of aggressive player who would have bet or check-raised with it to begin with. So it's still looking like a bluff or a slowplay to me.
I would call but note that in this situation, you can expect to win less often than as compared to when you have AK and the flop is QT6 followed by 2 blanks.
That is, both hands have you calling with nut no pair but I like your chances a lot more in the AK example.
Here's an example on Planet where I called with a non-nut no pair and thought I had a good chance of winning.
I was in the bb with KJ. It was 5 handed.
The flop was TT3. Everyone checked.
Turn was a 9.
I bet and one player in late position called.
River was a blank - call it a deuce.
I felt that my opponent had either a 9 or a draw such as QJ. I check-called and won - he had 87.
skp wrote : "I would call but note that in this situation, you can expect to win less often than as compared to when you have AK and the flop is QT6 followed by 2 blanks. "
agreed, good comment.
if the BB had a Q with a QT6 flop, he's much more likely to check/raise on the flop than if he had an A and the flop was AT6, cause he has to worry about giving an A or a K a free card...whereas with an A, he doesn't need to worry as much about free cards
Also with the QT6 flop (and you hold AK), your opponent can call with more no pair hands (i.e. open-ended and gutshot draw, overcard etc). In your example, the only no pair hand that he could call the flop with would be a gutshot draw.
Very good point. It seems you do see a lot more check-raising with a K, Q or J high flop than with an Ace high flop.
A-T-6-5-2. I think if he had K-Q, K-J or Q-J he might well have given up on the turn, or raised on the flop. More likely is A-xs, perhaps A-5. He called with his Ace-weak kicker on the flop and was planning to raise on the turn but you checked behind him. He might even have A-T or A-6s and didn't want to slow you down on the flop, or even A-2s. To my thinking, more likely an Ace than a hand you can beat.
Agreed.
But I'd still call against someone who
1) Would posture on the flop with a pair
2) Would routinely bet the river after I checked behind him on the turn
3) Will play stronger at me in the future if I fold
Tommy
Tommy, the BB in this case was Alex MK. Given you know him (at least I assume you do), would you have called?
My goodness. Too many players named Alex around here. If it was the older Asian Alex, I'd be done with the hand as soon as he called the flop unless I hit something. No way I'd call the river.
If it was Canadian Alex, same, even more so!
But then, that's me. It depends quite a bit more on which "doc" are you? lol
Bill? Robert?
In either case. Hi. :-)
Tommy
i like three blinds of close value in a ratio of 1,1,&2. with a buyin of forty times the big blind or twenty times the total blinds. this keeps the small blinds in the hand as they have close to or equal the big blind so they are inclined to call before the flop. forty times the bb gives you time to play and also puts enough money on the table so someone can actually play a hand out without an automatic showdown.
High Stakes Hold'em
September 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo