Would appreciate any comments on the following hand. 30-60 HE @Bellagio. I'm on the button with AA. It gets passed to one off the button who raises. He is a solid player whom I respect. Before I get the chance to act the SB calls 60. This player is a weak-tight tourist. I normally would three-bet in this spot but I chose to call so as not to lose him. It turns out the original raiser had K10 and the SB had J9. The final board was 9 10 9 K Q. Instead of winning the pot the SB beat me with either of his cards!! Anyway, the results aren't as important as the question. Should I have re-raised and tried to play this pot head-up. My gut feeling is I played it correctly pre-flop. Comments? Mike Minetti
Mike,
The reraise is the popular choice but smooth calling in this situation once in a while as a change up isn't so bad. It works best against players who would not be suspicious and will give more action when you want it. Of course once in a while it will cost you the pot but short handed you generally can risk a small pot to gain extra bets.
This time it didn't work (and maybe a tourist who would call for two would have called for three anyway). I wouldn't lose any sleep over it :-).
Regards,
Rick
Mike, I think it would be unfair and playing results to state that by not re-raising pre-flop you cost yourself a pot. My preference is to re-raise with Aces unless I am sure I will get it heads-up with the pre-flop raiser in which case I like to smooth call for deception purposes. In a heads-up situation I don't mind giving up some pre-flop equity in order to extract additional bets on future streets when I have position over my lone opponent. However, when a third player is involved I am no longer willing to give up my pre-flop equity since I think deception loses value as more players get added to the fray.
In this case, you knew the small blind was willing to put in another $40 to take a flop. However, it is quite likely that the small blind would fold if you re-raised since it would be costing him $70 to see the flop. In addition, you have the big blind to consider. He may decide to take the flop as well for only $30 with 3 other players coming in but might well fold for another $60. Do I really want 2 or 3 opponents coming in cheaply with my pocket Aces or would I rather charge them more if they want to play?
I have a strong preference here to 3 bet but I don't fault you for playing it the way you did.
Mike, what is the house rule at Bellagio for someone calling out of turn? If he has put in his $40 out of turn, and you now decide to raise in turn to $60, does he have to leave his $40 in if he decides to fold? Or is he allowed to pull back his $40 in the face of your raise? In either scenario,personally I would be more inclined to 3-bet with AA, but as Rick and Jim point out, it would not be a major tactical mistake to smooth call if you are certain you will end up heads-up with position over 1 other player.
Dunc, the house rule is that he can take his money back. However, if he continues doing this he will be warned first by the dealer and then by the floor.
The reason I asked, Jim, is that here the rule is that he would have to leave the money in. So many players were getting in the habit of calling out of turn, that two of the three main casinos in town now have "commitment lines" painted on the felt, and any money over the line, in turn or not, must stay in the pot. In this case, the guy would probably put in the additional $20 and the result would have not changed, but that's not the point. Personally, I like the policy, because it keeps the game more orderly. In fact, last week in Vegas, I had to stop myself several times from piping up when someone called out of turn and then pulled their money back in the face of a raise.
I like your rule about leaving the money in and I wish that here in America, especially the Gulf Coast, the house would insist on more orderly play and betting. Unfortunately, poker is not played by orderly and disciplined people like chess or duplicate bridge. Instead we have people who frequently fold out of turn, splash the pot, bet out of turn, say one thing and then do something different, engage in table talk about the hand while involved in the hand, etc. All of this is tolerated in order to keep the games friendly and social so people will keep coming back.
Thanks for the comments guys. Fortunately I slept well last night!
Mike
Loose 10-20 game. What's new.
I have red aces in the small blind. Two late-ish callers to me, I raise, BB folds, callers call. Flop is As-Jc-7c. I bet, one caller. This player is loose but not a maniac, as far as I can tell, but the game in general has been very loose. I have only seen thi splayer for an hour or so -- seems loose-passive. He is in the cut-off seat, if I recall.
Turn: 3h. I bet, he calls.
River: 8s.
I bet, he raises. ISSUE: Would you re-raise?
One thing I used to do too often is credit my opponent too much and fail to get the most out of my winning hands on the river. I am worried that I have swung too far to the other side of the pendulum. But can I put this guy on 9-10 here? (he had it -- in fact, he had the only "legit" 9-10 hand he could have had: 9c10c).
I would re-raise because the only hand that beats me is precisely T9. By raising pre-flop out of my small blind and then continuing to bet all the way to the river when an Ace flops, I am representing AA,AK, or AQ. I am far more likely to have AK or AQ than specifically AA so my opponent would raise having two pair or a lower set. My opponent would have to be playing very poorly to take all that heat for a gutshot draw.
When you got re-raised on the river how often would you pay it off?
At that point there would be $270 in the pot and it costs me $20 to call. I would call virtually every time and expect to see specifically the Tc9c. But I have played enough limit hold-em to know that every once and awhile my opponent does not have the exact cards he needs to beat me he just thinks his set is the best.
I'm not quibbling with what you write. However, you are laying 2-1 that your opponent is not raising you with the nuts basically. Risking 4 bets to win 2. So in order for this to be profitable your opponent would have to be raising you without the nuts at least 2/3 of the time. Did I miss something?
Actually it is 3 bets to win one so he would have to be raising you without the nuts over 75% of the time. I think you see what I am getting at.
You make a good point Tom. It does seem like I am giving heavy odds here. I guess what bothers me about this particular hand is that I have to rule out just any T9 because it is simply insane for someone to hang around for a guthshot. It has to be specifically Tc9c. Now compare this to all the card combinations that he could have which give him a set or even two pair. One could argue that he would have raised on the turn with anything but 87 or 88. However, many players in a heads-up situation with position like to wait until the river to pull the trigger because they have you tied in at that point and they know that you might bail out on the turn when raised holding just top pair/top kicker.
I will tell you one situation where I would not re-raise and that is in the $10-$20-$40 structure where the player has the option of betting $20 or $40 on the end and can raise $20 or $40 on the end. In this structure when someone raises you $40, they almost always have the nuts so a re-raise without the nuts is very risky.
I was right the first time, you are laying 2-1. I'm not saying that the re-raise is necessarily wrong as it is fairly straightforward quantifying what your EV is likely to be here. If it is close why not, if it isn't close why throw money away.
Could he be on Ac8c or AcXc or J8 J7 it would seem to me as a real possibility here. I would just call here. Unless I read the guy differently.
If this player was as passive as you say, I definitely would not re-raise. It has been my experience that passive players are not going to raise a player who has shown power without having the nuts.
Think back to the last time someone tried a check-raise bluff on the river against you. It's a rare thing indeed. Bob Ciaffone makes this point in his most excellent book 'Improve Your Poker'. A bluffer on the river will rarely take the chance that you'll bet so he can bluff-raise but he will bet out.
I call here and consider folding lesser holdings than top set.
I hear you, except this was not a check raise. I bet all the way and he simply raised me on the river. You could put him any one of 4 sets, various two pairs (A-8, etc.), and maybe even a busted flush draw if he's a little screwy (I've seen people try it in this game!).
"I hear you, except this was not a check raise. I bet all the way...."
You've got the button therefore this is a check raise. How can it be otherwise? Check and correct your original post if you're mistaken.
.
Depends on the player, but remember that a Re-raise gains you an extra bet when you're right, but costs you two if you're wrong, since he'll certainly cap it with the nuts (assuming you'll call the last bet).
So after he raises, you've got to figure out whether or not he's a 2-1 dog to be holding a worse hand that he will still call you with. Forget the raise bluff - you make no more money, since he'll fold to the re-raise. Assume he has a legit hand. What would he raise with?
If he had a set you would have heard about it on the turn. It's hard to put him on 88. And there aren't a lot of likely two-pair hands here that you wouldn't have heard from on the turn.
After I get raised on the river, against an average opponent I'd figure that it's at least 50-50 that he has the nuts with a flop like this, especially if he is somewhat loose as you say. So just call.
You have to know your player. An hour might not be sufficient unless he has made the same move previously.
I have to know what type of player he is before I re-raise. So I call and if he shows me trip 3s next time I'll re-raise. If he shows me trp Jacks then I'll be careful with him later, and if he shows the dreaded 9-10 suited, I know he had every right to be there and just out drew me.
This is where balancing the odds with pyschology shows itself. If you are a player that solely plays the odds then you'll re-raise, but if you are a balanced player using the odds and weighing them against the type of player your inj with your decision making will be much stronger. seeya
Tom and Dan are right, so raise only if he'll play every possible 2-pair combo (i.e., he always limps with J7o) and also tends to slowplay top 2 and flopped sets to the river. If he's loose but not that loose you have a crying call. Since you need better than a 2-1 chance of winning, you'll almost never have a measurable overlay in this situation.
I was wondering about a comment on Abdul's web page:
"When you have a strong draw, you usually want to keep people in"
My question is; if I limp in middle position 3 callers behind me and the blinds, I have AhTh (as a sample hand) 5s 2h9h on the flop
Don't I want to raise the blinds if one of them come out betting to try to win the pot "right there" ( assuming they believe I have an overpair) or I may hit an A or T (turn-river).Also, don't I want to drive out hands like AJ AQ 66 etc behind me in case I don't make the flush ?
I understand that if I was last to act I will try to get more money in the pot since there is no chance to win the pot "right now".
thanks in advance for your comments
Sme
When I have the nut flush draw and two over cards that don't complement the board I like to raise for a variety of reasons:
1. With 9 outs to the nut flush and 6 more outs to top pair and two cards to come, I have the best chance of ending up with the winning hand and I want to make people pay to play.
2. I may drive out someone who would call for one bet and end up beating me.
3. I disguise the fact that I am on a flush draw and someone may think that their draw is live when it isn't. This means I can get unwarranted action when I hit my draw because my opponents don't initially place me on a draw when I make a flop raise.
4. I don't mind a re-raise.
It is not a case of trying to "win the pot right away" since with a bettor and five opponents this will not happen.
One of our best 2+2 posters, "skp", wrote an interesting article for Poker Digest magazine where he discusses 8 different situations where you might want to raise on a big draw. I believe having two over cards in addition to the nut flush draw was one of those situations.
Jim, I also like to raise in this situation. With point 3, about "disguise the fact that I am on a flush draw", is the deception because you are in middle position, rather than late and you appear to be trying to protect your hand.
I find that the free card play does not work in this situation. In this case if I raise the flop, I will have to bet the turn (when I miss). It is here when the true deception occurs. I'll check my top pair if it hits. I'd rather induce a weak bet than be raised at this point. If the flush hits, I bet and hope like heck I get raised.
Regards
The part about checking is for the river card.
"I'll check my top pair if it hits. I'd rather induce a weak bet than be raised at this point. If the flush hits, I bet and hope like heck I get raised. "
Jim:
I understand your points (well done as usual) but I still have 2 questions:
1) Do you disagree with Abdul's comments then?
2) your comment " It is not a case of trying to "win the pot right away" since with a bettor and five opponents this will not happen."
Isn't it true that if the blind bets and no one calls after my raise and he folds (semibluffing with small pair on the flop) I played my hand correctly winning the pot "right there"
Sme
No, I do not necessarily disagree with Abdul's comments when you don't have other outs to go with your draw. It would be interesting to get his opinion on this situation where you have two over cards plus the nut flush draw. In addition, suppose you had both a straight draw and a flush draw? I would be betting and raising vigorously.
Yes, it is true that if everyone folds after you raised including the bettor than you have gained. But I would argue that with a lot of opponents and a coordinated board this is very unlikley to happen. It is almost automatic for the original bettor to at least make a perfunctory call and take off a card with any piece of the flop. Pot odds at that point would make it almost mandatory.
Please read the original msg if you would like to comment..thks
Sme
Of course you have to weigh the chance of winning the pot right now versus the cost of driving people out (and thus winning a smaller pot when you make your draw.)
A nut flush draw has a 1 in 3 chance of coming in by the river, plus your overcards are possible outs. If 4 opponents call on the flop, then you're winning 2/3's of a small bet just on the extra money going in on the flop, not even including the later action or the pot or your extra outs for your overcards (but not including your chance of losing with a flush, either.) If on the other hand you raise and have a 1 in 3 chance of winning a 6 small bet pot immediately, then that's 2/3's of a small bet profit right there on the flop. So then it would come down to weighing the extra money going in later in the hand if you keep victims in versus how much you improve your chance of winning the pot if you drive out several (but not all) of the players.
In the particular example you gave, given the low chance of winning the small pot immediately (or by the river heads up versus the flop bettor) I would not want to forego all the extra bets when it would have held up against several opponents. I recommend calling with the intention of reraising if it comes raised back to you. Of course when it comes back raised to you, you must go through the same sort of cost-benefit analysis, if your raise might drive some players out. If you succeed in trapping 4 opponents in for 3 bets, you'll have made 2 small bets profit just on the extra money going in on the flop, which is pretty darn good on a pot that was 6-way and just 6 small bets going into the flop. Additionally, you will have made the pot so big that your opponents will be tied on to the river, helping to support your draw on the turn and increasing your implied odds without drastically reducing your chance of winning the pot.
For balance, you'll need to sometimes call-reraise with some made hands, primarily sets.
I was going to point to Sklansky's Theory of Poker as covering some of this ground, and it does come close, but I cannot find where it says exactly what I have been saying here. Perhaps a 'noser can assist in finding a quote. You would think that Chapter 13 "Raising" would cover it, but that chapter covers seven types of raising, and none of them seem to be the one I described.
For those who want to see the entire context the quote of my material, see Theory of Sucking Out.
-Abdul
Say you make this play and all fold except the bettor. The turn is something useless like a black queen. Do you automatically bet again when the bettor checks the turn? If the bettor is a blind, you know nothing about his hand except that he liked the flop, so you are almost certainly trailing and your overcards may be dead or half-dead now. So maybe it's easier to bet every time if the turn is a rag (smaller than a 10). But would you EVER check here?
A lot of people like taking a free card here, but I usually bet the turn in such a situation and then check the river. If you check, you'll induce a bluff or thin value bet if the flush doesn't come in and have to pay off by calling with ace high on the river. If you bet, then maybe he'll fold a small pair, and otherwise you can check it down on the river unless you make a hand in which case you hopefully get one more bet. Of course, if I really think my opponent has a hand (perhaps due to a tell or knowledge of his play), then I would be inclined to check the turn and not pay off on the river.
One spot where I would be tempted to check the turn is where there is an ace on the board and one in my hand but I suspect my kicker is no good (perhaps I'm up against an early raiser and called for one bet on a post) and I have a flush draw. Now if I have the best hand, my opponent has very few outs against me, and so I can risk a free card, whereas if he has the best hand I really don't want to get check-raised here because I have to pay it off even if I then know my kicker is no good. Check and induce a bluff bet on the river... that's the best course in such a situation.
A similar spot where this comes up is when you have a pair of aces (either in the hole or using one on the board), there is a 3-flush on board, and you have the nut flush draw. Heads up if you fear you're already up against a flush, you can check and then pay off his bet on the river (raising if you make the nuts, of course.)
-Abdul
I would always keep betting against a lone opponent who checks to me. He might fold on the expensive street in which case I win without a fight. If he calls, I have a ton of outs to make the best hand. A bet is automatic. Checking here would be weak poker.
If the blind is of semi-sound mind, he'll realize that he's out of position. Given that, you should probably respect his bet. Unless he's just trying to scare off the crowd who didn't get anything with this flop, a good possibility, chances are he has something and your raise isn't going to shake him. In short, you probably won't win the pot right there and there's a somewhat good possibility, given that he's the blind, that you'll need two pair yourself, or the flush, just to beat him.
That being said, why would you want to raise anyway? Flushes are made for and crave a large audience. If you make the flush, you're golden with that many players in. If you don't...well, who knows? a pair of tens just might take in the pot.
In the end, it's a matter of knowing the blind. If you respect him, don't raise. He has you beat and you can't go head to head on a flush draw. If you don't respect him, make a choice: lots of players going for a nut flush or head to head with an ace high?
Dan
This is a really good subject, as I believe the article in the magazine couldn't cover it completely.
Jims points are valid, but too me it is more a function of your posisition and how many players are in the pot. If you have several players behind you you should probably just call(even with the overcards imo)and if you just have 1-2 players behind you I would do my best to take control of t he pot as soon as possible. You might not win it right there ,but you might get it heads up and win on the turn.
A raise with several players might be more effective on the turn instead of the flop, unless maybe the board pairs etc.You might have more of a shot at narrowing the field with the double bet, and it gives you added flexibility if your card doesn't come on the end. For example, lets say your raise knocks most of the players out except for 2, and your card doesn't come, you have a much better chance of bluff being succesful on the end.And the turn raise of course gets more money in their when the flush card comes. seeya
That is the question.
Simple in limit I bet it out like I got it unless I have the nuts I will take a pot as soon as I can get it. In NL or PL I will trap as much as possible.
3-6 Paradise Poker
I'm in early position with QhQd and open raise for $6, one other player in mid position and both blinds call - Four handed
*** FLOP *** : [3s] [Ts] [Jc]
SB bets, BB folds, I raise, MID calls, SB re-raises, I call, MID calls
*** TURN *** : [Kc]
SB bets, I call, MID calls
*** RIVER *** : [Kd]
SB bets, I call, MID calls
I had the SB on either a set or AJ but given he bet into me on the turn I should have figured something better than AJ, the open ended straight draw kept me in on the turn.
I wasn't sure what to do at the River (call or fold) so I called. 28 Small Bets in I figured I had to call even though I was pretty sure I was beat.
I'll post the ending hands several lines below.
Comments? .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MID had [Qc] [Jh]
SB had [Js] [Ks]
Pre-flop of course you open with a raise having pocket Queens. You get 3 callers including the blinds so there is $24 in the pot.
On the flop, the small blind leading usually means top pair or some kind of draw. Your raise is correct because you have an over pair. When the middle player cold-calls it looks like he is on a draw. The small blind re-raising sounds to me like two pair or top pair with a very strong draw. Of course you call. There is $51 in the pot and three players.
On the turn, you have picked up a straight draw. When bet into you are calling because of your draw. When the middle player calls there is now $69 in the pot.
On the river, I think you have to call for $6 with over $70 in the pot.
You played correctly.
I would have raised on the turn, too, by the way. D
Big D,
I mentioned the turn raise too in my post of a few minutes ago. I just want to say that I swear I arrived at this independently and if I am fibbing may my cable TV go on the fritz just as "The Sopranos" come on. I wonder what others may think (about the turn raise, not "The Sopranos" :-).
Regards,
Rick
I love the Sopranos, but I don't like a turn raise quite as much since the turn brought an overcard to his queens. Also, he has a draw but if the A or 9 of spades comes he's got a straight w/problems. Of course these things are easy to say since I've seen what the opponents were holding.
Why would you raise the turn? SB's re-raise suggests two pair or a set (K-J is a surprise). This makes your draw thin. Maybe you see this as a case of raising with second best trying to knock out a suspected draw (MID), but this seems expensive considering your prospects.
Fat-Charlie
Definately call, he might have flopped two pair.
L0QTiS,
This is a well written post but next time post the results later rather than at the bottom. I didn't want to peek but couldn't help seeing what they had. This does influence ones ability to impartially analyze the hand as it is hard to put out of ones mind the actual hands you were up against. But I'll try anyway.
Based on the flop play I was starting to think that one very possible hand for the BB was JT. And I still think that hand was possible when he bet the turn since most players with a wide variety of hands would continue with lead bet aggression after putting in the last flop raise.
In short handed play opponents don’t need much to continue betting at you and one other opponent on the turn. I would have considered raising here. You have a combination of a fairly decent made hand and a draw at this point. You could actually be leading but may be vulnerable from both sides to redraws. And if you are beat big you will find out now and then make the play for your straight.
Given you played the turn weakly, calling on the end was mandatory when the river paired kings. A fold is silly and a raise is not necessary given the lack of pressure from the player behind you on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I consider you one of the best minds on the forum. Please explain your thinking here.
On the end, the hero has QQ and the board is 3,J,T,K,K but you say a fold is silly? On top of that board (scary IMO), someone has bet into him on every round and re-reraised him once and another player has called every bet and raise. He loses to JJ, TT, KJ, KT, AK, KQ and AQ, all likely holdings for a pre-flop raise in a 3/6 game, especially out of SB. (33 is even possible in these games).
Maybe I am too cautious in these situations. I am trying to learn to play more agressively, but I wouldn't be calling this hand with much confidence. And if I folded here I wouldn't call it "silly" poker.
Thanks.
KJS
KJS,
There was no pre flop raise out of the small blind (although he did call a raise, which usually is $5 more in 3/6). So this widens the possible holdings of the SB.
I wrote: “Given you played the turn weakly, calling on the end was mandatory when the river paired kings. A fold is silly and a raise is not necessary given the lack of pressure from the player behind you on the turn.”
I think other possible hands include JT, AJ, QJ, and maybe even J9. All of these hands the QQ beats and they may be played as indicated given that the lead bettor never faced any pressure after the flop betting was complete. You have to put yourself in the lead bettor’s shoes. He bets the turn when a king comes (let’s say he has one of the above hands) and he gets no pressure. When the king pairs again he will usually figure that he will have to call if he checks so why not bet? Anyway, that has been my experience. BTW, I wouldn’t call with much confidence either but I think it is the money play and you can bet I won’t let them see me sweat :-) .
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Good point about the lead bettor leading and not facing resistance. In such a case I could see how you could put him on a lesser holding.
Thanks again.
KJS
I also thought that the most likely hand for the small blind to have was JT. I don't like raising the turn as I still could river the nuts with an A and a very likely best hand with a 9.
Now maybe I'm overly aggresive but I actually think that the river K pairing the turn makes my hand better. Now I can beat that JT and if I felt strongly about the SB's hand I might raise. In this case it's obviously the wrong move but hey I'm being honest.
chris
Raising on the turn is an interesting idea that I had not thought of. I probably would not make it at the table because I no longer feel secure about having the best hand when the King turns up. I feel that I have replaced the best hand with the best draw and I don't want to get re-raised costing me 3 bets to see the river instead of one.
Thanks for the advice. In the future I will keep the end results separate from the original post.
I did consider raising the turn but with the presence of the King and the 3rd player I guess I wussed out. Heads up this would have been more of a possiblity.
Lets say I did raise the turn, MID drops and SB re-raises. I call with my straight draw. After the second King flops and the SB again bets, is a fold here fairly clear?
I would think so, but as it played out I guess I played it safe and failed to charge potential draws the maximum.
L0QTiS,
You wrote: "Lets say I did raise the turn, MID drops and SB re-raises. I call with my straight draw. After the second King flops and the SB again bets, is a fold here fairly clear?"
I would usually fold against anyone but an extremely aggresssive maniac. Your turn raise in a sense stops a bluff. Your opponent has to think you have a hand as opposed to a draw based on your prior actions. So his river bet signals real strength since he expects you to call.
Regards,
Rick
[I am writing not knowing the results of this hand]
Why am I the only one who thinks our hero is playing the 2nd or third best hand on the flop after the MID player cold calls a raise and the SB re-raises? I would put one of them on a set, or at least 2 pair. Maybe even KK or AA.
When the turn is an overcard I would be even more scared for our hero. Plus AsQs (easy call of a pre-flop raise and flop bet) just hit a straight. I'd be gone if I were him, yet others say raise?
I have played 3-6, some online and plenty live and don't expect this much action for top pair only; at least where I play.
Am I advocating weak play here?
KJS
Dear L0QTiS,
I would have felt very relieved to see that second king on the river. I love when a running pair screws somebody's two pair(if he had Jack-Ten that is, which he didn't). I most likely would have popped him one on the end, since the king on the turn didn't seem to help the mid position player(when the mid position player didn't raise on the turn[ruling out a straight), I would have thought it very possible he was on a flush-draw, and since the flush didn't get there on the end, I would have raised just assuming he(the mid. player) had a busted draw,("why only call on the end hoping the mid. position player will overcall", I probably would have thought?). That would have been my reasoning up to that point, but of course he did call, which I wouldn't have liked.
Of course I was totally wrong and would have lost more chips than you did to the SB and his Boat!, but I'm just telling you how I would have honestly played it regardless of already knowing the outcome.
Martin D
PS: I know some people will advise you not to post the holdings of the other players until later, but It doesn't make any difference to me.
Last night I was playing in a 4-8 game that had just been spread. It was our 3 hand when I was one right of the button and was dealt KK. there were 5 callers to me and I raised...All called.
The flop was TT6 rainbow
It was checked to me and I bet. All called again. (I love these low limit games)
The turn was a 4.
It was checked to me again, and I bet. A player in middle position raised. I didn't know this player at all, and was now faced with the possibility that he either had a T or a pocket pair of 4's
Here is the question. Do I fold or raise? If I Re-raise, and he in-fact has only the Tx he is most likely to Just call my raise. If he dose have a pocket pair of 4's then I may expect a re-raise. Depending on his action to my re-raise I can narrow down to what he is holding. But in any case, It looks like I have the 2nd best hand on the turn. It looks like this situation is a raise or fold situation?
What do you all think?
Jayman
It is more likely he has a ten, since a reasonable player would not take pocket 4s this far hoping to hit a 2 outer. What are you attempting to accomplish with a reraise? You don't need the information you cite. If your logic is entirely correct and you are able to put him on 4s or a ten...either way you are a big dog. I don't think reraise here. Without knowing what the other players did (if at least one called you're surely DOA) I would think you can safely fold. Second best would be call and hope to river your two-outer king, though given the pot odds (approximately 12-1) this is a very loose call.
It is not a "raise or fold" situation. It is a call or fold situation. He most probably has trip Tens or Fours full of Tens. If he has trip Tens you are playing a two outer. If he has Fours full of Tens you are playing a three outer. A two outer is about a 22:1 shot. A three outer is about a 15:1 shot.
How much is in the pot? Pre-flop your narrative stated that 5 players called and you raised with everyone calling. I assume that the button, the blinds, and the 5 callers stayed for your raise so 9 of you saw the flop for two bets each. This is $72. On the flop another $36 got added when everyone called so there is $108 in the pot. Now on the turn, you bet and got raised so at this point there is $132 in the pot and it costs you $8 to call. Your narrative doesn't state if anyone else called or if it became heads-up. Assuming it is heads-up if you hit you will probably collect another $16 on the end when he bets and you raise. So maybe your implied odds here are about 19:1. Somewhere between a two outer and a three outer. If a Ten shows up and he now has Tens full of Fours he may check and just call if you bet so maybe your implied odds here are only 18:1. Because there is an outside chance that he may not have what he is representing I would just call and see the river.
I agree with the other gentlemen. You either call or fold depending on the size of the pot. If you think he has pocket 4's, you have 2 10's and 2 K's you can catch to win - 10.5 to 1. If he has a 10, you need to catch 1 of 2 K's - 22 to 1.
My interpretation of the pot size was 18 small bets, $72, and 3 big bets, $24, for a total of $96. If your opponent has a 10, it is a bad call. If your opponent has pocket 4's, it is a correct call.
I would have folded.
All called again. (I love these low limit games).
Excuse me, but I can't help but ask if you thought all FIVE callers had inside straight draws ? Perhaps Overcards ? Why not 66 ?
You're play was to check the turn, take the free card and prey you don't have to spy 2 bets on the end, unless you spike a K ......IMHO
Checking the turn is a routine play. If you're best you'll likely stay best. If you're behind you're way behind. By checking the turn you have an easy river call- - as long as it's a single bet. If it's bet out and raised, or bet, raised, reraised, you don't have to throw any more money at this problem. I don't know if this is "inducing a bluff" on the river as much as it is taking advantage of infinite odds on the turn. Tight/aggresive play does not mean bet anytime its checked and raise any time its bet. The game is complex and you must give credence not only to bets and raises but also the checks and calls. What on earth could you get five (is that right?) callers with a flop of 10-10-?(low card). A lot of low limit players play 8-10, 9-10, J10,Q10,K10,A10 from anywhere and a lot of low limit players will slowplay anytime they flop a big hand, even with straight and flush draws out against them. The smartest thing you could have done to take advantage of your opponents bad play is to check the turn. Instead you walked right into a check-raise, costing yourself money, allowing someone to outplay you, and maybe even tarnished your winning image with such a rookie mistake. Sometimes slowing down is the best play.
chris
I thank you all for your insight on this hand. I clearly see that this is a Fold or call situation.
The out come of this hand was good for me, a K fell on the river giving me the Boat. I won a sizable pot when he bet I raised and he called. This was in fact a 3 outer that I got lucky with...Thanks again
Jayman
This may be fairly straight forward, but I'm wondering if I missed any bets here.
I just sat down- first round at the table, now in early position, I pick up QsQh. I raise. Player to my immediate left makes it 3 bets. (I don't have a very good read on him, but he seems as if he'd be a tricky player.) Button cold calls, small blind calls, BB folds, I call. The flop comes KcQd8c. Small blind leads, I call, 3 Bettor calls, button folds. Turn 7h. Small blinds leads again, I make it 2 bets, and player to my immediate left makes it 3 bets. Small blind thinks and calls, I relunctly call, thinking the 3 bettor has pocket Ks. River comes 7d. Small blind checks, I think about it for a few seconds and check. 3 bettor checks. At that point, I know I have the best hand. Did I miss some bets here? I thought about it, and I possibly could have reraised the turn, or raised the flop- the player to my left would have to have exactly KK to have me beat. In my time of playing poker, I can't ever remember checking a full house.. did I miss some bets here? Comments appreciated.
Results- SB had KQo, and 3 bettor had AKo. 3 bettor grossly overpayed his hand..
Hindsight is always 20-20, of course, but in this situation, I think you missed at least a couple of extra bets. You have 4 people putting in 3 bets each pre-flop, so the pot is already a decent size. I tend not to slow-play trips here because anyone even half aware at the table should recognize the possibility you might have a big set with this flop. Why try to deceive them? When the SB bets out, raise. If re-raised by LHO, I would cap it and bet out on the turn to see what the guy on your left does. If he raises you again, this might slow me down a bit, but you are virtually committed through the river, and if he's got trip K's, that's life. If not, he's paying the max, along with anyone else drawing thin or dead. There have been numerous discussions on the forum about betting sets, and worrying about losing to a bigger set, and the concensus seems to be that these type of hands will either win you a good pot, or have you lose several bets. Not much middle ground.
Why do you think he overplayed his hand? While he was in the end 3rd best, he did have AK for top pair/kicker.
Furthermore, he got YOU to believe he had KK and call the flop rather than raise, call the 3 bets rather than cap, and check the river. If anything, he saved himself quite a bit of money playing the way he did.
Despite the fact that you missed several bets, I am wondering one thing: Why did you raise the turn when your hand didn't improve if you merely called the flop with the exact same hand?
Dan
I never had any intention of raising the flop. 2 big bets makes people fold more often then 2 small bets. That was the intention for the raise on the turn.
Why do I think he overplayed his hand? I would not make it 3 bets with only top pair/top kicker on the turn when you clearly have 2 people in front of you who have showed strength and who will probably not fold.
And I do agree- the way he played did save himself some money. From the tone of your post, it sounds like you would play his hand the same way?
Actually, I do think he was quite overagressive. I probably wouldn't have played it the way he did. However, by going into hyperactive mode, he probably saved more money over the course of the hand than if he had just gone along for the ride.
The question you raise is interesting though: to double bet on the turn gets out some players. Good chance it will get out the hands drawing to club flushes. Not as likely to get out heart draws because to stay in at that point it needed to be backdoor to something (which is good for you because a set still beats them). But if you fear the KK, realize that even a double bet isn't going to stop at least a cold call, if not a raise.
Going back to the flush, if they're drawing, make them pay for it every step of the way. Raise on the flop. Even if they had happened to stay in and get it on the turn, you still have 10 outs to let the river sweep the pot your way.
Dan
Pre-flop without knowing the opponent I would cap it with pocket Queens. Some players will 3 bet with slick and weaker hands because they can isolate the raiser and get position over him. AA and KK are not that easy to come by.
On the flop, you should raise with your middle set when bet into by the small blind because the flop is highly coordinated with both a two flush and two cards in the playing zone. Make them pay to play.
On the turn, I would re-raise because there is a third player in the hand who is quite likely on a draw and you want to milk him for all he is worth. The pre-flop 3 bettor doesn't have to have KK. He could have AA or KQ or maybe AcJc who knows?
On the river, you should bet your full house.
I think you missed a lot of bets here.
Given the way you played this hand, it is not clear the guy with slick over-played his hand. His pre-flop 3 bet can be a good move to isolate you with him having the better position. On the flop, since you only called I would have raised having top pair/top kicker so in my opinion his calling was under-playing his hand. On the turn his re-raise was a bit aggressive.
Maybe reraising the flop would have been good, but I don't like capping (5 bets here in Vegas) with QQ and 3 other players, as any A or K of the flop without a Q would make me dump it.
I agree with your flop play, but like I said in my response to Dan, I sometimes change this play up and raise it on the turn to make anyone behind pay 2 big bets to continue. Plus if the flush card does hit, then I can proceed from there.
So you would make it 4 bets on the turn?? When that much strength is shown? Hindsight, I think I should have, and if reraised, check and call it down.
And on the river- if I think I'm beat by Kings full- I should still bet? Are you analyzing my play after reading the results, or is this what you would really do if in the hand?
Your point about the 5 bet cap in Vegas is a good one that I overlooked. I would definitely cap with AA or KK. I believe you are correct in just calling and not making it 4 bets with QQ but it is close.
I play sets very aggressively and it is rare that I lose to set over set. I figure I have the best hand and the best draw. I am sure you have heard of the cliche: "If you flop a set and lose to a bigger set you should lose a lot of money otherwise you didn't play it right". There is actually a lot of truth to this humorous statement.
Obviously if you think you are beat my Kings full then I can understand just checking. But I really believe there is a substantial difference between being worried about being beat by Kings full and knowing that you are beat. Keep in mind that this is a limit game so it is not the end of the world if you lose a couple of big bets here. In addition, with a third player in the pot when you do have the best hand you can collect from two players frequently instead of one. Finally, you really have to know the player extremely well to put him on Kings full and rule out many other hands he could have been playing with. You said the player in question was one you were unfamiliar with but that he seemed tricky. This really leans me towards playing very aggressively. Against a known rock or an LOL I might back off at some point but against anyone else I keep firing when I think I have the best hand in a jammed pot where I know players will stay with me.
With this hand, QQ, and the flop that followed youshould have been putting in the last bet on every round except the river. And the river is a maybe because more than likely your opponents would have relinquished control to you and would be check-calling or bet-calling your raise.
Preflop you have the best hand. Preflop I would play QQ as best until I was convinced that it wasn't, which you couldn't do because it'd be capped before that happned. When you flop a set of Q's, again you play it like it's best. Notice that playing it this strong will get you a lot of action against SB. He might put you on AA, and by golly he can beat that. If it get down to two handed you might back off if your opponent keeps raising but again if I was playing the hand it'd be past the cap point anyway.
I don't think you did anything wrong with this hand. You probably don't lose as much on the hands you lose with, which is a positive. I'm simply saying that with this hand, this flop, this turn card and this river card I would have gotten as many chips as possible into the pot. I think you showed too much respect to the man on your left. Keep in mind this is limit. If Doyle Brunson were on my left and Johnny Chan was in the SB I'd have capped it every round if I could've. In limit your losses are finite. Don't let people know that you can get spooked by one raise. It'll cut into your profitability and I would think that it'd be bad for your table image. This isn't tight/aggressive play, it's tight/weak.
hope the above doesn't sound too harsh
chris
I think you should have raised on the flop. If you were slowplaying, yes this disguised your hand for the time being, but it probably wasn't worth it. And given the all the pre-flop rasing and size of the pot, it's doubtful that you needed to give the other players a chance to catch up.
On the turn, I like your raise. When the player to your left re-raises, I think a call is reasonable, as is a re-raise. He three bet pre-flop and now, so he's now doing his best to represent the set of kings that are certainly a decent possibility. However, if he had flopped a set, there's a good chance he would have raised on the flop after you and SB have both already put in a bet. Also, he would want to make anyone on a club draw pay. I agree that his 3-betting with just top pair top kicker is weak - his re-raise isn't going to get everyone else to fold and he should have an inkling that one or both of you have him beat. BTW, the SB almost cold-calling 3 bets with KQ is also pretty weak IMO.
On the river, I like betting better than checking. Like you I'd have concern about the bigger K full house, but, as Yogi Berra once said, sets are hard to come by and you takes your chances.
You've gotten good advise here. The only thing I would add is that if you had raised/reraised/capped the flop, then bet the turn you would now "really" have a better idea about what's out behind you by his turn action. Set over set is uncommon, I think we have all lost bets this way so don't feel bad. I read somewhere that if you disguies your hand early it may become more difficult to play later. This is compounded by being new to a game and not having a read yet. But I bet we can all come up with a fairly low estimate of how many set/set we see during the year. Get lots of small bets then try not to loose more than 3 big bets if you fear a stranger. Speaking of which, I think we all fall prey to stranger-danger when that FIRST hand hits, but is not the nuts against Mr.Tricky. It's just that some won't admit it, or forget it. IMHO
I'm examining my pre-flop play with these two unsuited hands after a short poor run of results. I will normally raise under most game conditions and during the past 2 weeks I'm not hitting enough flops and also not getting my fair share of steals after missing the flop costing me the maximum. I know things will turn around but I have spent a little time limping in as well.
AK and AQ have 3 components to their value pre-flop. They make top pair with top kicker when they hit the flop. They are often the best hand in small pots when everyone misses the flop. They also afford the ablility to semi-bluff on missed flops often forcing 2nd and 3rd pair to fold. These three factors, when all present lead me to believe that pre-flop raising is mandatory.
The situation I'm often in is a loose game where many players cold call pre-flop raises on suspect holdings and go too far with them. This really cuts down on any chance to semi-bluff and to win with an unimproved AK. Is this situation enough of an impairment to the value of AK and AQ to warrant limping in? I'm thinking it might be. Is the high pair value enough to counter-balance the loss of steal equity in loose games?
No, I believe you are better off raising pre-flop with these hands. AK is considerably stronger than AQ. Sklansky wrote an article once explaining why and I think it is in his book called "Poker, Gaming, and Life".
With slick, I always raise against limpers regardless of how many of them there are and regardless of my position. It is especially important in loose games where players routinely come in on suited trash and connecting crud. Now in those situations where you don't flop top pair/top kicker or a draw then you frequently have to check and sometimes fold if a lot of players are still in the hand and you get bet into or get any kind of serious heat. Just because you raised pre-flop does not obligate you to stay post- flop.
With AQ ("Big Chick") I usually raise against limpers but sometimes if I am in one of the blinds and lots of players limp in I may decline to raise in order to vary my play. However, with a small number of limpers I will always raise with AQ from any position. Once the flop comes you have to be willing to get away from this hand if it misses you.
I have not found much value in trying to steal on later streets in loose games. In a tight game I can frequently steal but in a loose game I will usually get called sometimes just out of curiosity.
The Sklansky article is indeed in Poker, Gaming & Life, pages 124-126. David shows how, against a single tight opponent who has a big hand (A-A, K-K, Q-Q, J-J, A-K or A-Q), you win about 1/2 of the time with A-K, but less than 1/3 of the time with A-Q.
I have played in loose low limit games for quite some time. My records indicate that it is correct to raise preflop with both of these holdings. However, AK is much better than AQ.
If I miss the flop and there are lots of callers, I will usually check. There are exceptions to every rule and I will bet if I feel it is correct for that specific situation.
To answer your question, I feel the high pair value more than offsets the loss of steal equity in loose games.
What steal equity in loose games?
Thing with these great starting hands is they lose a lot of value or gain in value after the flop. You have to be ready to muck if you don't hit the flop and the flop is potentially gonna beat a big pair.
Thing about AK,AQ thay can't beat a pair of 2's. But have potential to be a monster.
I say raise limpers where ever you are with these suited or not. You might wamt to vary your play so you are not predictable and stealing pots in loose games is a bit tough - got to learn get away from these when you don't hit it.
There is no steal equity in loose games! Save your attempts for when there is only 2 or less opponents in the pot.
Make sure to check raise when you hit the flop to balance the times that you raise and then check when you miss. I know you know this already, I'm just posting a reminder. If your first in I would continue to raise with these hands and only call when there are 3 or more callers already in the pot.
Other than that you just have to ride it out and relize that stealing and loose games don't mix well. seeya
You say they'll cold call two with suspect holdings. Well, would you prefer them to get in cheap for one bet and be playing with very little negative expected value, or would you prefer them to make a huge mistake by cold calling two? It really makes a huge difference with a cheesy hand like 86o. Your hand has the best of it preflop, and you'll very often be continuing on after the flop while those 86o's will be getting out if they completely miss the flop. If you had your way, you'd have everyone push all in preflop... "Let's gamble!"
Perhaps you are expecting to win too often or semi-bluffing too much (i.e., at all, in this type of game.) Raise preflop, and then check-fold when you don't like the texture or the action of the flop... this is how AQ and AK often play out in this type of game. If you do take a card off on the flop for one bet, then you have to be prepared to fold if you don't have a pair or gutshot straight draw plus two overcards on the turn, and you can't be too thrilled if you turn a pair. In a tighter game, a semi-bluff bet on the flop (and turn) becomes the normal play and you often ride AK no pair all the way to the showdown.
-Abdul
Back in town last night in my usual 3-6HE game after thrashing the other tourists last week in Vegas. Pick up 5s-4s in the SB. 7 callers, I throw in the extra $2, BB calls and 9 of us take the flop of Ah-Qs-4c.
I check, and surprisingly, it gets checked all the way to the button,a solid young player, who bets. I was a little leery of getting check-raised (what are they all in on?), but I call and 4 others also call. Turn card is the 5c. This apparent "blank" doesn't change much other than putting the club draw out there, and I suppose a bicycle for anyone playing 3-2, but I figure my best chance to win this pot is go for a check-raise when the button bets, and make it difficult for all the gut-shot straights and/or Queen-somethings to call 2 bets cold. To my surprise, it gets checked out.
River card, though, is the lovely 5s. I now spring to life, cursing all the missed action on the turn, and to my surprise, player UTG raises! Everyone folds, and I of course re-raise. I've got a nice surprise waiting for this guy, right? When he just calls, I say,"Ship it" and turn over my boat. This guy shows me AA!
Talk about a shock to the system. As he's scooping in the pot, I jokingly asked the guy ( I had seen him around a couple of times), "Run out of chips, there, pal? What did you think I had... quad 5's?" He says," You never know."
Anyway, points to raise about this little hand:
1. Mistake to call out of the SB with low suited connectors like 54s? I know I would rather be in late position with this type of cheese, but with what promised to be an unraised 9-handed pot, I just couldn't resist.
2. What about calling the buttons' flop bet? It appeared I had a 5-outer to his presumed pair, and barring walking into 2 bigger pairs or a set, it looked like 2 pair or my own trips would have a good chance if I hit the turn.
3. Once I hit the 2 small pairs on the turn, who would bet out, and who would try to protect their hands with a (failed) check-raise with this board?
4. Let's talk about the play of UTG for a moment. If the purpose of not raising with AA is to vary your play and deceive your opponents, it sure worked here. Personally, in the loose, passive environment of these low-limit games, I just can't bring myself to smooth call up front with premium hands like this. I find the players will call with such crap anyway, that I might as well get in the double bets and take my chances leading the parade. I guess I could have maybe stopped for a second on the river after he raised, and considered what type of holding he might have to pop it, but my first reaction was that he had a good Ace and missed his own check-raise on the turn, or that maybe he had caught trip 5's himself. I suppose I should be happy that it didn't cost me another $6 when he didn't cap it!
Thoughts?
River card was the 5h. Pretty tough for the 5s to come up on the board when I had it in my hand.
Dunc,
Looks like the AA was playing unpredictably, which hurt you in the end. Personally, I would not have seen the turn with low pair/no kicker and two big cards out, especially when so many LL players limp in with Ax. If you are playing low suited connectors, be ready to muck if you don't flop two pair or better, an open ender or a 4 flush. One underpair is just not enough outs when the bets double. A common leak for us LL players. There are good reasons not to play these hands, especially in bad position.
I might use hand this as evidence for betting out and skipping the checkraising in the LL games. The last bettor could have been trying for a free card by betting the flop and you helped him get it by checking the turn. For sure bet out when you hit two pair, given the possible position/free card bet on the previous round. Plus, if UTG raises, you might get a hint he has trips.
I think the AA was slowplaying with his check/call on the flop and had a busted checkraise on the turn. Both made him hard to put on the right holding. When he raises the river you have to call with your boat (and curse him to yourself).
KJS
PS. I am going to Vegas 2/11-2/13; send me a personal email about where you thought the most beatable games were. I am staying at Harrah's.
3-6 what can you do grin and bear it.
BTW I have never said "ship it".
Best thing to say is nice hand and bite your tongue.
Dunc:
Were do you find games this good? And how dare you take money out of Las Vegas and back to Canada (if I’m not mistaken)? But I’ll answer anyway.
”1. Mistake to call out of the SB with low suited connectors like 54s?
With eight opponents, I would call even if I knew the big blind would raise. I don’t think this one is close. But I’m mostly looking to flop a draw rather than a pair. Call me the “anti-Rounder :-).
2. What about calling the buttons' flop bet? It appeared I had a 5-outer to his presumed pair, and barring walking into 2 bigger pairs or a set, it looked like 2 pair or my own trips would have a good chance if I hit the turn.
While I thought this was an easy call pre-flop, I would fold post flop. IHMO, three of your five outs give you a mediocre hand (two small vulnerable pair), and the two 5’s would only be a good but not great hand against a potentially large field. Note that if under the gun bet and all folded to me, I would take one off. Here the dead money makes it worth going uphill (even though I would have been drawing dead in this case but of course who could know that at the time).
I would have considered check raising; however, you have too many opponents who have not acted yet, and the potential dead money does not compensate IMHO. Although I am often in favor of the check raise against what I suspect is a button steal with a marginal hand (call me the “anti-Jim Brier”), “solid young players” do not steal against eight opponents. And this hand is way less than marginal.
3. Once I hit the 2 small pairs on the turn, who would bet out, and who would try to protect their hands with a (failed) check-raise with this board?
If I accidentally called the flop by knocking three chips off my stack into the pot, I would tend to bet. I do think it is close. Of course, I would also check raise the button had he bet. Generally, I like to keep the rest of the field under pressure between my now fair but vulnerable hand and a potential turn raiser on the button. But the alternative is not bad since you really expected him to bet.
4. Let's talk about the play of UTG for a moment.
Not me. I’m doing my taxes and got to get back to work. That is why I sound so grouchy -;).
Regards,
Rick
.
Dunc:
Were do you find games this good? And how dare you take money out of Las Vegas and back to Canada (if I’m not mistaken)? But I’ll answer anyway.
”1. Mistake to call out of the SB with low suited connectors like 54s?"
With eight opponents, I would call even if I knew the big blind would raise. I don’t think this one is close. But I’m mostly looking to flop a draw rather than a pair. Call me the “anti-Rounder :-).
"2. What about calling the buttons' flop bet? It appeared I had a 5-outer to his presumed pair, and barring walking into 2 bigger pairs or a set, it looked like 2 pair or my own trips would have a good chance if I hit the turn."
While I thought this was an easy call pre-flop, I would fold post flop. Three of your five outs give you a mediocre hand (two small vulnerable pair), and the two 5’s would only be a good but not great hand against a potentially large field. Note that if under the gun bet and all folded to me, I would take one off. Here the dead money makes it worth going uphill (even though I would have been drawing dead in this case but of course who could know that at the time).
I would have considered check raising; however, you have too many opponents who have not acted yet, and the potential dead money does not compensate IMHO. Although I am often in favor of the check raise against what I suspect is a button steal with a marginal hand (call me the “anti-Jim Brier”), “solid young players” do not steal against eight opponents. And this hand is way less than marginal.
"3. Once I hit the 2 small pairs on the turn, who would bet out, and who would try to protect their hands with a (failed) check-raise with this board?"
If I accidentally called the flop by knocking three chips off my stack into the pot, I would tend to bet. I do think it is close. Of course, I would also check raise the button had he bet. Generally, I like to keep the rest of the field under pressure between my now fair but vulnerable hand and a potential turn raiser on the button. But the alternative is not bad since you really expected him to bet.
"4. Let's talk about the play of UTG for a moment."
Not me. I’m doing my taxes and got to get back to work. That is why I sound so grouchy -;).
Regards,
Rick
I think it is okay to call out of your small blind with 8 limpers when you are already partially in having a suited connector and it is an unraised pot.
On the flop, I believe your call is correct since you are getting such good pot odds to go ahead and play your 5 outer.
On the turn, I would bet out because I cannot afford to have it checked around and hand out free cards to a table full of opponents. Players frequently stop betting on the expensive street. If raised, I would re-raise.
I don't know what to say about your UTG opponent other than I think he must have learned poker in a forest. You should make sure you spend a lot of time playing against him.
Jim,
You wrote:"On the flop, I believe your call is correct since you are getting such good pot odds to go ahead and play your 5 outer."
In my post above I indicated I would fold on the flop and described my reasoning. Generally I consider you about the most solid player who writes here so when you say call I wonder if I should re-evaluate. I seem to have this pattern of being on the tight side on my flop calls against a large field when the turn can make me just a fairly good to good hand.
I'm asking you to rethink this if you have time and/or pick apart my reasoning here. If you want call it Nebiolo Problem 1.1 since it really is just a minor upgrade :-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick, you may not be giving up much by folding here. There are 10 bets in the pot so you are getting immediate pot odds of 10:1 and your 5 outer is about 8.5:1 so you have a tiny overlay. I like Ciaffone's reasoning when he wrote in an earlier Cardplayer article that you can sort of figure simplistically that your implied odds cover the times you hit and lose so look at it in terms of your current pot odds versus your outs. Clearly if you think that someone who checked may be planning to raise, then a fold is clear. I cannot help but think that if one of the opponents had an Ace he would have bet rather than having it checked around to the button. I don't often encounter too many check-raises in these situations.
1. Mistake to call out of the SB with low suited connectors like 54s?
No, you're getting 12:1 or so. This is an easy call, and assuming I could outplay my opponents postflop, I would call here with almost any 2 suited cards. (With a 1/2 sized small blind, I would call with any 2 suited cards.)
2. What about calling the buttons' flop bet?
I don't like taking a card off with an A on the board in general because you never know if your kicker happens to match the kicker to someone's A. I might call if my call closed the action (but I still wouldn't like it), but with a ton of people left to act, I'd often just fold. People in these games love to slowplay just about anything (the vast majority of players in these games will check-call the flop, check-raise the turn with any set, and sometimes even any 2 pair), so not only do you run the risk of having to pay additional bets, but you run the risk of drawing very slim.
3. Once I hit the 2 small pairs on the turn, who would bet out, and who would try to protect their hands with a (failed) check-raise with this board?
I would bet out. I don't want to give a free card to any weird draw, and since there's a decent chance the button's bet last time was a steal, there's likewise a decent chance he won't bet again.
4. Let's talk about the play of UTG for a moment. If the purpose of not raising with AA is to vary your play and deceive your opponents, it sure worked here.
There are a variety of reasons for limp-reraising with AA, but did his lack of a raise preflop really deceive you all that much? (I.e. he could have just as easily held A4.) UTG played this hand incorrectly on every street--imagine how much more this could have cost you if he played his hand correctly. He slowplays top set like a fool and then fears quads when it's only 3 bets to him. Sounds like a typical "tricky" fish to me.
BTW, against this type of player, the type that loves to trap and will check-call/check-raise a set close to 100% of the time, I find it's usually best to shake your head and congratulate them on how well they trapped you. It is to your benefit for them to play like that, because it makes them much more predictable and saves you money in the long run. When this type of opponent bets or raises the flop, and you hold bottom set or top two, you can know with a large degree of certainty that you have them beat.
-Sean
Thanks, group. I knew pretty much at the time that peeling one off after the button bet the flop was marginal at best; I just needed some of that positive reinforcement from the group. It isn't so much that I should fear walking into trip Ace's that much. It's those A-4 or A-5 limpers that I should be worrying about. I got pretty much about what I deserved on the hand, it was just the unusual ending that caught me off guard that I thought I would share.
I get so much out of your posts!! Thanks for sharing.
SammyB
I am being badgered by a friend to give him some hard and fast rules for early position, pre-flop raising (and re-raising) independent of the style of the game. He will not take, "It depends" for an answer. I can provide guidelines according to the magic Sklansky table, but my badgering friend wants rules (He is a physical chemist, what did you expect). Oh yes he plays 2-4 while he waits for 3-6 and 5-10. He usually looses, gets loaded and I drive him home.
Your alcoholic friend sounds like a rigid, anal-retentive personality. You will not be able to "teach" him anything, and it is obvious he is not learning from experience. On the other hand, we have an opening in our game and would be pleased if he could play... . Good Luck! Black Jack
Is this guy Nate Lewis? You never told us whether he was a good poker player or not...
That's a funny one. The guy is absolutely not Nate Lewis. Nate is far from that. I have never played cards with Nate, in fact never met him in person, just on the phone and did part of an NIH submission with him. The guy is an exceptional Chemist. I suspect if he plays at all, he probably plays goods cards. I know Nate's science, and it is cutting edge. I would not be surprised if he wins the big one some day.
The guy I refer to playing cards is a relative form Phila.
Nate teach you chemistry at Caltech?
Independent of the style of game? Well, then, we had better be darn conservative.
You said early position, game style specified as unspecified. Open-raise with 88-AA, ATs-AKs, KQs, AQ-AK. Fold everything else. If it's reraised back, just call unless it's multiway, in which case reraise with AA, KK, QQ, AKs and AK. (The 4-bet with AK is mostly for balance and you can just flat call with it if you wish.) If it's two cold back, call with 99-AA, AKs, and AK.
Poker is not blackjack or chemistry, however.
-Abdul
but if any aspect of poker can be played without, well, playing poker, it is certainly early position preflop. i am not saying it's a good attitude to have. but i want to extend the benifit of the doubt and assume he intends to specialize in post flop play.
scott
There was a time when I played only 3-6 when I NEVER raised pre flop as it didn't drive any one out and only tipped my hand. I have "grown" since then but at LL it wasn't a bad strategy.
Early pre flop I generally raise with Big pairs, slick and chick AJs ATs and JJ TT 99. Maybe with less depending on the game.
Your friend should understand the game is situational so hard fast rules are not possible and if he wants to win he should quit drinking at the tables.
Loose game.
I'm in the BB with KcTs. Four players limp, SB calls, I check, 6 of us see the flop.
Flop is 8sTh6s. With all the possible draws, I figure I better check and hope to be able to raise to limit the field. Like clockwork, it checks around to the button, who bets. SB folds, I raise, 2 players call cold and button calls.
Turn is 7d. I figure someone must have a 9 or maybe had me beat already, so I check. It checks around.
River is Ks. Now the straight and the flush seem to have come. I bet.
Huh?
You were afraid of the straight on the turn so you checked - but when the flush came you suddenly had the confidence to bet? - was this with the intention of folding if you were raised? Calling if you were raised? Both seem like bad decisions that give you very little chance of winning the pot and cost you one extra bet.
I don't see the "value" bet here.
Pre-flop you should be grateful you got a free play in your big blind with this weak hand.
On the flop, you should bet out. You cannot afford to have it checked around and then have an Ace, Queen, or Jack turn up instantly killing your hand with 5 opponents still hanging around. It must be nice when the button bets your hand for you. They are not always that cooperative.
On the turn of course you check and get ready to fold promptly if anyone bets. How nice that no one finds a bet. You would think that the button might try a move here when all three opponents now check to him.
On the river you have the top two pair and of course bet since your opponents denied a hand by checking the turn.
Sorry, I did not notice the Spade flush possibility at the river. I think you should check since with 3 opponents it is very easy for someone to have been on a flush draw.
In addition, it would be problematic for the button to make a move on the turn because it is quite likely he will get called by someone on a flush draw.
Jim,
I enjoy your posts and your insights. However, I disagree with you this time. If you main objective is to reduce the field, why do you think that leading is more effective than check-raising? Of course, we do not know the players and their tendencies.
In most situations, I believe that checking (with the intention to either raising or folding) is a better play than leading. Let me give you a few reasons.
I would check-raise a late-position better, and maybe call an early position bettor. I definitely would fold if the action gets too heavy. My hand is not all that strong. Even if I hold the best hand now, I could easily be a dog to go to the river, with the texture of the board and the pre-flop action.
The most important factor not considered here is the players. However, in most situations, checking the flop is a better play than leading.
Jim is more than capable (and more capable than I) of responding, but I just wanted to address the issue of limiting the field on the flop.
This was an unraised pot so there is no clue as to who will bet the flop. After you check, the next player might bet, then all call before it's up to you. Now your raise will eliminate no one, since they already have one bet in. But had you bet, the next player might raise, eliminating the rest of the field, since they would now have to cold-call two bets.
With the pot unraised by any late position players pre-flop, and with the flop apparently dangerous in terms of flush and straight possibilities, it's much less likely than usual that a late position player will take a shot at the pot by betting. Jim correctly pointed this out in reference to the turn, but I think this holds for the flop as well.
So I don't think it's necessarily that you have a better chance at limiting the field by checking than by betting.
I agree with you that betting out on the flop is better than going for a checkraise but I like a bet on the turn as well. If you just get called you have increased the pot by 3 additional big bets, If you get raised it's a pretty easy fold with all the possibles out there. Once it gets called all around on the turn then I, too, would check on the river. Since no one had a 9 or a flush draw I wonder what they did have, but whatever it was I want them to pay to try and hit it.
Its a bad bet imo since the board is so scary, most likely you will only get played with from a a made hand. the way you played it implies that you might have a flush draw since you didn't follow up on the turn.
Against 6 players I wouldn't have even called on flop, although you might have got lucky and won.
How can you fold on this flop top pair good kicker could easily be the best hand??
Shawn Keller
You have to put top pair into perspective as to the amount of players and the texture of the flop. This scenario is very similar to the article Mr Feeney wrote about recently.He advocated raising also.
Simply, with both realistic straight and flush possibilities and 5 other players a one pair hand with limited outs is going to get squashed. If I had backdoor flush possibilities I'd call the late posisition bettor, but no raise. I didn't notice whether there was a backdoor flush possible with the K10, if so I'd stay.But I wouldn't be happy
Also with this many players there is a good chance that another early position player flopped two pair or trips and is looking to check raise. The more people in against you the better the hand and outs you need . If the flop was something like 10s 6h 3c, I'd stay in and I'd be betting the hand. seeya
I am surprised that no one brought this up yet but I think that you should bet the turn and then fold if raised. It seems unlikely that either of the 2 players who cold called 2 bets on the flop would have a 9, unless one of them has J/9 for the open ended straight. Even though your hand might not be good on the turn I think it is still worth betting to try and get out a hand like QJ which might have called the flop, or middle pair ect.
If all called a bet on the turn I would probably check the river and fold if someone bet unless the bettor was a very tricky player.
Shawn Keller
Value bet?
If you will call if someone else bets and you can bet and if raised can safely fold then this bet might make sense.
Can you safely fold if you get raised?
Unless the opposition is very tricky you can fold if raised because you have already shown so much strength.
Shawn Keller
This is very true. But the question is if the poster can do it.
10-20 game. 4 maniacs, 4 loose/passive, 1 tight aggressive and myself. I'm on the button with 10 Js. There is a straddle, a dead preflop raise to $30 and another maniac raise to $40. Should I have called preflop with 10 Js for $40?
CT AL,
Even though you probably have a better hand then the average maniac, at least one probably has you high carded. JT suited wants more opponents and would rather see the flop relatively cheaply.
Also remember that you will pay dearly for any draw that you flop. The EV may be in fact be close on this one but the variance will be very high. The hand will be over soon and you might as well wait for decent pairs and high cards against this bunch. Then you will have better expectation and a lot smaller swings.
Regards,
Rick
No. See HPFAP, 21st Century Edition, page 165: "When the game is good, you should play more hands, specifically suited hands, but only it if appears that you can get in cheaply with them."
The key point that is that you have to get in cheaply. You want there to be 4 bets after you've got the goods, not when you're (essentially) on a draw.
No. There are two reasons for this. The first is that you have to put too much money in the pot meaning that you won't get the implied odds that you need.
The second is that you are describing a game where if you just play very tight and are very selective of the hands that you play you must win. On the other hand, if you get in there and mix it up with questionable hands not only might you lose, but those players who will give away a lot of money may get ahead and quit.
Ziggities. Before I read Mason's response, I thought for sure I was going to reply, "I totally agree with Mason." However, I totally disagree with Mason.
(I'm assuming that by 10 Js, the original poster meant JTs, jack-ten-suited.)
Implied odds? You don't need no stinkin' implied odds. Your hand is a favorite in no fold'em against two totally random hands and an almost random hand, plus you have position. My only concern is the players left to act, because if they have a big pair you're hurting, but you're on the button, and so there are only two sane players left behind. I call this risk "exposure."
Mason's second point is about wanting to milk the opportunity slowly rather than increase the variance and thus risk losing the opportunity before you've gotten much profit. This is an interesting concept I've heard before. I agree it with under some circumstances, like when playing heads up versus a fish. Here, however, your actions will have virtually no impact on the variance of the fish. If you sit back and wait for a big hand, a fish might bust out or hit his win limit before you get any piece of his action. If you get in there and appear gamble with them, while actually having the best of it, you won't be increasing the pot size by a big percentage and so you won't have a significant impact on when they bust out or hit their win limits. You'll also probably be rewarded with additional action from them.
I can't imagine Ray Zee not getting in there and gamb0000ling with the fish. Perhaps when he gets back from his bear observations he'll chime in.
On the other hand, there is no question that playing like a rock will produce a profit in this game, and because of "exposure" you should play fairly tight when you're in earlier position. Also, if you're tight on bankroll for this limit, this would be an ideal hand to fold for the sake of variance.
-Abdul
(Abdul - I wrote this late last night and forget to post it. It was still on my scratch pad so I'll repost it now.)
Abdul,
This post is my dying gasp before I hit the sack. I agree that this hand may be positive EV, but only slightly so. I also wonder what the original poster meant by "a dead preflop raise to $30". Was this a raise from one of the tight players? If so, the hand has negative EV.
I don't agree with Sklansky that you must sit way back and play only the very best, precisely because of the real world considerations mentioned by both you and Mason. But that is just my opinion. I could be wrong but I'm definitely tired.
Good Night and Regards,
Rick
I took that to mean that after the straddle the next player posted a raise (which is not live, just a blind raise).
Randy
For 4 bets 4-or 5-handed, what's the break-even suited connector here and how does JTs stand in relation to it?
Obviously not 34s. 87s seems dangerously low as well. My guess would be T9s or 98s, meaning that JTs would probably pick up maybe an extra fraction of bet or less in EV at a sickening level of variance. If I have an "average" bankroll of 400-500 big bets and only see this kind of game perhaps a couple of times a month, wouldn't I be much better advised to wait for a bigger hand?
My question would be how to play this after the flop, with a variety of scenarios (all assuming quite a bit of action from the maniacs):
1. You flop a jack, rainbow, with one of your suit.
2. You flop a ten, rainbow, one of your suit.
3. Same two as above, none of your suit.
4. Flop no pair, flush draw.
I know a lot depends on the action and the players, but it seems to me that it would be fairly easy to get sucked into this hand, especially in scenarios one and two, (especially because of the odds the pot is laying you) and get ripped to pieces by AJ, or something like that.
Responses appreciated.
Max
Mason knew that Abdul would be so anxious to disagree with him, that he would unwittingly champion our cause regarding the strenth of that JT suited, that he had previously deprecated. Good work Mason.
Sure David! Mason pwayed a twick on wittle Abdul! Mason ain't played a trick on anyone since he got you to agree he should run 2+2 and then look who he was dealing with. Nice try!
Vince.
The feature of the type of game is paying a lot to see the flop and continue from the flop. I like to play hands that can either hit a big made-hand (like pairs), or a nut draws (like A suited cards), since they are easy to release on the flop if you miss, and easy to continue from the flop if you hit. They have high win rate if you hit. Hands like J10s can cause some troubles both for made-hand and drawing hand (execept the nut staight draw) to continue from the flop. I feel this is the main part that I don't like this kind of hand very much in those kind of games, because it takes a lot of gambling and swings if I want to continue with those made-hand or drawing hand that could be potentially in trouble.
I now try to avoid this kind of games, because this game also can cost more to play. You usually have to give up more the blinds which you might call 1 raise or get a free play in a normal game.
regards,
jikun
How about AA on the button for one bet? Can Jim, Dan, Mason, Abdul, Rick, Big John, Rounder, Gary, John and P Feeney, scott, Scott, Scott, Michael and everyone else agree that we want to play this hand? Come on guys!! Is every play we've talked about recently so close that the debate itself is meaningless because either way is so close it just doesn't matter? I'm certain the debate in and of itself is helpful in clearing away cobwebs and allowing us to think faster at the table because we've thought about it away from the table but I think it would be sort of joyous if all of the disciples(apologies to Mark Glover) would all sing just one little hymn in unison. Come on guys, belt one out, we'll have Gary accompany you on the house organ.
SammyB,
OK. I'll play AA on the button for one bet but only if I am feeling lucky. Oh yeah, the aces must be suited.
Regards,
Rick
Sammy this is what seperates us from the maniacs who see any two suited cards and call any amount of bets with them and raise if their coupled. However partial I am to JT - Oh hell, I probably call here as Having 2 maniacs in a hand is OK with me. They usually tail down as the available cards deminish and fold by the river.
Since the flu is back with full force I can't be responsible for my comments so disregard them.
"Come on guys!! Is every play we've talked about recently so close that the debate itself is meaningless because either way is so close it just doesn't matter?"
SammyB,
But it's not meaningless to all of us. I for one would like to hear the debate, especially on JTs in this case. Because I used to play this hand in this situation before and now I don't. I thought it was correct to play it in situation such as this. What would happen after I got involved is this:
I would loose a ton of money on the hand and then question myself if it was right to call or not? Now because I thought it was right to play did not mean it was right. And this type of situation would put me off my game time and time again. Why? Because I wasn't sure how far off I was on a play. Now Abdul comes in and says he thinks it is correct to play it and the others think it is not. So now if someone else respected comes in and argues for calling I might just start calling again with my new found knowledge and not go off my game because I will know it is close after all and winning players do play these hands.
JTs is a lot more powerful hand than it appears on the surface. I play it to a raise in late position and limp with it in mid to late position unsuited. Trick is knowing when to get away from it. You almost always get a piece of the flop so mucking it takes some dicipline.
It can me the most profitable and most costly hand you can play so be careful.
"JTs is a lot more powerful hand than it appears on the surface"
stradle to 30 and then a maniac makes it 40. In my understanding this hand is very powerful in this situation and not to play it here from the button I think is a shame. Like I said in my understanding. However when I get burned I'm thinking I'm just a gambler who should have known better because the book sort of says the implied odds go to hell, so who is right. The book must be. So if the book is right and I played the hand anyway I must be on tilt/off my game. If I wasn't I'm now.
I'm sure you've heard it a thousand times, when analyzing a situation many times the correct preflop play will depend. Depend on what you say? It will depend on the flop!!
Yep. The flop is usually where faith is decided. I for one would not question myself or get upset if I was sure what the correct play was preflop. I sure like to know before I get involved. It helps my head. And JTs in situations like this was not helping my head.
It is an important 40% but you have to play the MAN and situation.
Now, what you are looking at with the straddle is in reality 1 raise from a maniac. I might reraise here with a really marginal hand to slow them down.
You have the button you have seen your cards the idiot straddle has acted before seeing HIS cards I like your chances. Sometimes you have to screw the book and play the situation.
NO question about it!
berya,
I go through the same thing you do. I read a post and usually if Jim Brier has responded I read his remarks first because I've come to know him to be reasonable, risk averse and quite experienced at the lower levels where I play. And then I read Dan hanson, and when these two take different sides I realize either way you play it has its advantages. So, I catalog that play as something I can flip a coin with to vary my play when necessary. However, if Abdul and Mason disagree as they do above I'll side with Mason. Not that I don't respect Abdul, but he seems to play with greater abandon and I try to keep my approach a tad more conservative than the rammin jammmin style I hear from Abdul.
But my post was more to point out that if any of the clique disagree then you can pretty much go either way and not be wrong, because there will always be some 2+2 powerhouse to take your side.
no, sammy. i don't play AA on the button for one bet. it will be at least 2 bets.
scott
I actually left it at one bet for a reason. Of course, practically everyone would raise on the button with AA (suited or not, Rick :-) ) but I'm sure some notable might put forth an analysis that smooth calling here could have its advantages depending on the number of limpers and the tenacity of the blinds. What do you think?
i would smooth call a raise if i thought it would be heads up anyway. but that would be 2 bets anyway.
scott
The idea is not to get a consensus but rather a total view of a subject from experienced players. Poker is a dynamic game where nothing is true all of the time, and ADAPTATION is the key.
If you are trying to use this forum to get absolutes you are mistaken. Use this forum to improve your thinking about the game and help your decision making process while playing.seeya
Hands like TJs are very context dependent. So you're going to get equally-reasonable but varying points of view on how to play it.
Part of the problem is that the parameters of the situation are usually ill-defined. Someone says, "I called with QJo in late position, after five people limped." Is that a good call? Well, it depends. If this is a game that is usually heads-up or three-way action, and suddenly six people take the flop, then QJo may be a losing hand. If there's always six people in the pot, it's a money-winning hand. (In case you can't see why, the main reason is that tight limpers will often have hands that dominate QJ, and loose limpers won't).
So you get disagreements from good players because they are sometimes attacking the problem with a different set of starting assumptions.
If the situations were more clearly defined, you'd see more agreement.
Thanks for clarifying, Dan. For a second, there, I thought it wasn't going to depend. :-)
Two things that makes poker interesting and difficult are the multitude of variables and the ability to rationally argue over how much weight should be given them. If we wanted a slide rule approach, we'd be blackjack players.
You sure make a good point Chris, and I am a blackjack player and I'll admit I miss the air of detachment I had when I had my big bet up, I gotdealt 99 against a dealer's seven, I glanced at the discards, calculated the true count to be +4.5 and I calmly split. It was easy, it was painless. Win or lose I had done the right thing, the pos ev thing and there was no doubt about it. I miss that. Now the pos ev thing has strings attached, risks to consider, kelly bankroll calculations to make, sacrifices to offer, but it is a lot more fun than blackjack. So, when a situation comes up that we've persecuted to the fullest extent of the law I'll look at the muck pile, wait for a vision and act. How far off can I be?
The Over posting police may just come and arrest you.
Note, however, that the things we generally argue about are not things like calling a tight player's raise with ATo. There ARE a lot of pretty clear decisions in poker, but the type of people on this forum already understand those, so we're left to argue about the finer points. And those usually are context sensitive.
Thanks to everyone for your responses. I folded the hand preflop. The hand ended up 9 handed. The flop came QKA rainbow. The flop was capped. The turn was a 4 and the river brought a 6 (no flush possibilities). I don't regret dumping the hand preflop. I just let it go and played about six more hands that nite. After all, any hand you hold can turn into the nuts. 27o can flop 777 or 222, right? There were two legitimate hands. The tight/agressive player flopped a set of queens and and one of the maniacs flopped aces and jacks. The problem I have with this type of game is quite a few premium hands you can get occur when you are in early position, meaning you have no position! Typically, I try to avoid this type of gambling free-for-all, as I will in the future. When I first sat down, the game was loose/passive, but changed quickly after player at the table turned around quickly.
"10-20 game. 4 maniacs, 4 loose/passive, 1 tight aggressive and myself. I'm on the button with 10 Js. There is a straddle, a dead preflop raise to $30 and another maniac raise to $40. Should I have called preflop with 10 Js for $40? "
Then you say: "The hand ended up 9 handed"
Very nice accurate description of a hand. Thanks.
CT AL:: "The flop came QKA rainbow...one of the maniacs flopped aces and jacks..."
BL: I would have called the floor over to sort this out.
Love.
Abdul's reasoning is sound. JTs is going to win more than its "fair share" of pots against these random or weak hands. But unless almost every pot is capped we should not presume that "maniac" means 80% or more of the time he raises. CT AL may very well view 30% of the time as a maniac.
And I like the part where the live ones think you're just one of the boys.
- Louie
Al,
Just curious, did this hand occur at Foxwoods? Were the maniacs "Dave" and "Vinnie"?
15-30 game, five-handed, lots of aggression. I'm UTG with Ac10c and raise, button calls, sb calls and BB makes it 3 bets. All call. Flop is Ah 6c 10d. sb checks, BB bets, I raise, fold, fold, reraise, I call. Turn is 7c, bet, I raise, he calls. River 10h, Bet, raise, reraise, I call, he shows his pocket AA. I can't understand why he stopped raising on the turn. He must have thought I had raised pre-flop with 89? I briefly thought about getting in another raise on the river since he hadn't reraised me on the turn. What stopped me was that I couldn't think of any hand he could have 3 bet pre-flop, reraised on the flop, raised on the turn and reraised on the river with that I could beat. If he had reraised the turn, I would have just called, putting him on top set, and probably just paid off his river bet.
Was his turn call of my raise justified in any way, or was it a misplay on his part?
Turn is 7c, bet, I raise, he calls.
To me it looks like he saw a flush comming and he hit the breaks just in case.
Once the River paired the board he was feeling much better.
Best of it !!
MJ
Raise with ATc get reraised by the big blind. You gave me hope Big John I thought for a second you were going to win this hand.
I think he just got too tricky on the turn or in other words misplayed the turn.
P.S from a fellow ATs raiser.
Ditto to Mchicago, After you were re-raised on the flop and then raised again on the turn, he probably put you on AXs or the straight, (stranger things have happened) and he slowed down to see the river card.After I reraise on the flop and you raise on the turn, knowing that you can't have a big set, I would probably put you on the straight myself. I think he played it well. It was probably you with the aces right???? seeya
No, Al, it was me with the Ac10c. Thanks for your imput.
John I give up trying to figure out why some of these yahoos do what they do sometimes there is just no figuring it out.
I just came off a win at Casino Arizona early tournament so you guys better be ready I ahve been eating a lot of red meat (raw) for the last week and I have my "all in" gloves on. :-)
See ya Friday night.
Mike
You started too weak, flop perfect and catch perfect-perfect and were drawing almost dead the whole time. I hate it when that happens.
He just called the turn because: 1) He's tricky and that's what tricky players do 2) He viewed you as hopelessly predictably tight on the turn and river and put you on a straight, forgetting you raised UTG 3) As others said he suspected you just picked up a flush draw which encourages a check-raise on the river if its a blank. 4) He's squirrely.
"What stopped me HELLO! Its amazing how many players CANNOT put those observations together much less deduce a just-call, and then actually just-call. This isn't brain surgery, but you do have to think A LITTLE.
As Spock said, if your choices are the impossible and the improbable, pick the improbable. He slow played a set of Aces on the turn.
Except for before the flop in this aggressive game, well played. It sure LOOKED like AK or AQs, eh?
- Louie
Shorthanded, I don't think my pre-flop raise with A10c can be considered too aggressive in this game. If I'd capped it pre-flop, then *that* would be over-aggressive!
I pretty much avoid mid-limit Hold'em because I feel like most players can outthink me in the game. This might be more a function of lack of playing experience at these levels. It seems like just about everytime I sit in one of these games a play occurs that leaves me baffled and distracted.
The funny part is that I can play these same people in NL and feel totally comfortable and at ease.
Just as an aside, that is almost identical to the hand at the beginning of "Rounders", where Teddy KGB fleeces Matt Damon with AA vs. A-9 and a board of A-9-x-x-9.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 February 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 February 2000, at 8:38 a.m.
I am a relatively inexperienced player, having played Hold'em for about 3 months now. On my last session I had the amazing luck of flopping 3 full houses over the course of 5 hours. I am not sure I played any of these hands correctly. I would appreciate any analysis from the experts. Game is 5-10 loose passive. Here are the 3 hands.
1. I am on the button with A2s. 2 callers, I also call, so does the BB. Flop comes A22 rainbow. I have flopped a monster and do not see how I can lose no matter what cards come of the turn and river. However, I don't figure anybody else holding a deuce, so my only chance is to get people holding an A involved. Everyone checks to me. I figure if I bet now everyone might fold, so I also check. Turn is J (no two-suited cards). Now early position person bets, another one calls, I consider raising but decide to call hoping to raise on the river (plus I hope the BB will call but he folds). River is 7, both remaining players check to me, I bet and they both call.
2. I am in middle position with AA. Two limpers, I raise, everyone else including the blinds folds, limpers call, 3-way action. I get a miracle flop AQQ rainbow. They both check to me. I check as I figure after my preflop raise they will probably throw their hands away unless they have a Q. Turn is 4. First person bets, other guy calls. Again I consider raising but call deciding to wait until the river. River is 2, they both check, I bet and get only one caller.
In both of those cases, I think I made two mistakes. I should have probably bet the flop and then raise the turn as people could have been willing to throw in money on the cheaper betting round than on the end when they knew they were beaten. On the other hand I was afraid they are all going to fold as I could not imagine a hand they might hold that is worth playing. Did I miss too many bets.
3. I limp in early position with 77. 5 other callers. Flop comes JJ7. Great flop for me but I am worried that if anyone else has a J they can pair their kicker and beat me. I decide not to slowplay so I check, a bet, a call, fold, fold, I check-raise, they both call. Turn is T. I am hoping that gave someone a straight draw (or maybe even a completed straight), so I bet. One person calls, the other folds. River is Q, I bet and my only customer folds. I started wondering whther I played this hand way too aggressively. Should I have just called the flop and then check-raise the turn.
Thanks for any input. I am still on the very beginning portions of the learning curve
In situation 1, I would have bet on the flop. Being on the button, they may have thought you were on a steal and would have called. On the turn, I would have raised if anyone would have bet. In a 5-10 game, players are more likely to call you all the way, unless they are really tight and down to their last few chips. Yes, I think you missed some bets. You also have to assess how well the other play and their playing styles. You will get this with more experience.
In situation 2, with few players, I think you played it correctly. If you raise, you drive out someone who may make a smaller boat and might raise you on the river. Your re-raise will give you more $.
I can't think of anything differently I'd do in situation 3. You will most likely win the pot with that hand. However, with more players in the pot, there is a greater risk of someone beating you. This is espectially true in 3-6, 5-10, and 6-12 games.
Here's to never being beat on the river!!
Situation 1:
You're in the absolute perfect position. Granted, the odds you were given weren't that great, and it's therefore a questionable call to see the flop, but you did. Now you've got the best...for now. How can someone else beat you? They hold a pair and grab their better full house in the next two cards. Is it likely to happen? not really, but in the meantime they're probably going to stick with you to the river.
Why did everyone check? Are they on a draw? Are the earlier ones trying to check-raise? What happens when you bet? If they have an ace, they'll stick with you. If they think you don't have an ace, they'll stick with you. If they see a glimmer of hope on the horizon they'll stick with you. Or they fold. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to win the pot.
But you didn't bet. Oh well. Raise on the turn! No one's going to believe you have an ace at this point, let alone the full house. Chances are the bettor hit a jack. Now you've trapped him in his semi-strong hand. The river is too late to start putting money in the pot.
Second one I would have bet the flop if last, and maybe just check if in the middle. That's a scary looking flop when you don't have a solid piece of it. But to not bet the turn isn't good. You aren't going to win money on the river. By then, either people have their hands or they don't. If there isn't money in the pot, it isn't even worth bluffing over.
I think this reply is long enough right now (read: way too long) so I'll leave it at that.
Dan
In these small games LOTS of players foolishly like to "take one off" on the flop. You NEED to know if that's the kind of game you are in. If so, betting almost every hand is routine.
Hand 1. You can realistically have LOTS of different hands even 54 gut shot or a complete bluff. So expect callers. Bet.
Hand 2. This is a terrible situation. You OBVIOUSLY have a strong hand even if its pocket Jacks. Don't expect them to call with crap. While that encourages slow playing there are so few good turn cards for them to catch and THEN call you; meaning if they don't already have an Ace they are very unlikely to catch "a 2nd best hand". If you check you are ANNOUNCING a monster. I mean, if you really had a weak hand even 98s you would bet, right? So bet, and hope one has the last Ace, a queen, or at least call once with their gut shot. Checking the turn if called is a VERY realistic option, hehehe. It will encourage a bluff and also a call by very suspisious opponents.
Hand 3. Being a tight player what hands can you realistically check-and-call with that JJ7? Gut shots with in small pots with a paired board are for drunken authors onlyl; and trust me there are VERY few of those around. 88, A7 OK. If you call players will suspect a J and you won't get action. Check-raise is very reasonable. Oh, well, nobody had a Jack.
let me go out on a limb as what follows may not apply to you but it applies to lots of others. When you flop a monster your primary thoughts should be "what could they call me with"? In hands 1 and 3 your thoughts drifted to how you can lose this pot. Not only is that a gross waste of precious moments it indicates you have "losing" on the mind, in some form or another, and I assure you that's a self fulfilling prophecy. You will definately need a more positive attitude or you're doomed.
- Louie
all i can tell you is make your money on the turn not the river
Yes, usually a lot more money goes in on the turn. But in this case you are very conserned about getting called on the turn. By checking you encourage a welcome bluff AND are encouraging a weak hand to suspisiously pay you off on the river.
On the second one, unless some statistical anomaly happens, and feel free to beat the walls of the bathroom after excusing yourself from the table when it does, you aren't going to lose. The question is how much money you'll get for winning.
I can see arguments for both checking the flop and betting it. You would check because that flop is really scary looking if you don't have a solid piece of it. It's not that unlikely that both of them do not have a queen, the case ace, KJ, J10, or a pocket pair (how many double negatives did I use there?). Without those holdings, a fold is very possible.
You would bet, however, because you're now the defacto button and there's no reason to not make them pay if they're going to stay in anyway. Besides, one of them might have wanted to check raise the hand. Goody for you, huh?
When a blank fell on the turn and the first one bet, either he was going for a check raise which fell through (in which case you lost quite a bit of money on the flop) or he saw weakness in everyone and is betting with, say, a pair of 9's. Either way, you have to raise here. You've trapped the guy in the middle for one bet on a possible draw, if the first one calls, the middle might as well. If the first one raises, it's probably heads up and now sky's the limit as far as the money that you can win.
Remember, you can't wait until the river to start betting these hands. Any hand that's drawing could stay with you regardless of pot odds...but if they don't get it by the river, which is the most probable outcome, it's a very easy fold and you're left wondering how you could have gotten more money.
Dan
This is my first post to this forum, although I have been reading it for a while. This is a hand I played the other day. I will be very thankful to receive commentary of it.
An ordinary 4-8 game. I have been getting rags all night and think I have a fairly tight image. I raise from UTG with AhQh. It then goes “fold”, “fold”, “re-raise”, “cap” and folded back to me.
I think of the first re-raiser as of a loose but sane player, not very experienced and mostly passive. The capper isn’t “wild” either but likes to take chances, he often stays longer then he should and plays out of position.
I call the cap and three of us see the flop, which is AdQsXs. Despite my opponents not being good, I give them some credit. In my mind, it is very possible one of them can be holding AA or QQ. On the other hand I do not want to give free cards to any possible straight or flush draws. I deside to check, thinking that if the middle checks too, the last guy won’t be able to resist betting, in which case I’ll raise. If it comes back two bets to me, I’ll just call. There is a bet and a raise – I call.
The turn is 10s. I am not comfortable at all. I check. “Bet”, “Raise” – “sigh”, I call. The river is Xc. (Both X’s are a 7 or lower, I can’t remember exactly.) I check again, middle bets and the last guy calls. Again, I call.
I am very interested to know if any of my actions were fundamentally wrong, or any other thoughts about the play of this hand. Thanks.
Hey,
I am by no means an expert, but I play in a lot of low limit type games of this sort.
It's hard to put players in these games on hands, but here are my guesses:
Loose sane player: AA or AK, perhaps AJ, maybe KQ or KJ (loose passive players tend to get really excited over these hands, and they do like really nice after spending a whole night calling 2 bets cold with 8-5o, or so I imagine).
Crazy Gambler: Any ace, any pocket pair down to 3's or so.
Play of the hand: I think that you should have either made up your mind to bet the flop (it's an awful nice flop for your hand)or checkraise, but not coldcall two bets, unless you are sure that your hand is good and you plan to checkraise the turn. With this board, I don't think that's the case, and I would probably have bet the flop, and made it three bets if it was raised in front of me, to try and make it expensive for the flush and straight draws (if someone has QQ or AA you're drawing dead anyway).
The turn is a scary card--it makes the flush possible, as well as the straight. I would bet out and see if I'm raised--if there is a raise, I would switch to "check-call" mode.
A similar thing happened to me last night in a 3-6 hold'em game--I had AQ in middle posistion, three bet it before the flop. Flop came Q high ragged, I check-raised it. Turn came ace, river rag (no flush possible). I jammed it all the way, and one guy who had been running real well called me all the way to "see what I had" with pocket nines. =).
How did the hand turn out for you?
Max
I think you would have gotten more information if you had bet out after the flop. If you get a raise, and then a re-raise, you might consider that one or both of your opponents have a set. The fact that after you checked, one opponent bet and the other raised does not really tell you much. The better could have AK, and the raiser a set---but now you can't be sure. When you called, and the original bettor also just called, I would put him on AK. The raiser---who knows? On the turn, I agree with your check. The only way the next player can bet into the raiser is if the is representing a straight or (more likely) a flush. What the other player is doing raising here is unclear to me, but I think you are now in deep trouble. Depending on your assessment of these players, now is the time for a judicious retreat/fold. Good Luck! Black Jack
With top two pair and a flush draw staring you in the face I would bet out. If it gets raised back to me I would reraise. If someone has a set of aces or queens I won't be convinced on the flop. When the flush possibility hits on the turn I would still bet. If someone has a flush there are still four outs you have and if someone is sitting with As Kh I don't want them getting a free shot at a spade on the river. If it gets raised this time I'll just check and call to the river. If another spade hits on the river I would check and fold.
You could easily be looking at hands you can beat AK KK JJ - if there is an AA or QQ out there you are sunk I can't see an KJ here but who knows think you are facing the pre flop capper with AA or QQ maybe a KsJs or AsXs my vote is for AsXs call on the river makes me think AsXs is what we are looking at here.
Anyway I think your thinking is sound and your reasioning good. I may have bet the flop but you not betting it maybe led them to believe you are drawing to a flush??? I would probably be leading the betting but you played the hand OK.
What happpened.
I don't know about that, I think that you have to ram and jam the flop really hard. That's the only way you're going to truly get any information.
Just because someone 3 bets it doesn't necessarily mean that your up against pocket queens or aces. A little aside for the record, you aren't drawing dead against pocket queens. An ace gives you a higher full house, although it is an uphill battle.
On the turn, I think you have to bet out and hope for the best...I think you played the hand well after this, by the way, how did it turn out??
Mike
Drawing to AQs, you certainly want to get a flush. If that does not come, then AA,QQ is pretty nice. I call it a 50/50 hand because of the # of hands that can beat you just from the flop. If I can get 3:1 I will certainly play and raise to make it unprofitable for the straight/flush draws and simply cannot worry about other 2 pairs (AK) or a set. I think you did the right thing. But then again I am not a great Holdem player, yet.
The only thing I would have done differently is I would have led on the flop. Other than that I think you played the hand OK.
Thank you very much for the responses. To clarify my thinking on the flop and not betting out: I wanted it to be 2 bets. Not one – so flush draws get improper enough odds to stay, and not 3 because of a real chance I can be drawing dead to AA’s. I really did not expect to have to call, though; I was planning to check-raise. Because I was playing against players who I qualify as fairly “random”, I was not planning to fold my hand at any time and go to the show-down.
As it turns out, 3-betting it on the flop might have been a better play. At the show-down the middle guy revealed pocket 10’s and the guy on the end revealed AsQc.
On the flop after I checked, “pocket 10’s” decided to go for a steal, I guess. Why he called a raise and a cold call is beyond me, but, maybe, had I 3-betted it, he would have folded. Although, I don’t see how that is much more convincing then a cold call.
I think, on the turn the guy on the end raised because he had a nut flush draw (among other nut draws) and a strong made hand. I would have done the same thing.
Besides the middle guy’s fishy play on the flop, and, maybe, the last guy’s cap pre-flop, I think all the other plays by everybody were correct to a point. Am I wrong?
A 3 bet mighthave got him out with the possibility of a 4 bet behind him. Getting to call one more bet only allows him to try to get lucky. I would also called but I probably would not have been in the hand after mucking to the pre-flop pressure.
He got lucky and really has you guys drawing slim to only half the pot. (the spade flush excepted).
I would have 3 bet your hand and then mucked when the raise came. I'm probably beat and may be drawing dead. I don't like drawing dead. I would have saved 2.5 BB over the scenario you describe.
Of course against different players (or in the heat of battle) I may have done the same thing.
This brings up another non-related point. If you treat the game as a battle (war with cards so to speak) you will not be able to make the decision as outlined above and save about 2-3 hours worth of profit.
Become detached from the game and leave adrenaline and emotions at home. Do you care if you win this pot or not? Why should you? What does it really matter? There will be other pots. The above comments are made assuming you have the proper bankroll. If being involved in pots like this really does matter then you cannot play your best game.
Regards
Here’s one question I have about this hand. How tight do you have to think your opponents are here, to fold pre-flop after it has been capped? After all, you are an underdog to AA, AK KK and QQ. If you put one of the other two players on one of these hands is still worth seeing the flop? And, what is it you’re looking for?
I know there has been a lot of discussion about AQ on this forum (mainly initiated by Izmet, who’s like the pres. of AQ Sucks club =), but I can’t help to think that it only applies to the mid limits and up.
But Guy if you think you are facing AA, KK, QQ, AK it does not basically matter what limit you are playing. You will loose money. The only thing that will be different is you will loose more money in middle limit because the bets are simply bigger.
Now if you are facing two bets as you did in this situation and you are absolutely sure you are against something like AA,AK or KK,AK or QQ,AK or AA,xx then fold otherwise play on.
Of course if it is capped in front of your in any semi-normal game and you are holding that same AhQh muck this dog the minute you see it. This hand is simply garbage here.
I was going to title this post, "Holdem, the game from Hell", but out of deference to my betters (which is everyone on this forum) I decided on a less strident title. While I am successful at Stud and Omaha 8, my Holdem results have been terrible. I tend to use Holdem as a filler when I can't get in another game, so my sessions tend to be short. I have about 40 hours spread over 20 sessions, with only 2 winning sessions. I don't think I am completely hopeless. I have studied the books, and I did manage to finish with in the money (barely) in one freeroll Holdem tournament.
As an example, last weekend I sat in a 3/6 Holdem game (experience has taught me not to risk 5/10) after my profitable Omaha 8 game broke. There were 9 active players and one small stack of chips.
The first 5 hands were capped pre-flop (I folded all of them).
Hand 1, the winner was a 64o, who made runner runner inside small straight on the river.
Hand 2, the winner was 72s, who flopped a pair of 2's, and hit a 2 and a 7 for a full house.
Hand 3, the winner was a J4o, who made a set of 4's on the river.
Hand 4, the winner was 94o, who flopped a pair of 9's, and made a set on the turn.
Hand 5, the winner was 75o. The flop was 765o, the turn was an 8, and the river did not complete the straight on the board. No one had a 4 or a 9.
At this point, the event that the rest of the table had been waiting for occured. The wild man in the empty seat came back to the table with more cash.
I figured that I had finally found a game where I would have a winning session. Instead I played 4 hands in 3 hours, a pair of 10's, AQo, J10s, and A4s (on the button), and lost 50$.
I know I need to learn more about Holdem, when I am in a hand I don't feel comfortable with my decisions. I can follow the treads on this forum, but the don't seem to apply to the games I am playing. I suspect that what I need is just a lot more experience, but I hate to give up time on the games I do well in. I would be grateful for any suggestions.
I've actually played less Hold'em than you have, but as a player in very much the same position, I think I can relate a little.
I lost a lot of money in games with big button drops, and I hope you've managed to avoid that. However, the loose, passive players winning with mediocre hands is still a perpetual problem. I am yet to turn a huge winning session in Hold'em but, of late, have had some nice 1-2bb/hr. sessions.
I think the important thing to note is the advice in the loose games section of HPFAP. Play more suited and connected cards and less hands like KTo which are likely to hit and still lose you the pot. Don't put in too many raises early as they are unlikely to get people out and will just give the loose players correct pot odds to call as they would have anyways. Just stick to a tight game and pray that you hit something - I suppose its as simple as that.
You hade "better" spell "bettors" right the next time; since as evury-wone heer nos I'm a sticlr fer spelin.
Hard to believe you bypassed holdem and found Omahaha hi/lo. Anyway, you have no idea what the other players have and this makes you paranoid and defensive, and lets the experienced players (even the bad ones) know what YOU have and can take advantage; usually through intimidation. You're only defense is to either play very tight or play 2+2 starting hands and bet the heck out of ALL of them and rarely fold. OK, so "only" is a bit extreme.
By "tight" I mean hands that make top pair good kicker. "good" means top kicker early, 2nd kicker in middle, and 3rd kicker in late position. Thus, don't play a hand worse than QJ. Play only premium hands when somebody raises. Small pairs can often be played since they are so easy to play ..err.. hard to play poorly after the flop. Suited connectors result in numerous tricky marginal situations after the flop and should be played more selectively than 2+2 suggest. Avoid unsuited trouble hands.
Spend your free time 1) figuring out what YOU would have if you were the bettor or the caller; and 2) try to figure out what they ACTUALLY have. If the flop is A94 and early position bets, well if it were you it'd be AK, and if you were the caller probably AJ. When its others you will notice there is a much wider variety of hands they can and do have. Its important to be able to distinguish what YOU would have and what THEY may have. Just because you would only bet a flush doesn't mean they won't bet weaker hands.
Your objective is to win showdowns fair-and-square; meaning win a high proportion of the hands you play, and that's where "tight" comes from. Playing lots of hands weakly is a disaster. Playing very few hands weakly is practically a cinch to make you break even. Bet, of course, when you believe you have the best hand. Later on you can add making money along the way, usually via value betting and raising. But don't go there until your first and second estimation of a player's hand is correct most of the time. "Flush Draw" and "Pair queens middle kicker" count, you don't need to guess exact cards.
Play TTH at home quickly and for free.
- Louie
40 hrs over 20 sessions isn't much to judge by. I bet you play a lot longer sessions in your other games. Follow Louie's advice and then check your results after a couple of hundred hours.
Brett
At the 3/6 level, you are playing "no fold 'em, hold 'em." That's why those types of hands are winning. It's awfully frustrating waiting for good cards, and from what you posted you are, just to get beaten by 6-4o. Here's what I did, and it may help you. Go to a bigger game, 10-20 or 20-40, and watch the play. Try to figure out what each player may have and what the eventual winner will show. If you can correctly predict one of 3 hands at least 80% of the time, you're on the right track. This is what I did in the late '70s before I started playing in the main 10-20 game at the Nugget. I got this advice from a champion. Hope it helps you.
Sounds to me like you need to be more selective in the games you are killing time at. BTW I have often sat in a LL HE game waiting for my game to open up but I wouldn't consider playing stud or Omaha (I'd rather slide sown a 50 pazor blade) I only play HE these days.
I maintain it is nearly impossible to beat the game you describe - well for me anyway - I do best with a mix of no more than 3 (2 is better) loose maniac types, and a couple of better players (the kind who can fold a good hand if they think they are beat) and a few passive types.
In a no fold'em hole'em game you are getting your good hand shot at by way to many collective outs and someone is gonna catch that river out on you.
If you have to play with these guys make sure your hand selection is superior to theirs. If you play suited cards make sure you have a big kicker Axs is my preference play it from all positions. Play your big cards T and above and coupled only cards suited or not.
The above gives you nut possibilities when they are hitting their idiot ended straights and 7 high flushes you are on the right end or with a bigger flush.
Trick is don't chase cards in these games it gets way to expensive. If you don't hit the flop get out and try to see flops for as little as possible very little raising pre flop and forget 3 card straights & flushes here and gut shots too I'd also muck over cards. No set no bet on the small pairs.
Hope this helps. Your game selection is arelly the key here.
"If you play suited cards make sure you have a big kicker Axs is my preference play it from all positions."
Rounder - I love to play AXs in a loose game, but only for one bet. I cannot imagine coming in with it when every pre-flop is being capped (assumption: cap=4 sb, not 5).
When you start with 2 flush cards, you only make a flush about 5% of the time. Your implied odds have been destroyed by the pre-flop raising. If you have invested 4 sb, then for that one time in 20 that you make the nut flush, you must average a profit of 80 sb, or 40 bb, from the flop forward. And worse, that "average" must include those times when you pay plenty for your draw on the flop and turn, and don't make it (this is about another 5% of the time). Profit: impossible.
(PS - Other value on the flop, pairing either card or making a 4-out straight draw if the X is 2-5, can be no better than break-even in the game described.)
Dick
Gee Dick I wouldn't see it for a cap or even 3 bets. I will maybe call a l raise with it.
Fred:: "I played 4 hands in 3 hours, a pair of 10's, AQo, J10s, and A4s (on the button), and lost 50$."
BL: Your selection seems "tight enough" but when it costs 4 bets pre-flop you could have folded at least three of those. 3 hours = 12 rounds and the blinds probably cost at least $50 so you actually performed a miracle. In the situation you describe it is not at all unusual to "dwindle" one's stack by well over a hun or two, but the pots you win will be even *huger*. Waiting is good, watching even better.
The reason you can win at O/8 is that you probably play nut hands only so long as they stay the nuts and your opponents keep drawing to 2nd-best hands. In stud you often find people calling obvious large pair raises to draw to two-gut straights. Also in spread limit games people will bet 1 but call 4, etc.
The really live ones have mostly moved to HE and so will you when you realize that 40 hours is a *very short run* in a game played by the year, rather than by the session. The best advise (when I first heard it I thought it was just a joke, but it's doable): "stay out of losing pots."
Love.
If you can play 4 hands in 3 hours of aggressive nofoldem you are most definitely on the right track. If any one of these hands had come in you'd be about $100 ahead for the 3 hours. Your hand selection is certainly correct. If you're mucking pairs just because they're less than TT that's a mistake. It's the baby pairs that become problematic for multiple bets, and these are often playable in late position anyway. Keep dumping the big unsuited cards below AQ, maybe below AK.
You just had a dry run, that's all. You probably already know that the premium pairs and big suited cards that work so well in these games only show up about 3% of the time. In most 3-hour sessions you'll see a few of these; this was just one of the many you'll have without any. This is a characteristic that hold 'em doesn't share with Omaha: it requires more starting hand patience; hours go by without seeing much of anything playable. You can often break the monotony with a steal or a free play in the blind, but in the kind of game you describe you just have to wait out your opponents. Simple and profitable, but frustrating and perhaps not a lot of fun. Bring a good book.
Chris I agree with your assessment with the exception of:
"Keep dumping the big unsuited cards below AQ, maybe below AK"
I like coupled cards suited or not (prefer unsuited) in mid to late position without a raise. Not any gaps here. I win more pots with these hands in loose games than I do with premium hands.
Where is this game? Even for 3-6 Hold 'em, that sounds like a very loose, maybe maniacal game.
I've noticed in low limit hold 'em, once they put in one bet pre flop, they will call 1,2 or 3 bets much more often that the quality of the hands dictates.
Watch some decent games from the rail. maybe sweat another player.
I find Omaha/8 a very easy game to play compared to holdem. I find holdem more profitable and accessable.
In contrast I find 7 card stud more difficult (and very inaccessible here in Vancouver.)
Read the books. Have a loss limit you can live with because you're learning and start to play more after reading and observing. Buy Texas Turbo and play against your computer.
Good Luck
My thanks to everyone for the advice. I will post again when I get to 200 hours (if I still have any money left!)
I am retiring from my job tomorrow, February 3 and in March I will be moving to Las Vegas to play poker and take up golf. I will no longer have access to a computer once I retire until I get relocated in Vegas where I will purchase my own computer. I plan to start posting in early April.
Hope you get up and running soon. I've enjoyed your responses. Here's to you never getting beat on the river! Slim
Jim,
Good luck! We have all enjoyed your terrific posts. My money is on you to do well and have plenty of new hands for us to dissect. In the meantime we will miss you.
Regards,
Rick
Jim,
Congrats on retiring. I look forward to it too but I still have a decade or so. I really appreciate your postings and spread sheet. Looking forward to your posts in April. Have a safe trip to LV. If you are ever in AC, let me know. I'll buy you a pizza at Tony's.
Jim, Congratulations! Thanks for all your posts so far; I look forward to many, many more once you're back on-line. Kate
I enjoy and appreciate your posts. See you then (and maybe live in Vegas this spring).
Congrats and Good Luck. Thanks for all the good tips. Readers of this forum should be pitching in to buy you a computer. I am sure that won't be necessary with your poker knowledge.
Any chance of a lesson (off the tables)on my next Vegas vist?
Your postings have been exceptional. Congratulations on your retirement.
kick some ass and hurry back.
hey! here's a story. a white man goes to an indian reservation and sees a indian just sitting there, thinking. the white man says "don't you have work to do?" the indian says "why would i work?" the white man goes on a huge tirade "why!?! why?!? you have to work. you work hard from the time your old enough until you finally have enough saved to retire. that's what people do." the indian asks "what's retire?" the white guy says, a little out of breath, "it means you don't have to work anymore." the indian smiles and says "i don't work now, white man."
congratulations on retirement. soon, you'll own vegas.
scott
You should be in non-smoking California!
But I am sure you do know.
Congrats.
D.
Ah, the days I've longed to retire, pack it all up, and move to vegas. Good news! Retirement is only a short 42 years away!
Here's hoping your 42 (give or take a few decades) in the workforce went by nice and smooth. I've been lurking on the forum for a few short months, posting for even less time, but I appreciated your input whenever it was given. Have a good trip, and may even your 83o go quads (but only in the blinds...)!
Dan
Jim,
Congratulations
I have learned much from your posts. I guess my JimB.Doc file will not be getting any bigger any time soon...lol
Best of it !!
MJ
'
Jim,
Congratulations on your retirement. Thank you for all of the well thought-out and clearly conveyed posts. You had an impact on how I play and think about cards. You contributions to the forum will sorely be missed. Thanks again, and best of luck in LV.
Jim,
You will be missed. You always posted in the right spots and rarely (if ever) got off topic. Your consistency and organization make you a beautiful person. Knock 'em dead.
WMF
...is his departure.
Jim,
I would like to thank you for the time and energy you have put into the Forum. There have been times when your poker knowledge has scared the hell out of me as it made me realize how little I really know. I have learned a great deal from your posts and expect that the knowledge you have passed on to me will translate into thousands of dollars over the years to come.
Once again, thanks.
Happy retirement and we all look forward to your return to the Forum. In the two months that you are gone, I am going to search the archives to see if I can come up with a legitimate Brier Problem No. 1:) (but I doubt that my search will be fruitful).
Ciao for now.
skp
ditto. you have improved many a game with your great insight into this game. THE BEST and thanks
You are livin' La Vida Loca, man. Speaking for the rest of us schmucks still grindin' it out, all the best. Just taking up golf, eh? I'm really not very good, but maybe next time I get down to LV, we could get a game. I'll need shots, of course. You should be rubbing shoulders with Steve Wynn very soon; maybe you can get us comp'ed at Shadow Creek. I'm already looking forward to "The Return of The Brier".
Thanks for all of your help with my questions. Good luck with your move and I hope we will hear from you soon....
Cheers Jim. Thanks for all the great advice. Knowing that when I look, I'll see no posts from you causes me to already miss your posts. I hope you have a successful and safe move. And I look forward to seeing you here again. Where are you going to play in Vegas? Next time I go I suspect I'll try the Belagio.
Good luck :)
Your posts are always helpful for me to better understand the game. Thank you, Jim, and wish you all the best.
regards,
jikun
lOOK FORWARD TO PLAYING AGAINST YOU IN vEGAS SOMETIME. lET US KNOW WHERE YOU PLAY. (PROBABLY BELLAGIO) GOODLUCK
I just started lurking/posting on this forum. In my first post I questioned some strategy in HPAP. You recommened that I purchase HPAP21C, which I did. And now you say Goodbye! I expect you will be back on line pre April. What 's the retirement age in Vegas? Sounds like a great move. Best of Luck!
No one said it yet so I will.
This really isn't the right forum for this kind of post. Maybe in future you should ......
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Well, I missed you when I was in Phoenix but there's a much better chance of me being in Vegas so I'll see you there one day. I'll bring my clubs.
Isn't it amazing how familiar we can get with other posters just over a forum like this.
You'll be "livin' the dream". Best wishes and talk to you in April.
Does this strategy go both ways... Make it as expensive as possible for flush and straight draws... Raise when drawing to an open ended straight and 4 flush with 2 cards to come. Make the pot as large as possible for times your hand hits.
I keep missing these hands while my competition hits. Suggestions please.
Next question. How many outs do you need to continue after the flop? I am playing openning hands by the book, but as stated above missing what should draw to winning hands.
Example: I hold As Qs the flop comes Qc 10s 9s. I've got a ton of outs and possible very strong hands. The turn 7h and the river 10h. No one raises and I call all the way down. The pots goes to Kc 10c.
I'm not losing money, but I'm not making any either. Thanks for the help!
"Does this strategy go both ways... Make it as expensive as possible for flush and straight draws... Raise when drawing to an open ended straight and 4 flush with 2 cards to come. Make the pot as large as possible for times your hand hits."
There is no contradiction here, but the idea that one should raise "in order to" or "with the goal" of making it more expensive for the big draws might be misleading.
There are some draws, such as backdoor flushes and gutshots, that a raise can price out of the hand, and knocking them out with the best or even second best hand is often a good thing to do (big pot, some of their outs become yours, etc.).
But against the open-straight and flush draws, raise with the likely best hand for the same reason you typically raise: to get more money in the pot that you'll probably win. This "punishes" the draw simply because you'll probably win and he probably won't, but rarely so much that he's not justified in calling the raise. Making it "expensive" for the draw to continue therefore doesn't rebound to your benefit unless you already have the likely best hand at the end.
"I hold As Qs the flop comes Qc 10s 9s. . . . No one raises and I call all the way down."
The word "call" shouldn't be associated with this hand until the very end, until which you were nearly a 90% favorite. There is nothing you can "do" about this other than be patient and encourage him to keep it up.
"I hold As Qs the flop comes Qc 10s 9s. . . . No one raises and I call all the way down."
The word "call" shouldn't be associated with this hand until the very end, until which you were nearly a 90% favorite. There is nothing you can "do" about this other than be patient and encourage him to keep it up
I don't understand your comment. Are you saying he should have raise, folded or checked down.
Thanks,
Bet and raise to build a pot. You already have the top pair on baord with the best kicker, and a 50-50 chance of improving to boot. They don't get much better than this.
Back to mis-plagerized theory: Considering hand value and not narrowing the field, your bet or raise is profitable if you will win more often than the number of callers. In this pure form it has nothing to do with the size of the pot (even though that affects the number of likely callers).
If you have a big pair and its the "best" hand right now, you will OBVIOUSLY win more often than the number of callers. If you have the nut flush draw and expect 3 callers, well you are going to win more often than 1 time in 4 (3:1) since you'll make the flush 1 time in 3 (2:1) and it'll win the vast majority of the time. If the pair is heads up against the flush, the pair will win more than half the time and should bet; the draw will win less than half and would prefer to check. Since there are usually extra players in the pot, it is routine for the best pair to build a pot with the best draw.
When someone bets a better hand you should consider the size of the pot vis-a-vis your cost. So when the pair is heads up against the big draw and there is any reasonable amount of money in the pot, the pair should bet and the draw should call.
There are FEW situations where you should not JOYOUSLY cap the flop with top-pair-top-kicker-top-draw. It better than flopping two pair and close to flopping a set. You shouldn't be thinking about your "outs" until you are more than likely beat. While YOU have the best hand, its the OTHERS that should count their outs. Your "outs" are the rest of the deck.
If you are just calling with your AQs hand then you need to bet or raise, I would guess, about 3 times as often as you are. That's why you are not making money. There is NO SHAME in betting a hand that doesn't win.
- Louie
PS: Yes, there a ARE a few "best hand is the dog" situations.
Two 20-40 Hands this is a higher limit then I normally play and I was trying to make adjustments. Here goes...
I am on the button w\ A2c utg bets, 4 seat calls, I call, sb raises, bb folds, cal, call, I call.
Flop Kc,3s,Th
sb bets, UTG folds, 4 seat (very tight player)calls, I know this might be a weak call but I figure I have two backdoor str8's and a backdoor (nut flush draw).
Turn 7c
checked around, I thought about betting, but what could I be holding that the 7 could logically have made?
River 3d
Checked to me I bet, sb says "tripped up huh" and folds, and the 4 seat folds as well. The only hand I can put the 4 seat on isQ,J probably suited... SB who seemed to play a safe and sane game told me he had AK, but I don't know if I really buy it.
Anyway my main question is was this a solid bet in a tight game? In a lower limit game I would rarely bet here as I know I wil be called by one of them. Is this a solid bet in a higher limit game like this? Sean
--------------------------------
I'm in the bb with Jd,Tc... 2 seat raises button calls, I call one bet from the bb.
Flop is 6h,9h,Qc
I thought about betting the flop, but I felt that the 2 seat was on a big pair and would raise me anyhow so I checked, he bet, button calls and I called as well.
Turn is the 2d
I check, bet, call, call we see the river 3 handed.
River is the 8s giving me the nut str8.
I bet and they both fold...
Shoud I have gone for the checkraise here? I think I over thought my hand. I figured at least one if not both of them would put me on a busted flush draw and raise me giving me a chance to 3 bet the pot... Again in a lower limit game I would always checkraise here...
sean
1st hand your only play was a bet on the river. You can't check here it is very weak and getting in the habit of betting the river will win you a lot of pots when you miss.
2nd No! your bet on the river was a good move you can't know if they will bet so you can raise. I think a check raise on the river is a foolish play it usually gets no response and if it does you only pick up 1 bb. Over all I think betting the river is the way to go.
I like to check raise the flop and/or turn if I do it at all. This only applies to limit HE of course.
First Hand - Your mistake was calling the Flop. Without a four flush or two pair, you must fold.
River bet is a good steal. You clearly cant win without the bet - you are in position and weakness has been shown on the turn and river.
Second Hand - I have found checkraising the nuts on the river to cost me bets, unless you are playing with very weak players.
I agree this call on the flop with the miracle expectations is a mistake and considered it so obvious I didn't mention it.
Hand 1. You have no call on the flop. Nice river bet. Comment: I would have bet the turn because when you check the turn and bet the river it would ring bells to most in a 20-40 game and they will call you with a better Ace.
Hand 2. Bet unless you believe the guy has a big pocket pair and will bet it for value.
Your back-door "straights" are pretty worthless since they are both one-card-double-gut-shots and you'll likely split one of them. There are 32 ways to make either of them out of about 1081 possible outcomes; or about 32:1 against. Your Ace is probably not an out. When that voice says "well, I know this is a weak call ..." trust it and fold.
The problem with the bet on the end is that its tough to represent few reasonable hands after checking the turn. But anyway since you don't look like a bluffer than good bet.
Bluffing is mostly a function of the opponents hand, so bluff when its obvious they don't have much. "Bluff" should be the first thing that comes to mind after your two opponents check twice. Do so often. Your bluffs will gain equity if you also bet weak hands like 3rd pair for value. Even though they are justifiably suspisious (since you checked in last position on the round before) their hands are often way to weak to call even if they KNOW you are bluffing. Don't do it too much or they'll start check-raising a lot; which will really throw a wrench into things.
If the guy REALLY had AK he's brain-dead.
To bet or check the semi-disguised nuts on the end is a function of whether the opponent routinely bets one big pair for value on the river. Its a brain-dead bet againt the "little old man" and a brain-dead check against the maniac.
- Louie
Louie has made a good point on hand 2; check or bet depends on the flavor of your opponents. In this case, hand 1 suggests a timid table where opponents try to save that big bet on the river. Folding to a bet when a straight card hits was an expected and undesired outcome. Here the alledged big pair might bet (or bluff) his hand for you. If he has the big pair, he might even call the check-raise out of macho spite.
It seems a check was really called for here; it might win you 2 bets.
Fat-Charlie
Where are you playing? There are many places where 20-40 is not appreciably different from the 10-20 or 15-30 at the next table. The limit is often NOT the biggest difference between two games. Adjust to the players and how they are playing, not the color of the chips or the number per bet.
Also, and I say this as a player who used to make many worse mistakes, if you are calling on the flop in situations like you describe in hand #1, you should expect that you will have to work a fair bit on your game before being a winning player. If this was just a rare fluke, then OK, but otherwise, you may find it more financially sound to try to work these kinks out of your game at a lower limit.
Best of Luck!
PS - I usually play 15-30 and lower, myself.
I've recently began to play a little no limit with the usual suspects around the way and generally clean their clocks....I suspect it's because they have even less of a clue than I do.
That being said, I feel I know the general principles (relatively speaking), but am interested if anyone knows of any online articles....I'm still in school and don't really feel like shelling out $40 for TJ's book, at least not without a chance to really play some no limit. Anyone with a link or willing to copy an interesting article please help....thanks
Mike
Mike
Wonder id TJ's book is at the local library. I know it is $40 but it is the best NL PL book on the market. Not all here like it because there are not any long formulas or discussions of pot odds and not any cookie cutter methods of play it is like sitting with an old pro and talking to him. I played with TJ last Dec in Sam's tournemtns for 4 hours and felt like I was playing with an old friend. He didn't know me from a bar of soap though. I was on his immediate left won a big pot with a set of J's I traped a guy with. He made a comment and I told him I read his book.
Get it, I don;t think you will be disapointed.
TJ's book is very good? I have actually avoided it, because i heard he held a lot back. Do you find that others tend to agree with you regarding its quality? I am trying to learn PL + NL, and I am looing for all of the advice I can get.
What other sources for PL + NL do you like?
Thanks!
I don't think he held anything back.
All aspects are covered.
Other publications specializing in NL & PL none I can recommend TJ and Tom McEvoy just came out with anotherbut I haven't seen it.
Even if he did hold anything back its still a great book loaded with helpful advice and if you want to learn no-limit or pot-limit holdem its one of the few books you have to choose from
MIke: You say that you're still in school. I assume you mean formal education and not "poker school." If you want to play at the NL level, you must think of it as capitalizing your business. How much do you spend for a textbook? When Doyle's book (SuperSystem) was first released, it was $100. I thought that was a lot to spend for a poker book (it was reduced to $50 6 months later). I bought it anyway. During the next 3 months playing in home poker games, I made $7900. I studied the book as if I were taking a class, and played in the games as if I were taking a test on the book. I would say it was a good investment. I think $40 is cheap if it yields a 100:1 return on your investment. Not even the best stock can do that!
Good luck.
I agree wholeheartedly and after I'm able to actively pursue and find a consistent no-limit game, as well as develop a bankroll that can handle it, I'll play no-limit and pot-limit.
In the meantime, I just want to study the principles so I know them cold and don't see the need to purchase the book when I have really no chance to play in a "real" no limit game.
I understand from where you're coming and happen to agree with you....oh yeah, it is formal ed., not poker school :)
Mike
Did you know that if you had invested $1000 in Microsoft 10 years ago, it would be worth $940,000 today?
Did you know that if you invested in the stocks I did two years ago, you'd have the same amount of money as when you started?
Did you know that neither of these things has to do with poker, and WFM will probably kill me in my sleep tonight?
Dan
"Did you know that if you invested in the stocks I did two years ago, you'd have the same amount of money as when you started?"
With the NASDAQ up 85% last year, it's nice to finally meet someone with the balls to make this admission. I can't tell you how many liars I talk to who claim to be up over 200% in the last 48 months.
Wrong Forum Man, COME GET ME!!
I was calculating some odds today and came across something paradoxal. This mosly apply to spread limit games, I suppose the same situation could arise in straight limit games thou.
Assume the following:
Flop:
2 players see the flop, Player 2 flops a four-flush.
Pot: $9
Player 1, Bet $3
Player 2, Calls $3 getting 4:1 for his call
Turn:
No flush for Player 2.
Pot: $15
Player 1, Bet $5
Player 2, Calls $3 once again getting 4:1 for his call.
Both calls has less odds then needed to draw to the flush. But, and here's the paradox, if you consider the effective oods you are getting 17 : 8, or 2.125:1 odds on your bets which is good enough with your 1.86:1 odds of hitting your flush.
Is this correct, assuming we always win with the flush, it just doesn't add up...
Are there other situations where two calls are correct but the individual calls are wrong?
- Bocke
P.S, This is my first time posting, go easy on me...
Player 1, Bet $5
Player 2, Calls $3 once again getting 4:1 for his call.
is he now all-in???
MJChicago: obvious typo; he called 5$ getting 4:1.
No paradox. Lets say he has a straight, cannot beat your flush, and all hands are face up...
If you make the flush on the turn you get ONLY 12:3 since he folds he turn. So HALF the time you make the flush you win 12 and half 17. Averaged that's 14.5:8 or 1.825:1 (less than 1.86:1) is your expected win if you plan to brain dead call the flop and turn.
On the turn you are 37:9 dog or 4.111 getting only 4:1 so don't call the turn. On the flop you are a 38:9 or 4.222 to one so don't plan to call the flop and not the turn. "Easy" fold on the flop.
"Are there >other< situations where two calls are correct but the individual calls are wrong?"
No. Two negatives NEVER add up to a positive, a truth many gambling "systems" conveniently forget. If they tell you they do, their ..err.. there ..err.. they're lieing whether you can prove it or not. If it looks like they do, well then you MUST accept the obvious conclusion: you made a mistake. <- INESCAPABLE REALITY
Calculate each decision separately; consider them together only if they go together.
- Louie
Now if you really see both his cards and neither are of your suit, then you can call both flop and river.
And if he doesn't know you have a flush draw you can really expect him to put in SOME money once you've made it, and that'll make it an easy call.
I had just entered a 10-20 game that appeared to be very passive before the flop, but not necessarily too loose. I am two off the button, so I elect to post a blind, rather than wait. I am dealt 3d,4d. There are an abnormal four callers before it gets to me. I check. Another call. Button raises. SB folds, BB raises. All limpers and me call, so seven player see the flop of 3c, 4h, 7d. All check to me, I bet. One fold before the button raises. Two callers and I call figuring that the button has an overpair or two overcards. The turn brings a Jh. Checked around to me, I check planning to check-raise. As expected, the button bets, BB folds, UTG calls, other player calls, I raise. BB calls, UTG calls, other player folds. The river brings the Qh. UTG bets, I raise, button folds. UTG calls and turns over the 9h, 10h. Should I have re-raised on the flop? Gone for the check-raise on the flop? Was my raise on the river foolish considering that UTG could have caught a runner-runner flush and I could have been re-raised? Please respond because Jim Brier is in transit to Vegas. Somebody lend him a computer.
I'm not sure what I would have done post flop. I probably would have folded my 4-3 before the wave of raises drown me.
Dan
I'll try. Your call of a raise with 34 is really a marginal one, since you are there you have to try to reduce the field on the flop with a ck raise. Your 2 pair are really vulnerable. With the scare cards on thrn and river I'd recommend just calling to the end.
Look at how weak your 2 pair are you hit the flop real hard and all you need is a pair on the board (not 3 or 4) and you are dead in the hand. The other day I had 2h3h in the bb and got in for free ald flopped a flush I check raised to limit the field a 4th h spells death for me I won the hand but had to hole my breath all the way to the river betting all the way.
Your call before the flop wasn't marginal, it was terrible. If you don't have the discipline to lay down this hand when facing a raise, you need to reevaluate your game.
If you had seen the flop for free, then you need to bet all you can to try to win the pot right there.
Brett
There was no way to escape this beat once you decided to call the action preflop. UTG calls 2 bets cold on the flop with 2 overcards and a backdoor straight and flush draw. The rest is history.
I wouldn't recommend playing a 34 suited preflop for 3 bets - especially in a loose game like you described here. Rounder's comments are all on the money.
Better luck next time.
To "M" I say he played 34s for only two bets. Should he check, call one raise, then fold for more raise just because its gone to "3-bets".
You are assured of two calls behind you so you are getting 21:2 or 10:1; but it may get capped and you get 28:3 or less than 9:1. Give or take 1. You are going to win THIS pot more often than that even if there is a sure big pair out there. Good B4 flop call.
When the button "just" calls and the BB checks, you are supposed to bet one pair. So this is a GOOD bet since the button is likely to check his apparent no-pair and if he has a pair he can help you win by forcing the field to call a double bet. Good flop bet. What to do with the raise? ... you need to quickly look ahead into the next paragraph before the action gets back around to you. Knowing how you intend to play the turn tells you whether to call or 3-bet on the flop.
On the turn vrs an obvious big pair who has pairing the board covered, other's with pairs only have 3 outs. Never-the-less you want them (and the gut shots) out of YOUR big pot, so a strategy of calling the flop raise then betting hopeing (hopping? hoping?) to get raised as considerable merit, so long as he's aggressive enough to raise again in this big pot. If that will happen its a LOT more profitable than a successful check-raise. Check-raise is also good and more dependable.
Absolutely hopeless raise on the river. Golly, you are no longer the favorite since it sure looks like YOU can beat a big pair and this guy bet into you. And you are sure to get an over-call from the button for one but not two bets. ReRead "going for the overcall".
Once the bone-head calls the flop raise with his silly whip-saw you are dead meat unless you can cause the dealer to burn and turn too soon.
- Louie
1. You're getting 8 or 9 to 1 pre-flop on your 2 bets, but button or SB could still cap. It's marginal, but I'd probably fold.
2. I'd bet the turn, rather than check-raising, hoping the button will raise and make the others call 2 bets. Check-raise isn't going to knock anyone out after calling 1 bet already (even though one did; go figure).
3. River raise... ugh!!!
Beginner here, 3-6 game of regulars and me the fish. I raise with 88 on the button to a family pot of limpers, 4 call. Flop Kxx and it checks around to me. I bet, 4 call. Turn is a blank, again, I bet 3 call. River blank also (apparently), check to me, I bet, everyone folds. No big deal, but then the elderly guy next to me asks "If you don't mind me asking, what did you have?". You could hear a pin drop as all ears turned. I stammered for a second and said "pair of aces". I hate stammering. Any suggestions?
I think AK would have been a more believable response. I would not have said 88, as that is not a raising hand in a full pot of weak-loose players.
Steve,
I like "trips in the hole" or "the winning hand" when people ask me. I usually try to use humor to change the subject. People need to pay to see 'em.
KJS
Just tell them "I flopped the nuts".
LIES at the poker table - you may end up in hell.
I'd have said AK. But the AA is good eneough.
I usually say what do you think I had and when I agree they feel better.
"I don't remember."
When Mike McD was telling Kanish why he thought he could beat the game. Big deal he beat Chan for one hand - not he thinks he can beat the world.
Yeah, every time I see the film I think to myself "thank god he got up after that hand. Chan would have ate him for lunch". It's nice for a World Champ to allow himself to be beaten in a big time film. Very unselfish of him. But it's even nicer to see Phil Hellmuth get beat for REAL. Thank you Discovery Channel!!
Thank you Shooter! I thought I was the only one who found Hellmuth incredibly full of himself, artless and annoying. 'Course I've never met him, but that's my impression from his columns and World Series commentary.
I used that line recently when my opponent had laid down a four (apparently) when the flop also had a four. He asked me "Could you beat a 4?" (sounding a little angry). When I said "I don't remember," he said, "I think you're lying." I felt sort of bad after that and wished I'd just said "Yes." (I couldn't, I just had overcards).
No point in feeling bad. He shouldn't be asking. He should have called, taken the pot and then said nothing.
Here are a few hands that recently occurred 2 against weaker players and 2 against decent players.
1) In the small blind with 89s.
5 other players limp. I raise (I might do something like this once a month) and all call.
The flop is QQ4 with 2 clubs. I hestitate, ever so briefly, and make a bet. 4 fold. Button raise. I call. Turn is the 8. I check and call River is a club. I check, he checks (and yes I would have called) and shows 34 of hearts.
2) I have AQ on the button. All fold and I raise. SB folds and big blind re-raises. I call.
Flop is all medium stuff with a straight draw.
BB bets, I call. Turn is small card with a flush draw. BB bets, I call. River is a J and there is a one card straight possible (nine I think). BB bets, I call.
He has A high and I win.
3) (Against a decent player now). I have Axs on the button. 6 players. Flop has a pair with 2 of my suit. Checked to me, I check. Turn is a blank. Early position bets, middle caller, and I call. Maybe a missed check raise by early position. He likes to bet when he hits the flop however. River pairs the bourd again. Early position makes a very "strong" (strong means weak) bet against middle position player. Middle player folds. I pretend to ponder a little and call. Early better has pocket 2 and is now playing the board. I win with Ace high.
4) (Against a better than decent player) AK small blind. 4 limpers and I limp in as well. Flop is Q 10 x. I bet and am raised. One caller and I call. Turn is blank. Checked all around. River is blank. Opponent bets, second player folds. I truly ponder and replay the hand. Put him on busted draw and call. This player had shown (1 week earlier) me a busted flush draw (45) of the same busted draw I was on with J10s.
Of all the four hands this is the only time I said any thing. I reminded him of showing me the 45 and said I probably wouldn't have called if he hadn't done that. Of course in this situationI would have anyway. In reality I don't like people to show me their cards after because I don't really care. If I am shown then I do care (just a little) and I'd rather not be bothered.
In all cases above I thought there was a good chance the players were "lying". Rather than fold and ask, I called instead. It's only money, and besides it's coming back to me one day anyway.
Regards
I always say, "You gotta buy a ticket to see the show." and leave it at that
chris
You say "six bucks".
I think your answer was good. You could also say: "I had the winning hand!" Good Luck! Black Jack
I usually answer that question with one of two statements:
1. "A lot!" if I want the table to perceive me as tight-aggressive.
2. "Nothing much" if the table thinks I'm too tight already.
What I NEVER do is give exact cards, whether they're really what I had or not. If they don't pay to see 'em, they ain't gonna find out. That's poker, and I'd never ask another player what cards he had if I didn't make it to the showdown with him. On the other hand, I often see players in the showdown try hard NOT to show their cards after they've made second best hand, by tossing them in the muck. That steams my clams, especially when the winner wants to know.
shooter
whenever some wizenheimer asks me DURING a hand what i hae.. i take a long pause and tell them "two cards". I also sometimes use that reply at the end of the hand.
During a hand, if you are asked, or if someone takes it upon themselves to predict what you have, if you are not mentally prepared for this you can easily give a tell. Some guys will ask straight out, just as if they expect you to tell them, "Do you have the straight?" or some such.
My usual canned response is "Something Good!" with a big confident smile.
Dick
If they ask during the hand, try telling the truth ... they'll never believe you!
"That steams my clams, especially when the winner wants to know."
What gets me a little is when the hand is tossed but it does not actually get mixed up with the other cards. And someone clearly asks the dealer a second or even a third time to open the hand and the dealer just looks at them ignores them and then mixes the cards up.
I actually witnessed a dealer turning over the mucked loser to the table in a mostly locals 4-8 game. I was kind of shocked and asked if he was going to always turn over a mucked loser? He claimed he didn't realize that he turned it over.
I have a few standard answers. To the question "what did you have" (asked by someone who just folded), I answer:
"I think you did the right thing folding..."
And if you someone shows his hand after folding (which actually happens!), and then asks "could you beat this?", I answer:
"Maybe..."
I think the key is not WHAT you say but HOW you say it. Use a confident smile. And NEVER tell anyone what you had. And don't lie either.
Jonas
I like both these responses. They are both true and do not reveal anything about your hand.
The weak hand will lose less over time by folding and therefore "I think you did the right thing folding..." is TRUE and not intimidating nor embarassing to the other player.
If the other player shows you his cards then he "REALLY" wants to know what you had.
The above "I think you did the right thing folding..." is also true but "maybe" is better because he wants confirmation of this specific hand and what he should have done irght now.
Excellent.
I have used phrases such as "You can't really call with that hand or you'll go broke". This is too much like a lesson however. Usually I want the person to call.
Look him dead in the eye (like he just asked to borrow a $100), pause for a few discomforting seconds without breaking your stare and calmly but clearly say, "I would tell you but then I would have to kill you." If you do it right he will shift uncomfortably in his seat, mumble "thank you", and fold next time you raise his bet.
I did that once. He waited for a second and then said "then how about telling my wife?!"
The proper response is:
Sorry John, I don't remember.
That's what I tell 'em. If they persist, I remind them that the important thing is not what I had, but what they had.
Also, when I first sit down, I like to ease any tensions that might exist by advising the players to "Relax girls, Otis Bunch is here" And when I leave, just to remove any anxieties, I remind them to "Please remain seated"
Otis Bunch
Country Gentleman
It is good practice to never answer any question. I few card players back Amarillo Smith said that he would ask a player question just to get a read on the "inflection" in his opponents voice. My god that's good! Saying nothing is the answer.
Vince.
Actually I've played with Slim, and it's amazing how well he reads hands.
Brett
That seems a little extreme. I usually lie and tell 'em I had some kind of monster (e.g., in Steve's case I would have said a set of K's) unless I'm playing in my usual buttoned down 10-20 game, in which case I'll smile and say "I don't know. It's beem a long time since I looked at my hand." Either way, not saying ANYTHING is a) rude, and b) makes you look like one of those sunglass wearin', headset listenin' GEEKS that 'really came to play'.
"I usually lie and tell 'em I had some kind of monster "
O.K.
Vince
3/6 holdem about 8 hands after I sat down at the table I get dealt AA...so I raise...got the table down to 3 players myself and 2 others....the flop 7s kd 10d...first player checks....second player bets..I raise....first player folds....second player calls....the turn comes Ks.....the other player checks...not trusting him fearing trip kings I check too. river is a 2......anyway he bets...reluctantly called.....should I have folded instead?
I think you have to call. Think if you were in his position. You would have played the same way if you had QQ or QJ or AQd something. There is a good chance he's bluffing the river so you have to call him down.
If he's got it, you saved yourself 2bb on the turn and if he doesn't, well, your post would probably be in a very different tone...
~DjTj
This is a compulsary call. However I would have played the hand differently. On the turn when he checked, you should of bet. Don't forget, you've implied by your raise on the flop that you have a strong hand, he would most likely put you on AK, or possibily a set on the flop, so your opponent would be hard pressed to try to check raise you on the turn if he is holding a K with medium kicker. And if he does raise, I would have no problem releasing my hand against trips. But if he doesn't raise, he will most likely check to you on the river and if your still concerned that he is holding a K, you check. If your beat it still cost you only one bet on the turn, which is no more than checking the turn and having to call the river. Plus on the river he might try a semi-bluff since you showed weakness on the turn.
What's a semi-bluff on the river?
I like the check on the turn because he will lay down anything that can't beat you.
In this game he would call with QQ or JJ but that's not what he has.
The check will induce a possible bluff or bet with a weaker hand. He does get a free card and you may get beat by a made straight or flush. On of the straights gives you a huge hand.
He might even attempt a steal on the turn by check raising a flush draw and then you have thrown away a winner.
If he checks on the river again then bet and fold to a check raise here (unless you really believe you caused him to make a play on the river. Don't forget you showed weakness by checking. He might re-raise with a pocket pair thinking he's the best.
When the K hit on the turn you still had 2 outs to hit even if you're against a K. Take the free card.
You may even gain more bets in the long run by the action on the river.
Regards
UTG called to my left and I called with 88. Late position player raises and blinds fold. UTG and I call. The flop is 633 rainbow. UTG bets I raise both call. Turn is 4 offsuit. Checked to me I bet both call. The river is an A. UTG bets I fold, original raiser folds. The UTG player appeared to be a solid player, possibly a semi-pro from vegas (he talked like it and new a lot of the decent players). I put him on either the 3 (why didn't he reraise the flop?), A6, or A7+. Of course, he could be bluffing but I feared a raise from behind me (I put the original raiser on 2 overcards). How was my play?
It's very possible he had A-big, but if you think he was a solid player, maybe a semi-pro, the only way he had a 3 was if he was holding quads. I seriously doubt he was holding A6 or A7 either, at least if he is as tight as you seem to think
I think he was probably on a steal, the preflop raiser was probably trying to do the same thing. The reason I think it was probably a steal was because if he did have A-big, than more than likely he would have raised preflop, especially UTG. Even if he was, it was still probably a decent fold because the pot was so small. I would have called, though, I'm a knucklehead.
Mike
I would have been suspicious of this bet on the end and would have called. I can't see a solid player having an ace in this spot. He could have had a 5/6 or 6/7 suited and bet on the end thinking you both would play the ace kicker to your pair of 6's.
Robin,
The river ace should look scary to the UTG player if he doesn't have it himself considering the play of the late position player, which almost cries out high cards with an ace. Based on this degree of "pot protection", I like your laydown.
However, other unwritten factors may have been at play here. The UTG player may not put you on an ace if you normally raise pre flop with your better aces. Maybe he saw a tell on the river indicating disappointment by the late position player and acted with aggression to consolidate his advantage. What I am trying to say is that, in general, your laydown was proper but there could have been more to this story.
Regards,
Rick
I would not have feared anyone having an ace at the river. Given the action who would go this far with nothing but an ace high?
The UTG player had a medium pair and "bluffed" on the river or (less likely) pocket sixes. I don't think the semi-pro UTG would take any ace/x this far do you? Furthermore preflop, if he had A/big he would have raised, if A/small he would have folded. I would have called the river.
I find your 2 statements contradictary, at least to me.
If he's a semi pro then he's a losing one by the way he played this hand.
Possible hands to continue betting and calling not considering preflop play.
33 66 3x AA KK QQ ... 77 45 6x 57 A-FACE
Many of these hands a good player (pro or not) would not play under the gun.
AA-10,10 AK AQ KQs A-Js are possibles.
Some of these hands he would raise with. In reality he could continue only with the pocket pairs after missing the turn.
Since he talked a lot about his game he may not have been a winning player. I give it a 60-70% chance that he had an Ace or better hand. There's a good chance he's a marginal player who realizes he can't win if he doesn't bet in this situation or he's got a hand he going to call with anyway.
Call and find out. The pot's large enough to make a call profitable. (You need to win 1-10). If you're worried about the preflop raiser then raise here to drive him out. You're very unlikey to be re-raised and if you are you are for sure beat. You'll need to have the best hand more often in this case (more like 1 in 6).
I estimated that you were giving odds of about 3-1 so maybe the raise is the better play. This would depend on who the preflop better was.
There's a lot of concepts at work here and you may need to do some reading plus add some experience at lower limits.
Good Luck
To other players,
I would welcome comments on my analysis. I'm working hard on my game and would love critique on my thought process.
I tend to agree that a call (or raise?) was called BTW I think that playing in the lower limits is a waste of time, especially since I'm a winner at the 10-20 level and you don't get problems in the play like you do at 10-20 (there wouldn't be many good players at 4-8). I've long passed the stage where I'm learning the basics of the game.
Another bad read by me that was influenced by your read of the Semi-pro. I hope you accept my apologies.
I've thought a little more about this but can't figure out if a call or raise is better. What's the Preflop raiser have. Would he fold a large pair at this time to a double bet?
I suppose so. At 15-30 I've check raise bluffed a tight player and he showed me Top pair (K) with the Ace kicker. And that was for 450 pot and he needed to make only a 30 dollar call.
I say raise here. You improve your chance of getting the raiser to fold. Even if you lose (which is probably) you are very likey to pick up a few weak calls on your strongs hands later on. You'll get your money back with a raise. A call is weak unless you've picked up a tell that the player behind you will fold.
Even if reraised and you then fold you'll confuse a lot of the players.
If you win then wow what a player!
Posted by: Mike Nelson (mnelson6312@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 February 2000, at 2:56 a.m.
If he is as good as you say he was then he can't have many hands here. Maybe something like AJ, 99, 77. It would appear as I'm looking for a call here but I actually think a fold is better. You not only have to worry about the bettor but also the possible caller/raiser behind you.
3-6 game on Paradise Poker. Game is loose, passive b/4 the flop and then gets aggressive. I am cut-off and have KTs. I limp in after two middle players limp and button calls. No read on middle players but button was aggressive after the flop.
Flop is: x Qs K. Betting: check, check, check (me), bet, fold, call, raise, call, call. I planned to check raised since I had top pair and wanted to fold other players. Correct play?
Turn: Ax. Betting: check, check (me), bet, fold, call. Now, I am heads up. Should I have bet, check/called like I did or folded?
River: 9. I check/call the river.
I think I played this okay but am new and would like some analysis.
I will post results later.
Thanks
I think you played preflop and flop perfectly. On the turn I think betting out would have been much better than check-calling. Checking is inviting a dilema. However, checking did give you some info: this player was not worried about being check raised...so either he's got you beat (ace, two pair, king w/kicker,etc.) or (given that he's aggressive) he may have a read that you're weak and be on a steal. (How have _you_ played prior to this hand? Did you shut down when overcards flopped? Wither in heat? Did you check and call to the river? You read his prior play as aggressive, how do you - does he - read _your_ prior play? These, I think, are key questions on getting a read on _his_ play, on deciding what he's got). The river was played correctly w/ a check-call - as long as you believe this player would attempt a bluff. Otherwise, if you believe he's got _something_ you're probably beat with your second pair/weak kicker. Without knowing how you played prior hands (check/call to river or fold under heat) it's hard to say conclusively what you should do here. But given the action on the turn I think you're beat, though I'd pay him off at this point and file the info.
I think he viewed me a tight/agressive. I was very selective in my opening cards but would bet when I believe I had the best of it. He has bluffed a few time prior which is why I check/call on the River.
You are correct. AA. I am not looking to play perfect but I am trying to assure myself on the basics. You have helped.
Thanks
I planned to check raise since I had top pair and wanted to fold other players. Correct play?
No, Because the button bet the middle player calls so a raise here is not going to get them out. They have just made one bet and calling another in 3-6 is automatic. So this type of check-raise would not have the desired effect you stated above.
Now, I am heads up. Should I have bet, check/called like I did or folded?
The button did not raise pre-flop so he may have nothing, I would just check/call it down because if he has the Ace he will raise your bet then you will lose 1 or two more big bets.
My read is that the button may just have had a weak Qx and was just as scared of the big cards as you were
Best of it !!
MJ
I am assuming you won the hand b/c you seem to think your play was ok. I would probably check the flop and raise only if a late position better bet. This did not occur, it was bet by a mid position player and then raised. Calling this raise is ok, you've got top pair and a backdoor flush draw(without the backdoor draw, I'd fold). After that you cannot bet on the turn unless a spade comes off or you make two pair. If the other player weren't the overly agressive type an argument for betting out can be made. Notice a normal player would only raise if he has you beat on the turn however this player could be raising with top pair weak kicker and your not going to gain any info by betting into him on the flop. By check calling you invite him to continue to bet possibly a weaker hand and eliminate the unnecessary risk of being raised. Checking and calling is your best play. If a spade doesn't come and there's a lot of action on the turn I would fold. This did't happen so check calling to the river is the best play IMO.
Nothing too special about hand, but I'm on a bit of a rush, so...
$5-10 at Paradise. Button's Seat #5, I'm in #4 with Ad Kh.
Fold to #1 who limps, fold, fold, I raise, fold, SB raises, BB calls all-in, #1 calls, I call (?).
Flop is Qs Jd 9d. BB bets, #1 raises, I call with overcards, gutshot, and backdoor nut flush.
Turn is Th, giving me nut straight, but flush still possible. Sb bets, #1 calls, I raise, both call.
River is 5d. Check, check, I bet, call, call. I show, both muck, BB shows Ac 6c. SB had Ks Kc, #1 had Kd Tc, straight on the flop, (you can get hand history from Paradise showing mucked hands that call on the river).
I know, I got lucky, but think I played it as well as I could. Should I have capped pre-flop? I figured SB probably had high PP to reraise from there, which might have de-valued my hand.
"God, I love the smell of napalm in the morning...", but easy on the flames, please...
Hey Ed
Pre-Flop: SB must be on some big cards QQ KK JJ I think that the call was correct.
On the Flop:
SB bet right? BB all-in ,mid raise, I would have had him on the KT or maybe a big pair ,or a flush draw. The pot odds to you are 11:2(5.5:1) if you call you have a gutshot 11:1 ,Runner Runner flush 24:1 and Big Slick,your getting raises from the SB pre-flop and now from the middle player. The pot is not that big but you do have chances to improve. If you catch one of your big cards it may help the others as well. So it's 2 bets to you. And If you put either player on KT you have 1 less out for your gutshot... I would fold.
(but luck was on your side this hand õ¿õ )
(you can get hand history from Paradise showing mucked hands that call on the river).
I will keep this in mind when I am playing with you...LOL
Best of it !!
MJ
Another Paradise 3-6 hand
I'm in the big blind with 98o
Four players limp, SB calls and I check. Six take the flop.
*** FLOP *** : [Jd] [3s] [Tc]
SB checks, I check UTG bets, fold, fold, Button calls, SB calls, I call.
*** TURN *** : [4d]
SB checks, I check, UTG again bets. Button calls and SB raises..
I'm now left with the prospect of calling two bets here for the ignorant end of a straight draw. But here's my read. UTG probably had JT or top pair, KQ was improbable for him IMO. He would have raised preflop (had been diligently raising KQ preflop earlier). SB was getting low on chips but probably has something, but not a draw, the 4d helped him somehow. Maybe he hit his kicker. The only unknown is the button.
I decide to call (perhaps here's my first mistake, though I felt with my read I was good)
Much to my surprise, UTG now re-raises, button drops, SB now re-raises all-in with a partial bet. I'm definitely sandwiched between two made hands.
Just over 14 big bets in, If I'm left to call another 2.3 big bets to continue
Comments?
(I'll continue the hand on the next post)
Recap:
I'm in the big blind with 98o
Three players limp, SB calls and I check.
*** FLOP *** : [Jd] [3s] [Tc]
SB checks, I check UTG bets, fold, fold, Button calls, SB calls, I call.
*** TURN *** : [4d]
SB checks, I check, UTG again bets. Button calls and SB raises, I call. UTG now re-raises, SB re-raises all-in with a partial bet.
I mulled over this decision for a while. I figured I had the best draw and stood to drag a decent pot if I won so I called. Had the button continued to cold call I probably would have droped out earlier. I'm up against at least one set, but at least my choices on the river will be quite clear.
*** RIVER *** : [7h]
I bet out rather than attempting a check-raise. I was heads up with UTG at this point since SB was all-in. No need in getting tricky I thought.
My straight held up and I dragged a nice pot.
Ending hands:
Me: [9d] [8s] (a straight, seven to jack)
UTG: [Jh] [Js] (three of a kind, jacks) SB: [4h] [4c] (three of a kind, fours)
I was sandwiched between two sets...
I'm somewhat troubled with my play here. Was it correct to continue with what I saw as the best draw even though the turn was nearly capped?
Good read that any straight you made would be good. A flush draw would be worse since the players are representing trips or 2 pair.
The pot odds are there, unless you aree reraised which you were. You must make the second call because the odds are even better for your 2 bet call and there is even less chance that your up against any kind of diamond flush draw.
You are guaranteed 2 calls on the river.
I would have check-raised only because of the powerful turn betting.
Nice pot
The worst you can be looking at is a set right now. If a 7 or Q hits, it's not going to help either of them; if one doesn't, you're out. You're getting something over 6/1 (assuming UTG has called) on almost a 4/1 shot (42/8 as neither UTG or SB likely has a Q or 7), plus anything you can get from UTG if you hit.
Easy call.
L0QTiS,
You should be able to rule out AK based on the pre flop and post flop action but this is not 100%. You would prefer to see the turn and river cheaply with a drawing hand but you are getting easy odds all the way based on the information you have at each stage of the hand.
One extra factor in your favor is that you can not get sandwiched on the river since the third party is all in. So if by chance the AK is out you will only lose two bets at most. Anyway, all this talk of a sandwich is making me hungry. I think I'll make one.
Regards,
Rick
I thought this was going to be an analysis of the hand wherein John Finn drops a sandwich into the pot during play when he has the stone-cold nuts. Two+Two utterly fails to address this motif in either edition of 7CSFAP.
JG
This question is for the 3/6 Hold'em players. I would like to know over the long run how often you win a hand (every lap, 1.5 laps, 2 laps, etc...) ? I am trying to figure out how much the button drop cost me compared to the drop subtracted from the winner. Please let me know if you play in Los Angeles. Thanks.
Depends on the type of player you are. Looser players win more hands Tighter players win fewer hands.
The button drop is a benefit to the first type especially in 3-6 where the drop is 1 small bet.
A tight player may enter 1/5 hands and say win 1/4 he enters (maybe I'm too optimistic here). So he pays 3 dollars each 2 rounds if deducted from the pot.
He pays $6 if he pays the button drop.
JCC,
I will provide some good raw data and maybe you can do the math and post the results.
From the summer of 1987 until January 1989 a friend who I trust completely kept meticulous records of his results playing both 3/6 holdem and 5/10 holdem in Los Angles. This player kept track of every blind that went past him (i.e., trips around the table) and pots won using matchbooks labeled (W)ins and (B)linds. He would record hours played and enter all in a database.
In 3/6 holdem, a $2.50 drop was taken from the pot only when the pot exceeded $20, which was about 99% of the time. The tables averaged 8.5 handed at any given time since smoking was allowed (I would say we now average eight handed due to smoke breaks). The small blind of $1 was dropped for the jackpot, which is not done anymore. BTW, this drop was live (i.e., you only had to call $2 in an unraised pot).
This player was very studious, and a devote member of the Church of S&M, which was just getting off the ground (his old church, the Church of DS, had just merged with the smaller Church of MM). He probably played relatively appropriately for these loose games.
Anyway, the games were very loose due to the newness of holdem (it had just been made legal in the Spring of 1987), but not that much looser then they are now (which I believe is largely due to the up front rake, which drives away tight players).
This player played plenty of hours and averaged $11.03 per hour. He tipped appropriately ($1 on any qualifying hand) and never won a jackpot. He found that he would average only .39 pots per round. In other words, the blinds would pass by five times and he would figure to win two pots.
Today there is no jackpot drop and the collection of $3 is taken from the button. The games are a little less wild but not much (the player in question missed out on the first few months of legal holdem when it was extremely crazy).
With this raw data you should be able to determine the impact of a dead button drop. (Hint: Obviously the earn goes down since this player will not get his “fair share” due to the games being so loose.)
Regards,
Rick
P.S. When the law was changed in January of 1989 to require an up front drop my friend was fortunately ready for time collection games. From about 1989 to 1996 most clubs added a 50-cent ante and would take the collection from these. Hollywood Park at least was able to get the dead drop instituted, which was an improvement. The math for this drop is worse.
P.P.S. I also have data for 5/10 holdem (6/12 didn’t get going until about five years ago). Here our hero averaged $19.82 per hour and won .51 pots per round (the games do tighten up as you move up). The jackpot drop of $2 was taken live from the small blind. Our hero never won a jackpot at these limits. The collection was $3 with a qualifier of $30.
Chuck,
For the first time the post above did not immediately appear (I waited five minutes) and so I double posted unintentionally. Another poster has also noticed this problem lately (we trade emial).
You are doing a great job but I have also noticed some other bugs regarding messages not being marked as "NEW" or read in some forums. I will email you a list of some of these problems along with others upon request. Some problems could be in my browsers as I use both Opera and MS IE5.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. If you don't respond, that is OK. My guess is that Mason has you on a fixed price contract and you end up making burger flipping wages maintaining this forum :-).
JCC,
I will provide some good raw data and maybe you can do the math and post the results.
From the summer of 1987 until January 1989 a friend who I trust completely kept meticulous records of his results playing both 3/6 holdem and 5/10 holdem in Los Angles. This player kept track of every blind that went past him (i.e., trips around the table) and pots won using matchbooks labeled (W)ins and (B)linds. He would record hours played and enter all in a database.
In 3/6 holdem, a $2.50 drop was taken from the pot only when the pot exceeded $20, which was about 99% of the time. The tables averaged 8.5 handed at any given time since smoking was allowed (I would say we now average eight handed due to smoke breaks). The small blind of $1 was dropped for the jackpot, which is not done anymore. BTW, this drop was live (i.e., you only had to call $2 in an unraised pot).
This player was very studious, and a devote member of the Church of S&M, which was just getting off the ground (his old church, the Church of DS, had just merged with the smaller Church of MM). He probably played relatively appropriately for these loose games.
Anyway, the games were very loose due to the newness of holdem (it had just been made legal in the Spring of 1987), but not that much looser then they are now (which I believe is largely due to the up front rake, which drives away tight players).
This player played plenty of hours and averaged $11.03 per hour. He tipped appropriately ($1 on any qualifying hand) and never won a jackpot. He found that he would average only .39 pots per round. In other words, the blinds would pass by five times and he would figure to win two pots.
Today there is no jackpot drop and the collection of $3 is taken from the button. The games are a little less wild but not much (the player in question missed out on the first few months of legal holdem when it was extremely crazy).
With this raw data you should be able to determine the impact of a dead button drop. (Hint: Obviously the earn goes down since this player will not get his "fair share" due to the games being so loose.)
Regards,
Rick
P.S. When the law was changed in January of 1989 to require an up front drop my friend was fortunately ready for time collection games. From about 1989 to 1996 most clubs added a 50-cent ante and would take the collection from these. Hollywood Park at least was able to get the dead drop instituted, which was an improvement. The math for this drop (with the 50 cent ante) is worse.
P.P.S. I also have data for 5/10 holdem (6/12 didn't get going until about five years ago). Here our hero averaged $19.82 per hour and won .51 pots per round (the games do tighten up as you move up). The jackpot drop of $2 was taken live from the small blind. Our hero never won a jackpot at these limits. The collection was $3 with a qualifier of $30.
----------------
could someone please list a copy of the 8 categories of starting hands listed in the Slankski book. mine was torn out, thankyou.
Could someone please post the entire book Hold'em for Advanced Players here? I seem to have lost my copy.
thankyou
I hope I'm not violating any copyright laws... Without the description of when and how these groups are to be played this info will not do anyone any good.
1: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs 2: TT, AQs, AJs, KQs, AK 3: 99, JTs, QJs, KJs, ATs, AQ 4: T9s, KQ, 88, QTs, 98s, J9s, AJ, KTs 5: 77, 87s, Q9s, T8s, KJ, QJ, JT, 76s, 97s, Axs, 65s 6: 66, AT, 55, 86s, KT, QT, 54s, K9s, J8s, 75s 7: 44, J9, 43s, T9, 33, 98, 64s, 22, Kxs, T7s, Q8s 8: 87, 53s, A9, Q9, 76, 42s, 32s, 96s, 85s, J8, J7s, 65, 54, 74s, K9, T8
Yeah ... right!
But truthfully, I only need the the new 100 pages of the 21 century edition.
Could someone please post it.
Thanks again
PS why isn't the new book called the THAP Very End of the 20 th century edition.
It is posted on a website that I found linked from here. I printed out a copy in color. I might get a tattoo of it on my fore.....arm.
Raise with AA pre-flop. The rest is just commentary, go and learn.
Here's another hand from the same Paradise 3-6 session posted below.
Early position with JJ
I raise, MID position calls, Button re-raises, BB re-raises, Everyone calls.
Most of these players were new so I had no prior read on thier play other than the BB who had overplayed a hand just prior to this.
*** FLOP *** : [7d] [6s] [8c]
I bet, MID calls, Button re-raises, BB reraises ... someone has a big pocket pair
Here's where I should have gotten a clue and gotten out
I called (probably an error given the action) MID capps, everyone calls.
32 small bets in
*** TURN *** : [4h]
checked all around
*** RIVER *** : [5s]
again, checked all around.. Play the board
Result: 4 way split, net -$0.50
I'll post the hands on the reply
.
Here's another hand from the same Paradise 3-6 session posted below.
Early position with JJ
I raise, MID position calls, Button re-raises, BB re-raises, Everyone calls.
Most of these players were new so I had no prior read on thier play other than the BB who had overplayed a hand just prior to this.
*** FLOP *** : [7d] [6s] [8c]
I bet, MID calls, Button re-raises, BB reraises ... someone has a big pocket pair
Here's where I should have gotten a clue and gotten out
I called (probably an error given the action) MID capps, everyone calls.
32 small bets in
*** TURN *** : [4h]
checked all around
*** RIVER *** : [5s]
again, checked all around.. Play the board
Result: 4 way split, net -$0.50
I'll post the hands on the reply
Me:JJ
MID: JTo (!!)
Button: AA
BB: AKs
L0QtiS,
You need to lay down after the flop raises although I think it was correct to bet. I would guess a bigger overpair and at least big overcards are out against me. With this info alone you are either a small favorite (if they have overcards) or a big dog (if they have overpairs). Even if you spike a jack on the turn it will cost you two or three more bets to get there and you will then be vulnerable to losing to a straight on the river (MID could easily have a hand that could make a straight).
I can't believe these guys checked the turn though. What wimps! BTW, the MID player should have bet the river. He can be pretty sure his opponents don't have a nine but they can't be sure of the same so he may be able to get someone to lay down. Make someone starve!
Regards,
Rick
Call me a wimp, but I muck this easily and would NOT have shared in the runner-runner 4-way chop.
I'm 8 off the button in an average 3-6 Hold 'Em game holding 44. Four callers when it gets to me with eight seeing the flop without a raise. Flop comes 4d 3h 5s. SB bets, BB folds, UTG calls, its folded to me, I raise, others fold to the button who calls, SB reraises, and there's four see the turn seeing the turn. Turn comes 7h. So any 6 makes a straight and there's a flush draw now. SB bets, UTG raises, I call, button folds, SB calls. The river comes 7s. SB checks, UTG bets, I raise, SB calls, UTG reraises, and me and the SB call. So the board is 4d 3h 5s 7h 7s.
SB shows 66 for the straight. I show 44 for the boat. UTG shows 77 and takes it down.
I don't think my play was that that bad until the river. I like my raise on the flop with trip 4's to narrow the huge field. I think it was OK to see the two bets on the turn with a big pot. My odds of a pulling out a boat or better at 4.6 to 1. I'm getting much better than that from the pot. The only thing I think I did wrong was raise on the river. I should have just check called. What do you think?
I would have played it the same way. "8 off the button"? what position is that?
Sorry, I meant six off the button.
It's better than being 10 off the button. That's just gotta be the worst position to be in. Everyone at the table bets before and after you at the same time. And you pay twice the drop fee!
Dan
I can't fault your play at all. The hand is instructive of the type of hands you expect to see in a mixed LL game of limpers. The case four on the river might have set you up lor life if those 6s had been split into another hand...:>)
Its important for YOU to be able to get the action straight almost every time; allowing for filling-in inconsequetial details such as whether there really are 13 players seated.
It sure looks like YOU made a full house on the river, UTG bet anyway, he MAY have you beat, and SB has a hand strong enough to call one bet but probably not two. Find and read essay "going for the overcall".
Your hand is PLENTY strong enough that building a pot you expect to win outweighs narrowing the field; and few players drawing to beat you will fold anyway. Your hand is stong enough to 4-bet the flop (even IF the SB will NOT slow play a flopped straight) but you should usually just call in late position, hehehe; but I don't think that's why you just called.
Focus more, fear less, go for the overcall.
- Louie
What can you say? You hit your hand and lost. Next hand... I see nothing wrong with the way you played it.
The only exception and you might want to think about this... is: How good a player was UTG? Any good player in my opinion quickly mucks overcards to that flop when a blind bets. The fact that he's calling suggests some kind of draw. Would he play 87 UTG? 66? 77 IS one of only a few hands that makes sense. However the game doesn't sound near tough enough to be going through that kind of thought process. And even if it was, you won't go too wrong raising when you make full houses. I think you played it Ok.
I'm having trouble determining a consistant way to play 10,10 when under the gun in a loose,passive game.The blind structure in my 4-8 game is only 1/2.This encourages people to see the flop,when there is a pre-flop raise it is generally called by 2 or 3 others with high cards.Unraised usually has 5-6 players see the flop.Any strategy tips,and the logic behind them would be appreciated.
This is a toughie. I would generally prefer to limp in UTG with pocket tens and see what the flop brings. If someone raises pre-flop I think 10's are worth a call since lots of people will raise with AK, AQ and the like. At this point you may still have the best hand, perhaps you should even bump it back (then lead off on the betting after flop) to try to disguise your hand, as well as see where the raiser is at since they will generally re-raise with better pocket pairs, and make any worse hands think about whether they really want to stay in.
Post-flop can be a scary proposition with TT's utg (assuming you dont make a set) since one of the 4 overcards that beats you will usually hit the board, and then you are generally in trouble in a low limit game since someone is most likely beating you at that point and probably wont go away. Also you are drawing to a two-outer unless the board shows a four flush and you can be sure that you only have that suit or you flop and open ended straight.
Otherwise if you limp in and see a good flop, you know, low cards then you can lead off in betting and make them draw against you (unless someones being tricky and limped in with bigger pocket pairs). But often an overcard will come on the turn or river and at that point you may want to check and call, I know it sucks to play that way but TT's are tough to bet when a K or an A is out there.
I too have a lot of trouble UTG with TT's, I hope the above thoughts help.
In a structured game a raise risks 8 to win 6 (1.333:1); here you risks 6 to win 3 (2:1). I would risk 5 to win 3 (1.667:1) since it won't change the distribution of hands players will call with. Anyway, the worse risk:reward ratio means raise less often in early position.
If a raise will chase out otherwise hopeless calls and leave you in short handed pots vrs players in position who you cannot outplay; then I'd say play TT like a pair of 4s and hope to flop a set. If you may get the loose calls anyway or can outplay the tight players who call a raise, then I'd say raise. That is, if the flop is Q86 and you are sure to check-and-fold against 2 opponents; then don't bother raising since you will NOT be winning your fair share of pots (1 out of 3).
If you want to appear aggressive you'll have to raise with this clearly marginal hand (that's what aggressive means: assert yourself with marginal hands). If you want to appear defensive then call.
If the game encourages you to call with 44 and 87s early then call with TT and help disguise those other weak hands. If TT is about the worse hand you'll play (raising with the others) you'll have to ..err.. want to raise with TT since these other strong hands disguise the TT.
Any sort of reasonable opponent can outplay an early position player with a known medium pair; so play TT in such a way that they don't know that's what you've got.
Confused? Good. Now lets work on "ballance".
- Louie
I'm tight aggressive,there's no way I'm playing 44,or 87s UTG.I am raising with anything better than 10,10.My raises from that position do get a lot of respect from the regulars,since they know I only showdown with quality cards.This particular game did'nt have the normal # of regulars they were their to gamble.At another time I did raise in this situation and heard a regular comment 'thats no hand to raise with'.If I follow you,with the normal lineup of regulars,raising with 10,10 will disquise my other stronger raises.If the game is so loose that the opponents won't respect the raise call and play for the set.
What exactly is the structure? 2 to call?
I thought with the cheap-to-call structure, one should limp with small pairs ( e.g 4 4 ), small suited connectors too. As the implied odds will be so good when you flop something. You have to get away from it if there is some action after you though.
I would probably raise with 10,10 since you say it may be likely 2 or 3 handed. That hand can hold up and is fairly straightforward to play if there is no multiway.
D.
"(that's what aggressive means: assert yourself with marginal hands)."
I don't believe so.
"aggressive means: assert yourself "
I believe this is closer.
Vince.
If you only assert yourself with good hands you are not aggressive. If you fail to you're a whimp. If you asset yourself with bad hands you're a maniac. This leaves ....
I usually like to limp with TT in either very tough or very loose games. The reason is that in a loose game you are really looking to flop a set. I'm referring to games where people will call a pre-flop raise and then call the rest of the way with a loose ace/overcards. So why not let who ever wants to come in do so (they probably would have for a raise anyway). This way, your implied odds are greater IF you flop your set. Also, it's easier to mistake the strength of your hand. Understand that this is the exception. Most times you will NOT flop a set and therefore you save $$$ by not raising.
10,10 is basicly an ambush hand. You're always hoping for a set. Deciding to raise or not early, depends on game texture or the image you are trying to build. I agree with Grinder. Most of the time you would like to get away from it cheaply, as it is easily out flopped. I think "raise" UTG only in a tight game with decent blinds where you want to isolate the blinds or get heads up with someone who might call with 99-22, he will also misread and play you for you for AK. For low variance in most games let the hand play itself on the flop after a preflop call. IMHO
I started a decent thread about this a long time ago. A lot of people made some very good comments. I'm not sure when, but it may have been over a year ago.
Why should you want to play TT consistently?
Personally, unless the game is ridiculously loose passive, I will always be opening with a raise UTG so I have no choice in the matter.
I consider TT to win its fair share of the preflop pot so that you are not loosing any ev by raising, probably not gaining much either. Overcards don't always flop and even when they do you might get a ten as well.
If you both call and raise UTG It really comes down to how you want balance your bets, to disguise you holding while maximizing your ev. I think you can easily go either way with TT here.
In a loose passive game, I like to limp, rather than raise, with just about anything playable. If you can see the flop for cheap and still win plenty of money in the later streets, why not see it cheap? the implied odds on your tens are just increadible. The trouble with raising is that you're not going to knock out anyone who you don't want calling. Especially in early position, this means that you're risking more money to win the same amount of money. For the most part, you're just hoping to flop a ten, but the nice thing about tens as opposed to fours is that tens can be an overpair to the board.
I was sitting at a 9-18 kill holdem table. The kill means that if someone wins two in a row the table goes to 18-36 until that person loses. The table was pretty aggressive yet not to much stupid calls and chasing. I had A-5 of spades in a kill pot in seat 7 of a 9 player game. So I was towards the back. The big blind in seat 2 was the killer so he had in $18 automatically. Seat 4 called, seat 6 called, I called in seat 7, then seat 8 raised to 36. Seats 2,4,6, and myself in seat 7 , and seat 8 called. Flop was Ks,10c,4s. Seat 6 comes out betting, I call along with seat 8, seat 2 check raised making it 2 bets, seat 4 folds, seat 6 re-reraises to 3 bets. Do I call........???? I have to call!!! A nut flush draw with some other possibilites of an ace on the turn or river. I call along with seat 8 and 2. Turn is a 10s!!!!!! Great! Now I have a nut flush but the board has paired. I am sure that seat 6 made a full boat but what can I do? I had seem him preflop raise 8-9 offsuit in prior hands before so their was a chance he was overplaying his hand on the flop. Seat 6 races out to bet the turn. I call along with seat 8, seat 2 folds. River is a 3s. Ks,10c,4s,10s,3s. With 4 spades on board, seat 6 checks, I check, then seat 8 decides to bet, seat 6 and myself both call. I turn over a nut flush with the As-5s, seat 6 had a Kd-Qh and seat 8 had Ac-Js. I thought for sure I was beat when the board paired but how can I throw away a nut flush like that? I certainly wasn't going to bet or raise for that matter. It was basically a CRYING CALL on the turn because of the 3 bet on the flop. Did I play this hand correctly? Should I have folded or been more aggressive? Got to watch your flushes when the board pairs IMO.
"The table was pretty aggressive yet not to much stupid calls and chasing." If really so, find another game.
I count 17sb and 2 to call and lots of $$ to be won when you hit. If the thought "fold" comes to mind with your nut flush draw ...... I'll be nice.... You made a logic error if you considered an Ace a possible out but "know" 6 has a full-house when the board paired. Its important NOT to do that.
If you have seen player 6 raise with 98 and one other trash hand lately and have no reason to suspect he's "advertising", the chances of him overplaying THIS hand is around 400% ..err.. I means I suppose I guess its 4:1 he's overplaying. 2:1, Whatever. Even if he'll overplay one OK-hand in 4 he's still a huge favorite to be overplaying since there are so many more OK-Hands than sets.
If the thought "fold" comes to mind with your nut flush and a single bet from someone a favorite to be over-playing his hand in a large pot .......
You missed a reasonably easy bet on the river unless 6 is slick enough to check-raise a full. It OBVIOUS what you have but they'll still (correctly) pay it off in this big pot.
Fear less.
- Louie
Look back at what happened on the play of the hand. The guy limped in pre-flop, and came on like a maniac on the flop. He bet the turn and, this is important, checked the river. Was he going for a check raise? If you're putting him on a full house when the board pairs, and he's trying to represent that, he would never check raise the river. All that would happen is that it gets checked around and he loses money. So you should bet the river.
So why did he stop betting? 4 spades came out. He's scared of the flush. So he doesn't have a full house. But why then bet on the turn when the board paired and the flush possibility came out? Looking backwards at what his hand is, any 10 beats him and any flush beats him. Why would he bet? He's testing the waters. He has top two pair with a pretty good kicker in a now relatively early position and he has to see how his hand holds up against what's out there. The answer he got back is "we can't beat you, but we'll come along for the ride."
The good news is that if you had raised the turn to tell him "I can beat your two pair," he may have folded which would have been money you could have made on the river.
The bad news is that if he didn't trust you and called your raise, you lost quite a bit of money by not exploiting your nut flush for all it can be, and was.
Dan
Why not play faster on the flop. Capping it on the flop may slow them down on the turn (which you want if you happened to miss which you didn't). I definately would have jacked this guy up on the turn. You stated yourself that you have no reason to respect this guy.
However, if I had played the hand the exact way you did the play you make on the river leaves me baffled.
full house checks to you, you check, guy who has been representing nothing the whole way bets, full house calls???!!!!!(why wouldn't he check raise in this spot with a full house). then you call???!!!!(You now know 100% the guy is not full so why do you not check raise now?) My advice is for you to think a little more clearly at the table from now on because this tired thinking is costing you plenty of bets.
Still learning at my 2-4 game. :-)
Two late limpers.
I'm in the SB with Qc Tc and call.
BB checks.
Flop is Jc 9c Td.
I make a semi-bluff at the pot with my tens. Three crying callers.
Turn is 8c.
I now have the Queen high straight flush. I bet again figuring that if anyone else at the table made a straight or flush they will raise me and I can reraise them. Again three callers.
River is 9h.
I bet. Now I'm beting for value hoping some of the callers made some hands to pay me of. Fold, fold, call. He has 9d 7d for the ignorant end of the straight.
Was there any way to slow play this hand to get more action or did I do the best that could be expected given my position?
Was my flop bet a mistake? If it get's checked around I get to play my draw for free and if some else bets I most likely get to check raise them on the turn when I hit my hand. Of course I liked my semi-bluff too.
Comments?
I don't think of your flop bet as a semi-bluff. If it gets checked around on the flop, it is you who are giving a free card. Not only do you have a very nice draw, you already have a pair that may be in the lead. Furthermore, even not considering the pair, it would be good to bet a strong draw like this on the flop even if you are certain they will call, since you are a likely favorite to win the hand.
2-4 tables are often loose and passive. Not betting will likely just miss out on several bets. I think you played it well by not slow playing. It is all to easy to slow down when you have a monster because it feels like a catastrophe when everyone folds. A bigger catastrophe, however, is when you check and they would have called your bets.
--- Chris Callahan
Looks like you bet and they called. I think you got the most out of the hand. If you check raised the turn you may have just lost a bet when no one bets or lose a few players with the show of strength, so betting out was a good play. You want to charge the other flush/draws but not to much as to have them fold to early. You played it straight and to the point nothing wrong with that.
Best of it !!
MJ
I'd say slow play on the turn could be a good option as well. Depending on how your opponents play. If they are habitual callers, you should bet out immediately, since they will call you with any legitimate hands, and in 2-4 games, they figure it doesnt cost too much to keep you honest. If you know they are likely to bluff you when you show your "weakness" by checking on the turn, go ahead and induce a bluff. You have the nuts and not worried about being outdrawn. Even though it might be checked around on the turn, your bet on the river will confuse your opponents, they might think you are bluffing and likely to call you. If someone bet on the turn, just call, dont raise (a good player will know what you are doing). But you should bet on the river right away if you are not sure your opponent will bet again, the better will likely to call you to find out what you have.
Your pair+overcard+straight-flush draw is NOT a hand to "semi-bluff". I count 20 cards to improve to 2-pair or better or just 27 bad cards. Not improving is (27/47)*(26/46) = 31% meaning you'll improve a whopping 69% of the time. You are the FAVORITE against AJ and should bet it that way. Mindlessly capping the flop is a very reasonable option.
The main criteria for slow playing is you fear lttle action if you bet. If you knew you'd get 3 calls slow-playing is out-of-the-question. Had you check-raised you'd have gotton only 2 bets as the others are unlikely to call a double bet. Once they "just call" the turn its unlikely any will bet the river. Even the stiff 7 will probably check the river.
When betting a great hand and getting called is the wrong play, its RARELY wrong by very much.
Its POSSIBLE you could have played the hand better (I don't see how), but you definately did NOT play it poorly. You're only mistake was thinking you were semi-bluffing.
- Louie
"Still learning at my 2-4 game. :-)
Two late limpers.
I'm in the SB with Qc Tc and call.
BB checks.
Flop is Jc 9c Td.
I make a semi-bluff at the pot with my tens. Three crying callers."
First, since you may have the best hand you are not semi-bluffing.
"Turn is 8c.
I now have the Queen high straight flush. I bet again figuring that if anyone else at the table made a straight or flush they will raise me and I can reraise them. Again three callers."
A straight or a small flush may not raise. What your bet will do is to assure a call if someone holds two pair and now might like a free card if no one bets. I think it is close between betting and checking since if you check any flush draw and probably a high end straight will bet and then you can check raise. However, these hands may not be there so that when you check there might not be any bet.
"River is 9h.
I bet. Now I'm beting for value hoping some of the callers made some hands to pay me of. Fold, fold, call. He has 9d 7d for the ignorant end of the straight.
Was there any way to slow play this hand to get more action or did I do the best that could be expected given my position?"
Not really. I think you did judt fine. By the way, it's not real important how you play your straight flushes since they come up so rarely.
"Was my flop bet a mistake? If it get's checked around I get to play my draw for free and if some else bets I most likely get to check raise them on the turn when I hit my hand. Of course I liked my semi-bluff too."
Your flop bet was correct.
Comments?
I find that when I have an unbeatable or nearly unbeatable monster, it's usually better to bet than to try for a check-raise when the cards are of this texture, since there's a good chance one or two other players think they have a monster draw and they might check if you check, but will call your bet or even another player's raise to draw to their monster.
The only thing with which I disagree in your excellent analysis is where you say that "any flush draw" will probably bet the turn. Many 2-4 players will not bet a draw on the turn, especially with such a dangerous board.
I apologize if this has been covered here before. If you have a gutshot straight draw on the flop with 3 to a flush and 1 overcard how do you figure how big the pot has to be to justify a flop call if you are sure you are only have to call 1 bet and it wont be raised behind you. Example..You hold Qd8d with flop JhTd4s. In this scenario you have 4 9s and maybe 3 queens(kicker is obviously weak but there was no preflop raise). My confusion is how many outs to you add to cover the backdoor flush possibility?
Thanks in Advance
Randy Collack
One call for one card for a gut shot? While you have 12:1 "hand odds" you'll need about 15:1 to cover the times you hit and still lose. If the pot is "big" such as 5 players took one raise and it looks like there will be 3 opponents; well that's 13:1. You will EASILY get more money in later and this is an EASY call.
If you consider your example a reasonable "gut-shot" look again. If you catch your 9 KQ beats you, and any big card can easily give someone a bigger straight. I would round about guess you'll need 20:1 for THIS non-nut-easily-outdrawn gut shot.
23:1 backdoor flush is about the same as a 2-out set-draw. But since you will have to invest more money if you catch your suit it is worth a little more than 1 out. That's plenty close enough for those of us that can't do simple hand-odds-to-pot-odds precisely at the table. So a quality gut-shot with a 3-flush is worth about 5 outs.
- Louie
I'd say you need at least 7:1 odds to justify a call here, the reason is effective odds. You have many outs in this hand, 4 9s, and another diamond might make you stay on the turn. I agree that a Q is not a very good card for you on the turn, any QJ or QT (average players like to play those hands) will make a two pair, and any Kx picked up a open-ended straight. What you really looking at is a diamond or a 9. For the effective odds, say a diamond drops on the turn and there is a bet and you figure one more person will call, what you really need to invest is 1.5 big bets(0.5 on the flop and 1 on the turn), so you need at least 6 big bets in the pot to justify a call on the turn, you get 2 of them on the turn, therefore 4 of them has to be on the flop, so that means 8:1 odds on the flop. Taking into account the outs of 9s other than your flush, 7:1 odds on the flop is pretty much needed. This is a hand needs skill to play, I'd appreciate other comments as well.
"This ... hand needs skill to play". It may need your skillful analysis to play it at all, but I don't see much skill once you've decided to play. Call the flop, call the turn if you catch your suit; bet or raise if you make the hand. Even my Mom can do that.
- Louie
I mean analysis, is that part of the play, Louie :-)?
is there a place on the net to play holdem free to sharpen up your game without losing your money
Paradisepoker.com has play money tables for holdem, stud, and omaha.
The local 3/6 game I play in has a betting structure of 3-3-6-12. I haven't read much on this structure and would welcome comments on how strategy might vary from a 3-3-6-6 structure. The large final bet increase the implied odds offered on earlier bets, but what does this mean in terms of pre flop play and play on the flop? Slightly looser play seems warranted, but how much?
The game is played 10 handed and the blinds are 1/3. The game is mostly loose passive, less often loose aggressive.
M
If the game is truly loose/passive then you can loosen up considerably pre-flop, esp. with suited cards in back. I still wouldn't call often with unsuited connectors under 910o, even in back. People will constantly show you K8 and Q6 and, if you're aggressive, you've bet their hand for them and you're outkicked. Sometimes players will over slowplay their hands and this is good when you're drawing. Hardly ever a reason to semibluff in these games and there's much less reason to bet for value on the end, esp. if a gut shot or runner-runner flush rivers. You'll get checkraised often and collecting 24 dollars on the end makes up for a lot of bad 3 dollar flop calls. Don't let them catch up. Make'em go into their wallet to buy more chips.
My suggestion would be that if you're going to bet on the river always bet 12. Often an old geezer will say "I wouldna called if you bet 6 but I thought you might be bluffing since you bet 12."
One other thought: Sometimes, mostly when you're in early position with a good but vulnerable hand and there's a bet on your right you'll want to raise the turn instead of the flop. The reasons for this should be obvious.
hope this helps,
chris
....the flop comes A-K-x? If the flop has 2 of the same suit I will automatically be aggresive as possible. But what if it is rainbow? I feel that even then the chance of someone being on a straight draw warrents the aggresive play, even if it is a gut shot. What do u guys think?
As you correctly point out, the draws are gut shot. You can make a lot more money slowplaying, especially when you're in with at least one moderately aggressive player. If it's bet to me, I would just call, saving the raise for the turn. If it's checked to me, then it's hard to say, it depends a lot on the game. (will the straight draw fold even if you do raise?) Early position, I would most likely check it, but again, only if there was a reasonable chance it would be bet behind me. I don't think the slowplay is wrong if you are smooth calling one bet. I don't think it is wrong to let the straight draw get his free card either. You stand to make a lot more money if you can get it bet into you, and in this case I think it justifies the slowplay.
Correct!
One of the criteria of a good slow play is that the opponents can catch a "good" card that improves them 2nd best, when they would not have called. Someone with an A or a K will call your bet. Perhaps the pair of "x"s falls into this category, but the three outs you WANT him to hit (his kicker) are overshadowed by the 2-outs he has to outdraw you.
Tenacious opponents may call the turn if they pair their "y", but otherwise I don't see how they can improve and still be behind you.
Does not look like a slow-play hand to me; in the sense that if you check early and everyone else checks, you will wish you had bet for value against the slim draws.
James had a good point that perhaps you would wait for the turn to raise, hehehe; risking little since such bettable hands usually have an A or K and are drawing dead. This is a form of slowplay but not really main-stream since you fully expect the player to call your flop raise.
- Louie
You haven't given nearly enough information. If you had raised UTG and flopped AKx it would take pretty gullable opponents to fall for your trap, so a bet is automatic. If you had checked the BB and flopped AKx I would suggest you routinely check since that's what you would routinely do in the BB.
So it matters what the opponents think you have. This situation won't come up often for me since I'm very likely to get the last bet in B4 flop with AK, and I'm a cinch to bet top two pair.
In my experience the only time to slowplay top two pair is in a three or four handed pot, in early position with aggressive, overly aggressive opponents when there's two to a straight or two to a flush on the flop. My reasoning is that with no straight or flush draws out there they either have a calling hand or not. So I bet out, especially if I've been taking alot of pots and can tell my opponents are getting tired of it and are close to calling me down with any pair.
First off, if the pot's relatively short handed you're going to have a tough time laying down top two pair no matter what comes. Second, if you're opponents are aggressive and have any hand at all they're more likely to put a lot of money in and might even assume you're on the draw if you're just calling. Third, in limit poker, they're not laying down any gutshot draw short handed much less four to a straight or flush and they'll make it when they make it and they wont when they don't, in other words your betting or raising will not affect one iota whether you actually take down the pot in question. Fourth, this particular situation hardly ever comes up but similiar, less extreme situations come up often in short handed play and I think that the relative strength of your hand must be contrasted with the relative strength of your opponents and their take on you. The weaker player that they perceive you to be the more likely slowplaying is correct.
IMO, chris
AC, $10-$20 at the Taj. I've only been in the game for a short time, but the game seems tight aggressive. I raise UTG with JsJc. Two middle position cold callers as well as the BB. Flop is Jh8s3d. BB checks, I bet, one middle position calls and the BB raises. I decide to flat call, hoping to keep the middle player in and setting up a big bet raise on the turn. Middle player doesn't cooperate and makes a crying fold. Turn is 8h. Sure enough, BB bets, I raise and he reraises to $60! Is the correct play for me to make it $80 or should I back off based on the possibility he has pocket 8's? If I raise again and he has his quads it will cost me $60 more (my reraise, his reraise and his bet on the river) while I will win $40 more if he doesn't have the quads (my reraise and his check/call on the river). Of course, I can just call the $60 and my only additional win or lose is the $20 on the river. This hand caused quite a discussion at the table.
I would've raised. I would put him on A8 or K8 the way he played preflop. Maybe even AJ. I think the saying about losing to a higher set can be applied to losing to a quad. You should lose a lot of money if you lose to a quad here. If the river is a blank, then I would raise til he calls.
Are you really timid enough to believe that in the long run just calling with top full house is the best money winning ploy. Raise him until he shows you quads and if he does tell him nice hand and play the next one the same way. I can't believe there was an actual debate about how to play top full. Where do you guys play again?
Any time you lose a top full house to quads and did NOT lose a lot of chips, you can be sure you didn't play the hand right!
You must reraise. If you are scared to lose an additional 20 dollars with top full house, you should move to a lower limit. Although you opponent played it poorly, I suspect you were against AJs.
qs>
x
You should reraise again but unless this player is pretty wild he probably has 33. You can't really put him on an 8 because he checkraised on the turn and no reasonable player would reraise you for value on the turn there unless he could at least beat AA.
If he checkraises me on the river I just call though because at that point he is representing 88 (assuming he is tight agressive).
Shawn Keller
I did reraise of course, and he raised me back! Now I have to assume he is not completely without some idea of what I have and I just called. I also just called on the river. He had Jd8d.
OK, I probably overstated it a bit. More like the pathetic whines of a loser. A horrible and complete failure at the game of poker. And I just don't get it. This post might be long...just a warning. Basically, I like to write and this posting is probably the electronic equivilant of banging my fist against a wall several times. For those that are still interested in reading, by all means, enjoy. Wallow in my misery, and perhaps share a piece of advice or two.
Basically, I've come to the conclusion that some people just weren't meant to be poker players. I hate to admit it, but I feel I'm skirting that line. I'm terrible. I've spent months now studying books, running simulations, readings this site and contributing my own suggestions. I've read nearly all of the card player online as well. But when I sit down at a table, it's like all my information becomes a blur.
I consider myself to be intelligent. I'm a member of Mensa. I captained my high school chess team to a national championship. I can play bridge pretty well. But you sit me in front of a poker table and you might as well ask me to just give you my money and go home because that's what I'm going to end up doing in the long run.
Maybe I'm just on a horrible losing streak and it's clouding my judgement. Maybe I just got off my 4th losing session in a row, turning an overall profit into a collosal loss. I'm now down $600 playing 3-6 and 5-10 hold 'em. How does that happen? How could I just blow through 100 big bets? I don't think it's self discipline. I've routinely thrown away AXs when the pot doesn't give odds, and 66 and lower in early position. I fold when I see my hand isn't going to hold up, and I have stolen more than my fair share of the blinds.
So what's the problem? Gosh, if I knew that, I wouldn't be rambling this bad beat poker career to you. I tried to argue my way out of friends telling me that I gambled too much with the argument "poker isn't gambling." They just didn't get it. Now I'm not sure I do either.
Ultimately, I think I'm the person that the poker authors are catering to. People who will buy their books with the full intent to study...but don't actually learn enough, despite their dedication, to even make a dent in anyone else's bankroll. You don't need to fear that someone reading a poker strategy book is somehow superior in the game...because that's obviously not the case.
I look at my game and I see a hundred potential leaks. I probably don't call enough. I don't compete enough. I lose too many bets when I should have bet or check-raised...or even folded. I can't fully read the opponents. I don't pay complete attention to what's going on on the board. But my biggest leak overall is that, based on the other leaks mentioned, I don't have the ability to correctly analyze my game and have no hope of getting better.
So maybe people are just pre-determined to be bad poker players. Maybe I should give up now before I lose even more money.
Dan
It's obvious that you haven't read one of the basic books on hold'em. I'm refering to HPFAP. Or maybe you have read it but you didn't comprehend it. I can't remember if it was in the intro or one of the beginning chapters, but it says something to the effect of "studying this book, combined with long thoughtful analysis away from the table plus experience will lead to profitable results." Something like that.
Poker is not a game for dillitantes. It takes experience. I've played well over 2,000 hours of casino poker and another 1,000 or so at home games and I consider myself a "new" player.
One thing I've learned is that youngish players are the easiest to beat (except for old calling stations with plenty of money to blow and middle aged white and black women.) I think the reason for this is a pretty obvious one: they're arrogant, overly aggressive, and easy to read. I am not lumping you into this category automatically but your post sounded somewhat arrogant in that you assume that because you're bright and have read a couple of books you know what's going on and feel like you're entitled to win at the table. I'm just 27, have only been playing with the intention of winning for the last 2 years, and always assume that the people around a table are at least competent players until they show me that they aren't. More often than not the majority of the players quickly show a general incompetence at the game, specifically in relation to position and pot odds. The reason I do this is because I am, in general, an arrogant person. Making the above assumption keeps me in check and helps my game by forcing me to foster a tight image. I think thishelps incredibly.
Semi-bluffing, check-raise bluffing, knowing when to bet marginal hands for value, and the like come pretty naturally once the table has a little respect for your play. Until your opponents have a reason to respect your play, it's been my experience that they'll "look you up" more often. The only way to gain that respect is, listen closely, to win their money in thefirst place. fancy plays and the like will do nothing for your image. The best play is the one that goes unnoticed. I think you're trying too hard to be a presence at your table. You should be the guy that people notice when you're in a pot. Of course, you want to play all pos ev hands but it sounds like that wouldn't be too many at this stage. Again, this makes the game boring and more boring. Poker is often boring, at least at a full table of semi-competent players.
Without diminishing the importance of what's stated above a $600 dollar swing isn't shit. There will be stack fluctuations, especially at lower limit games. A hundred big bets, in my opinion, isn't a big deal. 2 bad sessions back to back and you're at -600. I know that the following is at odds with Sklansky/Malmuth beliefs but you gotta get broke at first. Imagine if you had no down time when you're first learning, how big of a dent do you need to put in your bankroll before you really start examining your play. I got broke every other friday the first six months I played regularly(30+ hours a week). Now I'm not broke and I haven't put any fresh money in my bankroll for almost a year but I know, I accept as a certainty that at some point I'll get busted. This is something all young players must get past. Doyle Brunson's been broke before, I'm sure. So's Johnny Chan, he worked in a kitchen in the 80's, you think he did that for personal fulfillment? We all know about Hellmuth's trials and tribulations. And I'd be truly surprised if Sklansky himself was never on the rail. You haven't even envisioned this possibility, much less come to terms with it. And I think that this is the root of your troubles at the table, you expect to win yet you have no reason, no justification for this belief.
chris
chris, best post I can remember ever reading on this or any other forum. You should be writing the intro to some of these poker books, I am serious. I have been playing for a few months now, have read and studied like Dan and have the same thoughts, attitudes that he expressed. I can see mistakes other players are making, can see holes in their game and find it is very frustrating being drawn out on by someone playing silly when "I should be able to beat these guys", ha, ha,. It should be so easy. Dan try small tournaments. I find that correct play really works there and the wild ones are soon bust out. I made my whole playing stake from tourneys and have now given it all back in ring games. Good luck, wait for some luck. Use a $2000 bankroll for 5/10. Take my advice with caution. Dave
Excellent post! Very insightful. Except for one thing...
I would bet my entire bankroll, (make that net worth), that Sklansky has NEVER been on the rail!!!
Any takers?
No matter how scientific or mathmatically minded Sklansky is he wouldn't have chosen this life (poker and other forms of "gambling") if he didn't have some gamble in him. I assume (I know assume is a mighty big word here) but I assume that at some point Sklansky played poker, lost, didn't have enough to play, went out put more money together and got back in the game. I'm not saying he was ever a habitual loser or longtime loser in the game. And that's my point, good players, even great players, can get broke.
A lot, maybe most, of 2+2 customers are bright, somewhat well educated, and (this is the important part) intend to improve their game. I think if a promenent(sp?) player admitted to being on the rail at some point, especially if part of his business was writing and selling poker books, a lot of newer, less experienced players would think "gee, he must not know how to play poker." However bright you are, however much school learning you got under your belt, if you are strictly a linear thinker you wont grasp, with the full thrust of their meaning, the following statements: Poker is a game of skill. Skillful players win the money. Skillful players can lose, sometimes over long periods.
Because most people can not grasp, or are not ready to accept, the above statements, it would probably be bad for 2+2's business if Sklansky ever admitted being, for however short a time, on the rail.
chris
Read all the books on hold 'em, play all the simulations you can, but in my view nothing competes with good old experience. Playing by the book is a good start to anyone's game. But there is a price for playing that way especially at the low limits. The price is "emotion". Starting with the best hand time and again only to have it shoved time and again can be frustrating. They cannot outrun the best hand forever. The old saying of it all being one big poker game is the best way I can describe this. You are in a short term run of bad luck right now. You also lack the experience to tell this. Trust me, eventually you'll be eating thier lunch because they come to the table with no plan and no heart to be the best poker player they can be. If you are truly serious about becoming a better poker player you are going to have to put time in. Experience is still the best teacher especially in poker. The books give good advice but if you've never been in the situation the book's describing than it might as well have been written in a foreign language. Just keep at it I promise the light at the end of the tunnell isn't another train.
I'm in a similiar situation now.I've got 300 hrs of lifetime experience,have read and studied,and am clearly better than 90% of my low level competion.I'm on a 60 hr swing where my premium hands die on the river to garbage consistantly.Its bothering me more than it should.Put your results in the context of the the long run,check out the standard deviation of your game.And most important watch your confidance,and emotional control.I'm reading Zen and th Art of Poker,which seemed to help until my AK got beat by J2os yesterday. Good Luck
good idea...
I think the other responses cover it but I am curious, how many hours of play are we talking about here?
If everything is an "informational blur" at the table, it can't be that much experience. It is just not that hard to get started with a confortable basic low limit strategy. It is very hard to win a lot though.
With those low limit games I suggest playing a simple Lee Jones style for now. Calculate the pot odds and play correct draws, forget about bluffing and play in games where there are lots of callers so you don't need to play against particular individuals much.
D.
Dan,
Here are two ways to not give up your real money but learn where the holes in your game are:
1. Buy TTHE (turbo texas holdem). Learn to beat it consistently. Make a tough lineup. If you cannot win, you cannot beat most real players. This is an under-$100 reality check.
2. Play IRC poker using the gpkr windows interface. No cost at all, but a lot of decent players. Beat this game and you will learn learn learn. And if you can play chess that well, ahem: this is not much harder.
Mark
PS One last point: The game you play in matters a lot; when everyone knows each other for 10 years, and they all have tourney jackets on, find another game.
That 3-6 Califoria holdem is a bitch, I hear.
Losing streaks are normal. You may be tilting and losing much more than you should during the losing session. What will you do if you lose the next 4.
I went through a terrible 6 month session last year. It has taught me patience.
Try the book "Zen and the Art of Poker".
It may be that you get too bored at the poker table, (brain the size of a beach ball and all). Study the other players while waiting. Practice guessing what the players have. Like driving a car, it should become second nature. This will be after many thousands of hours however.
It not that you can't learn, it just that you won't ( do I sound enough like your mother?).
Buy a simulator like TTH.
Bankroll may be a problem for you. These losses mean too much. They mean a lot to me as well and I'm working on allowing my ego to accept a loss.
Keep Plugging away and Good Luck
I got a lot of help from my post "I need holdem help" earlier in this forun.
First off, I wish to appologize. The posts did sound a bit arrogant. The part about me being in Mensa, etc. was mostly written by me, to me. Sounds strange when I'm writting in a forum that's broadcast across the world, but it was meant as a proverbial slap across my face trying to wake me up to the fact that I am good enough to be in the game. But I just might not be, more on that later.
To be honest, I really don't go on tilt while I'm at the table. I'm calm and I take my beats in stride. But a word of warning: don't ask for a car ride home after a losing session.
To answer a few questions. I have Turbo Texas Hold'em already, and I have been playing around with it. Not to the extent that I should be, I realize. I know that I should continue to work with it, and I'm going to.
$600 might not be a lot in the compared to the higher limits, but it is a lot for me, and it is a lot for the limit that I play in.
I've put in, in the last two months, about 60 hours at the tables. Yes, I know that this is nothing. It's less than nothing. It's not even enough to calculate ANY reliable data. Except for this: in that very short time I'm down $600. Short term fluctuations or bad playing? I can't tell. And that's where my frustrations lie.
Because I'm so inexperienced, I can't objectively rate my play. Did I do this right? Could I have won more here? Could I have lost less there? Did I read my opponent right? Was a bet better than a check-raise? How can I possibly tell?
I'm an absolute beginner at the game. I've read, and I've studied, and I probably know more about poker theory than 99% of my opponents, but that doesn't mean that I'm doing the right thing at any given time...or at any time. And when I'm not, how do I know I'm not doing the right thing when I don't have the skills necessary to know that I even did anything wrong in the first place?
Think of it like an exam. I go in to the professor and ask how I did. "you failed," he replies. "But I studied for weeks on this exam," I cry. "That may be true," he said. "But you failed anyway." "OK, can I see the exam? I'd like to know what questions I missed." "Sure, here you go." "But this test doesn't have the answers on it. How do I know where I went wrong?" "You don't. But if you did know...you wouldn't have made the mistakes in the first place, right?"
At the poker table, I don't always know the correct play. And even if I think I know it to be correct, it might still be wrong and no one would ever tell me differently. And if it's not the correct play and I don't even know to look for it, or I search for holes in my game and can't find them because I don't know where to look, how can I possibly improve?
And that's where I lose confidence. It's not the scrubs drawing out on me with J2o on a one outter that bothers me. It's my inability to improve because I don't have the experience necessary to determine the correct play and make it. Or determine the correct play and review it to put it into practice later.
In short, I'm upset with myself. I'm upset with my playing. And I just don't know where to go from here.
Dan
1)take a break and work out a simple game plan,Caro has a report titled 12 days to Holdem Success that helps you focus on one facet of the game per session.This eliminates the clutter,with all the reading material out their at the beginning it does more harm than good.You can't learn it all at once.2)save up a bankroll of 300 units,play Turbo until you get it.An old pro told me you can't play good poker if the money matters'.3)after your session write down the improtant hands,recently I had a bad session,afterwards I realized while writing that I lost 3 pots where I started with the best hand,played correctly,had the lead at the turn and lost it to one card on the river.If I had won 2of3 the session would have been a winner.4)I get the impression that you're confused and down on confidance,that comes across at the table.5)It may be a good thing that you started slow,it will make you re-evaluate your game.I started hot,won 30 BB my first session,saw many mistakes by opponents,and thought this was easy.When real life sets in you gotta adjust.
Dan,
Poker is a game of incremental improvement. With experience and study, you get to a point where past mistakes are not repeated. As you build on your base of knowledge, certain actions and responses become automatic and this leaves you with more time to think, observe and adjust. Sitting in games you can observe how the better players handle situations that come up repeatedly. This is one very good way of putting your playing time to good use.
In some ways it is like driving. In the beginning, you are just glad to get from point A to point B and back without totalling your dad's car. You have to really concentrate solely on that. With driving experience, you begin to relax to the point where you can listen to music, talk with your friends, check out the girls as you drive by, and, in general, not worry about getting where you are going.
Relaxing at the poker table allows you to see more of what is taking place around you. Without the tension, you can think better and retain more of what you see and learn. You aren't going to have any epiphany in poker; it will be a gradual building of fundamental skills and the recognition of patterns of behavior exhibited by opponents.
As far as losing 100 big bets, you shouldn't let that rattle you. It presents a good opportunity for you to take a break and examine where your poker skills are at. I wish I could count the number of times I've had a streak of outcomes where I either made or lost 100 big bets over consecutive sessions. It happens. You should be getting to the point after these 60 hours where you are recognizing situations that you used to misplay but no longer do. You should be seeing mistakes that others are making now that you wouldn't have recognized two months ago. These are the signs that your game is making progress. You need to keep building on these tangible improvements rather than worrying about whether you might be unsuited to be a good poker player. Most of us have spent years playing the game, and each of us have had our days when we doubt our playing ability. On days when I doubt, I'm comforted and reassured by the fact that the player I am today could beat the pants off of the player I used to be. Remember, most of the players who beat you today are probably not going to be getting any better, but you are committed to constantly improving, both now and in the future. You don't have to be the best poker player in the world to make money, just better than your immediate competition. Good luck with your poker progress.
I haven't had time lately to even read all the posts here, never mind respond. Since you have a good name, however :-)
I feel your pain. Truly. I've been playing seriously for about 5 years now, and compete rather well at 20-40 limt and higher, although I am focusing now more on big bet poker. I've had streaks both ways. When I've been hot, I've thought I was the best player in the room, and when losing, felt like I couldn't find my out of a lighted room. I now know that the truth lies somewher in between, and handle the swings much better than I used to.
How does one lose 100 big bets? More ways than you can probably imagine right now. But they all involve some combination of playing bad and being unlucky. If you play the game long enough, you'll see it all. Unfortunately, no one has ever lived that long. It is for this very reason that I find the game endlessly fascinating.
If you are playing the way you described (along with not over-playing the connectors, especially up front and in raised pots) you should have enough protection from your starting hands to break even at the lower limits. But by the time that you're good enough to beat the low limits consistently, you won't be playing them. Unless you're born with it (as a very few are) it is extremely difficult if not impossible to learn the fine art of reading hands without playing against decent players who act somewhat rationally. Once this skill is honed a bit, it can be applied even to the "no fold-em" types. But by then you probably won't want to bother with a 3-6 game (or even a 5-10).
Here is the best advice I can give, although you probably won't like it. Be grateful that you are losing now. Really. Because it's the only way to learn. If you continue to play, you will have nights where you'll have to come home and put ice on your forehead to heal the bruise from where the deck hit you. You'll think that you are the best player that has ever lived or is ever likely to live. You'll feel like selling everything you own, flying to Vegas, and challenging Huck Seed to play heads-up (please don't do this). But you won't have learned a damn thing, or improved your game one iota. In fact, if you're like most of us, your game will suffer, because the feeling of invinciblity will cause to play faster and wilder.
My advice when running bad:
"Embrace the beats! "
I had to listen to that for two hours from Mohegan Sun to Boston on Sunday night. Now I read it here on the forum. Am I doomed? (Yes, from Dangerous himself)
Vince.
60 hours at hold'em is not enough time to make any major conclusion about your game. This game is so subtle that you need more time. You need to get to the point where you can relax and just feel the flow of the game. Once you can anticipate opponents and read the board with a quick glance can you then use your mental energy to perform 1 of the other 100 reads you need to perform. Reminds me of a first year QB in football as opposed to a 10 year vet. The vet just knows from experience what counts. It takes time and practice, practice, practice. I have found that playing on-line though may not be 100% real life but can accelerate the learning process and it does help with reading the board,pot odds, betting patterns and trying to get a hold of how get your reads to flow from the start of the hand to the end. It's like a test lab that is live. After many hours of playing you will find that what you have read and studied in the books is true but to see it real time is even better. Then when the situations come up at the table you are prepared and can relax and execute.
Best of it !!
MJ
I sit on the button with AK, four callers in front of me, I raised, SB folded and BB called. flop comes QJx, all off suit, all checked to the woman on my right, she bet and I called, two people in the middle called. The turn came K, the woman bet again, she's been a pretty tight player, so I put her on KQ. I mucked. One guy in the middle called. The river was checked around and she showed QT and win the pot. I figure she made a good bet on the turn (on a open-end straight) and I missed read her hand. Almost the same situation came up half one hour later, this time I didnt raise, flop comes QJx (Qxs), a guy in the middle bet, he is a habitual semibluffer, I raised! BB called cold and the better called, a 8 droped on turn. Both checked to me, I smell a trap and checked. The river is T(no flush), lucky for me, the guy in the middle bet and I raised, BB droped. The guys shows T9, a low-end staright and I win the pot.
I'm not really sure which hand I played better. If you have raised pre-flop, and raised AGAIN on flop, most people will put you on big pairs, AA-QQ, if you checked on the turn, most people will put you on AK or AQ. I think raising on flop with AK is a pretty good way to gain information and to get you a free card on the turn. Instead of leaving myself in dilema, I'm still in the driver's seat. If my opponents really have me beat, they would let me know pretty quickly because I'm playing as if I have a big pocket pair. It is worth a raise to read others correctly, especially in tough games. Any commnets?
Well, the first hand you couldn't have played correctly. Either you made a bad call on the flop or a bad muck on the turn.
The second hand sounds as if there is only one person in before it got to you pre-flop and you didn't raise with AK. This is definitely a mistake! You play the rest of the hand Ok. Although your thinking might be flawed. You say that you're playing as if you have a big pocket pair. How can someone put you on a big pair when you limped pre-flop after only 1 caller?
you suck dude. You made a bad read on the first hand.
On the second hand you raised as a dog got lucky and won. You smelled a trap? Wtf? You didnt have anything to bet with.
It happened today playing 30-60. Let me know how you would have played this. I hold TT under the gun. I raised it up and then get a caller right after me and another caller right after him. A loose player two from the button 3 bets me. I call and both players call. The flop comes down 6 4 4 all different suits. I check and the 3 bettor bets. I call as do the other two players. On the turn comes a offsuit K all players check including the 3 bettor. On the river comes an A the 3 bettor bets the pot and I fold the hand. Give me your opinion on how you would have played this situation.
Why in the world did you check the flop? Why didn't you check raise when the button bet? Why didn't you bet the turn? How in the hell did the button bet "the pot" on the river in a 30-60 game?
I probably wouldn't have raised preflop. I would've bet or raised the flop. In this situation I would've bet the turn if not reraised on the flop and probably folded if raised, almost always would fold to a raiser and an overcaller. Depending on the players the overcallers preflop cold have something like QJs, 77 and the like, the 3bettor on the button could have AA or KK or with you and 2 cold callers he could be assuming that "all the high cards are out" and 3 bet with something like 78s/10Js or 99. Who knows? But at least if you bet you can get more information. You just handed the steering wheel to the passengers in the back seat and invited them to drive.
chris
I don't think you played optimally. In this situation you are already beat and have very few outs, checking and calling is not the way to play. On the flop, you have the option to bet out. I think you either bet out, or check raise. If you are not already beat, you can't let the other two players stay in cheaply. If your raiser has a AK, it would be a sad mistake to let the other two in where then maybe a jack or queen can beat you. If you are going to play that meekly, you should either fold on the flop, or on the turn when the king hits. You have to be somewhat aggressive in this situation or not be in it at all
Call pre-flop, check raise the flop, bet the turn, check call the river.
I agree with chris and Big D -- a bet or check-raise is imperative on the flop. AJ you are being a little too rigid. If he checkraises the flop and gets more than one caller, he is in big trouble when the king hits and dead dead dead when the ace hits. All of his later moves depend on how much company he has....
How many of you can still remember what it was like to be a new poker player in a casino. The more I am around this great game of ours the easier it is to forget those first emotions that shaped the rest of my life.
The first game I learned how to play in the casino was Omaha/8. That's kind of like learning to play Mozart before you learn chopsticks now that I look back on it. However, it did leave me with some insights into the players frame of mind who is new to the casino. I used to believe that a suited ace was a goldmine. If only one of my suit would flop I'd be there on the turn no matter how much money it cost. If I completed my flush and it also paired the board I would proceed as if an ace high flush could beat a full house.
I also remember thinking only about how the board affected my hand and what I could make. Other people would be betting and raising on obvious "nut" hands and I would call along trying to make my hand whether drawn dead or not. I would almost never worry about the other guy becaused the concept of playing people never occurred to me until a cardroom manager took me under his wing and straightened me out.
I see people everyday who follow this exact stereotype. So before you go on tilt, throw your cards at the dealer, and berate a new member to our family, take a step back and remember what it was like for you when you were learning. Make these people feel comfortable at the table instead of wondering aloud, "how the hell they got there with that hand". These people are our lifeblood in the industry and maybe if you get lucky they won't run into a sympathetic cardroom manager. These people can supply your stack with untold riches but please leave the tough guy routine in the trash were it belongs.
These are admirable sentiments, but your comments a few posts ago in response to my post betray your true colors ... just another poker player who thinks he's superior to others and needs to make sure they know it.
What would you do, in an average game with a balanced mix of loose players and tight players, faced with the following:
Under the gun you hold either 88 or 99. Do you call, raise or fold? I should add that the pre-flop betting round is usually raised- 65% or better.
I usually find that I will lose, if I raise and get more than one caller. If I call, then the only chance I really have of winning is if I catch the set on the flop.
I feel that unless the game is real tight and strong (where I would raise), a fold is in order. Your thoughts?
Also, in hold 'em, if your first to act and have a strong hand, but a card has come on the turn which may have given someone else the nuts (flush/boat), do you bet, and represent strength and fold if raised, or check and call to the end?
Thanks in advice! Rolled Aces to all.
I will call early, with raises with 77 and up. Flop and my read of the players has a lot to do with if I stay in or not. Usually no set no bet and I am out of the hand. But if the field is weak I may come out betting often these med pairs are an over pair or 2nd pair. With a straight draw and a key pair your chances improve a lot.
I think you always need to mix up your play, but in such a game there is probably one play that will win the most money over the long haul.
Determining that play has to do with the number of callers to the raise that comes 65% or better, and this has to do with the nature of the game. Automatically limping in with these hands is not a good idea, but raising may only limit the field to those hands that can most easily beat you: Overcards, which are only a small dog.
If you get it heads up, playing these hands can be difficult because you are out of position (unless the blinds called) and susceptible to bluffs, and the chance of getting a scary board (i.e. one or more overcards that are likely to have hit your opponent with no set for you)is highly likely.
Folding is the best play with 99 or lower under the gun, if the pots are being raised and it gets down to two or three players.
If the pots are being raised but six people take the flop anyway, then you may want to raise it yourself or limp in.
Sometimes, by limping in in early position, particularly with a tight image, you can have the desired effect of preventing a raise and attracting limpers--but this only tends to work in a relatively passive game.
Also, there is a pretty(if not totally) complete discussion of this topic (how to play small and medium pairs) in Fighting Fuzzy thinking by David Sklansky.
Does anyone have experience with any poker results tracking software? Specifically, I'd like to input the results of sessions (game, limit, place, hours played, win/loss $, date, (time of day, day of week, comments, toughness of game, user defined sort and grouping fields, etc.) and have the software calculate (and graph) hourly win rate, std deviation, etc. by a variety of user selected variables (game, limit, place, etc.). I've hacked around and written a primitive application using MS Access, but I find myself spending more and more time tweaking it and I'd rather play poker than program a computer so any comments and recommendations would be appreciated.
I have adapted quicken for this it workes.
Currently I'm also using Quicken for total $. It allows me to track win/loss $, game, limit, and venue. But it doesn't allow entry of hours, comments, or other user defined fields. Nor does it calculate standard deviation, hourly win rate, or other statistics. For a while I would create a report file in Quicken which I would then cut and paste into an Excel spreadsheet. It was tedious and incomplete (it lacked hours, etc. as stated above). Hence, the use of Access...which lead to a new set of problems...hence, my inquiry...
If you have Excel I'll send you a spread sheet I've made that uses mason's formulas.
cv
Using an Excel spreadsheet is an ecellent to keep statistics without doing a lot of work. Just need to understand Excel functions and how to manipulate them. Can create graphs as well (Insert|Chart).
I suspect that studying Chris' sprad sheet will give you the idea.
Chris,
Can you send me a copy of your spreadsheet. I'd very much appreciate it.
Thanks,
Michael
No problem. If anyone else wants it just send me an E-mail.
CV
I played the following hand recently. It was against a VERY good player who's play I respect a great deal. The game was 20-40.
After one limper from middle position, he called 1 off the button. I called in the LB with Ac,6c. The BB checked his option. 4-way.
Flop = Qc,6h,5d
I bet, everyone folded to my friend who raised. I called. The turn was 3c.
Board = Qc,6h,5d,3c.
I checked, he bet, I raised, looking confused he called. The river was Ad
Board = Qc,6h,5d,3c,Ad.
I bet, after a few moments of puzzled expression he said, "all right" and mucked.
Everyone wanted to know what we had. He said KQo, and I reluctantly showed my Ac,6c. When he saw my cards, he looked at me as if I were from another planet!
My question is, was a check/raise semi-bluff on the turn such a bad play? It was hard to put him on a good Q or any other strong hand, given the fact that he did not raise pre-flop in a short field. (I thought this was a mistake on his part, since if he raises, I can't play A6s). I wanted to win right there on the turn, but if he called I figured to have as many as 13 outs. Comments?
I wouldn't have shown my cards.
It is only a good play if this guy is capable of throwing away a hand as strong as top pair. I think this type of play is good, but shouldn't be overdone.
Betting out on the turn should also be considered, especially since you were in the little blind, you could have almost any two card combination.
The question really is "Would he have thrown his hand away had that A not hit?"
Against a strong player I think you bet the river no matter what hits.
-D
I think an A on the river is the only way he lays this down if he looked so confused when you showed your hand. How good a player can he be if he didn't realize that you could have check-raised the turn on a flush draw? Or was he surprised because you checkraised with a flush draw and he didn't realize that you are capable of this play?
I don't know what he put you on but wouldn't you have 3bet the flop with two pair? If the turn card gave you two pair wouldn't you have bet out hoping to 3 bet? Maybe he puts you on AQ and he thought you thought he picked up the draw on the turn and would bet a draw? I think probably he just didn't think you would checkraise with middle pair and a newly acquired draw to the nuts. Sounds like it ended well but do you think he would have called if the A hadn't hit on the river? Oddly enough I think you would've gotten called if a club hit the river and you might've gotten raised if the Q of clubs is the river card. You most definately would've gotten called if no club or no ace rivers so I don't know if this was a good play or not. You'll get called when you're not good. And you'll get called when you are good. The only time you don't get called is when that A hits. So checking and calling saves you a turn bet and you don't have to bet or call on the river unless you improve. You'll probably be called more often by him in the future as well. You expect him to call with a queen. And you can beat any 6 or 5 that he might have. I don't really see the reason for checkraising the turn, you're putting more than double what you've invested in the pot when you're a 4-1 dog to win the hand (little less with the addition of A's and 6's). I don't see how you can think this "tough" player will lay down a Q on the turn, and this being the case it's not a true semi-bluff, it's just a checkraise with the worst hand.
chris
I wouldn't have shown the hand either.
chris
WOW! Great analysis! Excellent read on my play when I make 2 pair on either the flop or turn. (have we played together?) You also bring up an interesting point. I DO get paid by any club and if it's the K of clubs I might make 3 bets.
I don't think I win with a bet on the river if an Ace doesn't hit. And that's the key to the hold hand. Because of his NOT raising pre-flop, I mis-read his hand, putting him on QJs or QTs. I DO think he would have laid these hands down to a blind showing strength. But he can't muck KQ. Thanks for you input.
Whether or not he will muck his hand is really dependant on the player. I know good players who would muck that hand under different circumstances. But when the club hits which gives a possible flush then a good player is not going to lay down that hand unless you are incredibly predictable. I don't agree with the analysis that you would necessarily 3 bet the flop with 2 pair. A lot of good players will wait until the turn to pop it when there are no strong draws out there. Since he raised you on the flop with no flush/straight draw you can't assume he's trying to buy a free card. A check-raise with 2 pair in that circumstance I think would be the right play against your typical aggressive player. You took a shot at it and you missed....just be sure to use the image you've created to your advantage such as checkraising more with weaker hands than you normally would against aggressive opponents. After seeing your play they may decide to call you down with really miserable hands.
Your check-raise semi-bluff on the turn was a fine play: it confused him, which is exactly what you'r trying to accomplish.
He shouldn't have been so confused. Aside from what you had, your play was consistent with A-Q or a set of 6s or 5s.
Also, I agree with you that he should have raised with A-Q or K-Q pre-flop against only a middle position limper.
I too wouldn't have showed my cards. I think in hold 'em, you want the image of a tight , somewhat ignorant player, not one who routinely semi-bluffs on the turn with 2nd pair and a flush draw. I would have souped my cards and told them I flopped a set and that I didn't have any idea at all what my opponent had.
No offense but you must be really crappy if you think this guy is a tough player whom you respect. If he thought you had him beat then he should have folded on the turn. I, myself, would have reraised you on the turn and called on the river if you came out betting. This guy never heard of middle pair and a flush draw check raising before? Wtf is he doing in a 20-40 game?
The semi-bluff on the turn was a good play against this guy, since he didnt call you on the river. Normally, if you call the turn you call the river when yoiu have a hand. Would it be a good play agianst tough players? Probably not because you could get reraised and then you would have to make your hand to win on the river. Thus you would be putting money in as the underdog.
If he routinely limps preflop in that spot, you need to start looking for other players to admire. That's way too passive for my tastes. I like your play and I think that it would have worked on the turn if he had what you put him on (a weaker queen, like Q-10s or something).
5-10. Fairly tight game, usually 3-4 seeing the flop. I'm in middle position with JJ. An early position player calls, and the next player calls. It's folded to me, so I raise, and the two original callers call the raise.
Flop: 10 7 6 no flush draw. Checked to me, I bet, the first caller folds, and the next player check-raises me. I call (?)
I had only played with him for about an hour at this point, and twice he had bluffed very hard at pots when a straight draw was on the board. In one case it was a check raise bluff, which didn't work. He was called down both times, and showed total busts. He didn't have draws either time.
Turn is 3. He bets, I call. River is a 2. He bets, I think for a while, and call. Any constructive comments on how to properly play this hand?
Bill
Alot of players will assume you are on AK or AQ and will pull a play like that with top pair. If you think he's pure bluffing I'd think you should raise him on the river. If you think he's drawing I'd raise him on the turn.
-D
What is the point of raising on the river if you think he is bluffing?
D.
I would reraise on the flop with your over pair.
If he bets out after your reraise on the flop then you can call to the river. If he checks to you and you bet and he checkraises again I'd start thinking he might have a set. If he just calls, then bet to the river.
20-40 hand in AC. 5 new players at the table as a result of two tables merging. 2 New players limp in middle position. I am on the button with QdQs. I raise. SB folds. BB (a decent player who tends to fall in love with drawing hands) calls.
Flop comes Td7h5d. BB bets, New Player #1 (NP1) calls, NP2 raises, and I 3 bet it. BB calls, NP1 calls, NP2 caps it. I think a minute then call, BB calls NP1 calls. Turn comes Ac. BB checks, NP1 checks, NP2 bets, all call. River comes 7d. BB and NP1 once again check to NP2, who bets.
Ok here come the questions...do you call the
a. cap on the flop? b. turn bet? c. river bet?
There is $170 in the pot before the flop, $490 after the flop, and $650 after the turn betting is done.
My feeling are the first one is a no brainer, the second is iffy and the third is almost certainly a loser but the pot odds on the call are incredibly large.
Why did you choose not to raise the turn? spitball
To be honest, I was scared of a reraise by Adxd or a set, especially from the player that capped it on the flop. I put the BB on some sort of pair-straight draw combo and the capper on a set or the nut flush draw (two pair being unlikely in this situation.) I have no clue what the first limper NP1 had. If this is the case, should I have folded on the turn, or played the hand like I was drawing to the last two queens (or back door diamond flush draw)?
It's very hard to put unknowns on a hand. You don't know them and they don't know you. A raise on the turn may well be the last bet as you've raised at every chance so far. For all they know you are a tight rock who only raises the turn with AA in this situation. Of course you could be drawing dead if it is three bet and will have no history with these guys to know for sure. It's a tough play. My concern with just calling is the chance that if BB is on 89 you don't give him the opportunity to fold...for all he knows the betting is going to be capped and if he thinks he could be drawing dead he may release the winner. Raising may get you head-up with NP2 which is where I think you want to be. Also, of course, you may be checked into on the river. spitball
I agree the the flop is a no brainer. But the turn and river require some thought.
I think the key to this hand is asking yourself if you're willing to call the hand down when the ace hits on the turn and you are bet into. If the answer is yes, then getting your 2 bets in on the turn with a raise may be the correct play. This charges the draws a premium and makes it very difficult for someone to bet into you on the river without a made hand (you were the pre-flop raiser). If someone were to re-raise the turn OR bet into you on the river when a diamond or a straight hit, you would have a much easier muck.
As usual, you need to know your players.
.......
x
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 February 2000, at 4:24 p.m.
I have to say that if you were up against me in this hand, and I cap the flop with the board as it is, you would be up against trips. Calling the flop is probably correct in usual cases, but you can't rule out a set when someone caps it, unless your up against loose maniacs who will go crazy with top pair or a flush draw.
The turn card looks to have hit someone. Check and fold. Even if you throw away the best hand, there is just too many ways to be beaten and too many people vying for the pot against QQ's.
River is a definite check and fold. Flush got there, trips and full houses likely as well. If these guys are so bad as to try and bluff this far with absolute crap then they are either experts who can read people well or maniacs.
Hope you did'nt lose the hand or too much on the hand.
Thanks for all the responses. I think I ended up playing this hand quite badly. I can call the cap. But beyond that I think that I played it badly. I should have been in raise-or-fold mode on the turn, probably leaning toward folding. My call was a sure sign of weakness.
Despite the huge pot odds available for a call on the river (the reason why I did call), the chances I could beat the capper or the other two players who were yet to call was probably even a greater long shot. There for a fold probably would have been correct.
Sure enough, the capper had made a set of fives on the flop and a full house on the river.
IN this web page http://www.desetka.si/izmet/netwisdom.html
I found these old articles from Abdul and Ramsey (95' 96') for those of you that were asking about short handed play.
Also, I was wondering about the concept of "ignoring the top card on the flop" that appears in HPFAP and in the article from Abdul above:
Who was first to come up with this concept Sklansky or Abdul?
thks
Sme
The concept of who came up with what first about ignoring the top card was addressed before. I believe it was on our Other Topics Forum. First, the Abdul concept and the Sklansky concept are very different. Abdul is talking about ignoring the top card when you flop middle pair in a short handed game. In HPFAP-21 we are talking about ignoring the top card when you don't flop anything. At best, you might say that the Abdul version is a very weak form of the Sklansky version. (It is also clear to me that you probably have not read our book if you are asking this question. It should greatly help your short handed hold 'em play and I suggest that you pick up a copy.)
If my memory serves me correctly, Abdul's post appeared in May 1999. Sklansky and I first talked about the concept that we wrote up in HPFAP-21 approximately 5 years earler. In any case, our book was released in June of 1999. For us to release a book in it means that the manuscript had to be totally finished and submitted to our printer at least two months earlier due to the fact that much of our art work -- card pictures, cover design, etc. -- is done by them.
This is part of the article (1996) that I found in the web page I described in my previous post. I am not trying to initiate a copyright lawsuit I was just curious :))))) who came out with this concept( I agree that Abdul's mesg is different situation than HPFAP).
Sme
In article <19961202080000.DAA08686@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
droakland@aol.com writes: > S&M wrote in HPFAP: > "... we could probably write another book on short handed play." > > So, did they? Has anyone?
I think the closest thing in existence to this is my article on short-handed play in _Poker World_, February 1996 (Johnny Moss on the cover.) It's the single biggest essay on short-handed play. I posted a short-handed article that formed the basis of the _Poker World_ article.
* Abdul russles papers in the background.
Ah, I found the old netnews article, and I'll repost it in another follow-up.
Too bad there is no book on short-handed play by S&M or anybody.
>I'm thinking in particular of high limit games such as 80-160 at CSP.
80-160 at CSP? You mean I made a mistake when I passed up living in Sausalito after CSP bungled the opening days and could thereafter spread only 20-40? Drat!
> I want answers to questions like: > In a 3 handed game with over-aggressive opponents, should I be calling > down often with middling pair?
No, you should be raising with that strong a hand, 1/2 ;)
When heads up, you can almost pretend like the top card on the flop is not there. Middle pair with an ace kicker thus rocks (especially since the ace is over the over card), and middle pair with shitty kicker is often worth either a call or an informational raise (and maybe fold or free card afterwards, depending on the opponent's reaction). On the river, in a pot that has been heads up the whole way, it's not far from correct to say that you should often call with as little as pocket deuces.
Played at the Bike last summer. I was familiar with all the players.
I limp UTG w/ 8-9c. Aggressive-average player(AA) calls, tight-average player(TA) calls, very aggressive-good player(plays 20-40 & 40-80 stud, mostly) calls on the button, passive-bad small blind raises, aggressive-bad big blind re-raises(this means ONLY that he has two cards 10 and above), everybody calls.
Flop: Ac7CJd. SB bets, BB raises, call, call, call, Button re-raises, everyone calls.
Turn: 9d. SB checks, BB bets(because the flush didn't come), I raise(!), AA re-raises(!!), TA folds, Button calls, SB folds, BB calls, I call.
River: 3d. BB checks, I check, AA bets, Button mucks the K6c, BB cry-folds, I cry-call. AA turns over the QTc. Simultaneously, we hear: TA-"I had A3h", SB-"I had AKo", BB-"I had KJo".
Comments welcome.
1) You have a great memory.
2) Big blind 3-bet it with K-J before the flop, raised with second pair with 4 players behind him yet to act on the flop, bet again on the turn without improvement despite the fact that everyone was still in, and despite the fact button re-raised his flop raise, then folded for one more bet on the river with two players having given up on the turn! Lots of interesting (!) play by all involved, but the big blind's play was my favorite.
3) All the players who folded told what they had. Did you believe them?
4) Great pot!
Most of them mucked face-up, the others aren't tricky enough to lie.
They where spreading a 10-20 at the bike last summer?
It's hard to figure out just from this hand if this was a really aggressive post flop game, or just a circumstance resulting from hands that caught a piece of the flop. Was every hand played this way? Most of the post flop play aggressiveness may stem from the fact that there were 3 (!) flush draws of which two were flush, gut-shot combos (yours having a pair to boot) playing the hand, supposedly trying to raise out the weaker draws. But not being there, I just wouldn't know.
AKo is in a tough spot because it may be dominated with little chance of improving but may also be the best hand (which it was). It is probably correct to fold because you can not put all five other players on draws with all this raising going on. I am curious how a "pro" would have played AKo in this situation. The factors involved in this hand would be mind boggling to consider.
Nice Pot.
AA's straight draw became open-ended on the turn; I raised because I figured the BB for almost exactly what he had and I wanted to drop any lone Aces and anyone who would be helped by an 8,9, or 10 on the river. I can't see how AKo can call three bets here w/four other players and that kind of co-ordinated board.
I would like your opinion on a play I am seeing with increased frequency. When there are few or no callers, a player on or near the button will raise with something like A4o. Do you think this is a reasonable play, or just a desperate attempt to steal the blinds? Personally, I hate it.
Brett
i like to make this play against weak tight players, who will easyly fold when i bet out on the flop. unfortunately this is very rare where i play (of course it makes no sense to make this play against people, who always defend their blinds.
i definitly always will make this kind of play, when everybody folds to the button who just calls and i´m in the small blind. but in this case, i´ll raise with every hand i get, because most players give me pretty much credit for a good hand, when i raise from the sb. in this case i win the hand on the flop by betting (especially when the flop comes high, because the button would have raised with high cards)about 80% of the time.
regards
m.a.
I think a raise w/ A-x on the button when no one has called is pretty standard and probably profitable. A lot of players take it too far and try it from the cutoff or even earlier. I would only do that if the button and the blinds are very weak-tight or if you are psychic. It seems like whenever I go for a steal that is a bit of a reach, I get punished for it.
It is a common play and one a lot of players are successful with. I will often steal blinds with a A rag in tournaments. I am seeing more players calling in early and mid position and even calling raises with this hand.
I don't hate doing it but it is a good strategy on the button with no callers.
I have also seen players calling, raising, or 3 betting with this type of hand from mid position. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Brett
You risk 2 to win 1.5. So if the opponents fold 60% or so of the time the raise is instantly profitable. If they call 60% of the time then you can see that your hand is a favorite against all those extra hands they must be calling with. Just about ANY cheese is worth a raise if he'll fold 40% of the time since you are going to accidentally hit something part of the time.
This hand is a pass if the opponent rarely folds for your raise AND you don't believe you CAN win a showdown with just a naked ace. This will happen if the opponent can seriously outplay you such as if he calls your flop bet and you check the turn and he auto bets the river and you auto fold. If this is the case you need to get out of "top-pair" mode when playing short handed.
- Louie
Oh sure. Bring out the math. I guess I should have said that the blinds rarely fold in these games. So in case you don't catch a big flop, then what do you do?. That's why I think the play is so questionable.
Brett
"... the blinds rarely fold in these games." Good. Then they'll be calling your raise with LOTS of inferior hands out of position. I'll take A4 vrs J7 in position all day...
"So in case you don't catch a big flop, then what do you do?" Like I said, ... read that 2nd paragraph again.
You are correct that if you need to win now (unlikely) or flop big (also unlikely) then A4 isn't for you. Neither is AK. ALL unpaired hands are favorites to miss.
- Louie
PS. Players you respect/fear do NOT belong 2-seats to your left; partly for this reason.
I think there is a big difference if there are "few" callers and if there are "no"callers. Also, it would depend a lot on who is in the blinds.
If I'm on the button or even in the cutoff seat, and it's checked all the way to me, and if the blinds are likely to give up at least half the time if I raise, then I'll go ahead and pop it on Ace-something, if for no other reason than if I wait until I have a bigger hand before I'll raise as first one in, I'm giving up a lot of steal opportunities. If however, there are 1 or 2 callers in front of me, especially from an early position, I dump the Ax, and wait for something better. I see too many limpers coming in with decent Ace's from fairly early positions, and unless I hit the flop hard, I am likely to be dominated, or in a guessing situation.
20-40 game. I have Jc-10d in the BB. One loose limper, then a raise from a player who has been losing and is down to his last $180 or so. He may be steaming but is normally decent (not a maniac). SB calls, I call, limper calls. Flop is Jh-9d-7s. SB checks, I bet, limper calls, raiser calls, SB folds. Turn is 10s. I bet, limper folds (whew!), raiser calls. River is 2s. Raiser has about $75 left -- enough to raise almost a full bet. Do you bet the river?
This is basic endgame strategy. If he's more inclined to bluff if you check than he is to pay you off with second pair, you should try to induce the bluff. This also gives you some protection from the possible backdoor flush. But checking just because you fear the backdoor is wrong. In my experience, most players in this situation will go for a desparation bluff more often than they'll pay you off with A9.
I also felt he could well have had AJ or an overpair and was planning to raise the turn but got scared by the 10. I still think I should have checked though, for both of your reasons.
Lets see what we have:
1) You Bet he folds (Hand over)
->Win extra bet = 0
2) You Check he checks (Hand over)
->Win extra bet = 0
3) You Check he bets(bluff, Flush AQs or A8s straight) you call
->Win 1 extra bet on the bluff
->Lose the pot - 1 extra bet if he has the flush.
4) You Bet he raises you call
->loose 2 bets and maybe the pot
5) You Bet he raises you fold
->loose the pot
I would have to go with #3. You do not want to lose 2 big bets if he indeed caught Runner Runner. A8s sure would be a desperation move to raise with pre- flop. If he has the straight or the flush it will only cost you 1 more big bet. If he is bluffing then you get the one extra bet the pot and he gets to go home.
Best of it !!
MJ
Had he a big pair he would have raised at least once. He has no reason to slow play even a straight on the turn. It sure doesn't look like he could have you beat except for the runner-flush. The key words are "LOOK LIKE". He has very little bluffing equity and hero would be a fool to ..err.. unwise to automatically lay down 2nd pair against typical reasonable players. I think this is obvious to both players.
It is also true that there are few hands he can call you with; but I believe more than he'd bluff with.
With so few non-flush hands that matter, the runner-runner flush chances becomes significant and I suspect you are beat a LARGE percent of the time THAT HE WANTS TO PUT MONEY IN THE POT.
Check and call. This is a brain-dead decision if he can't do basic whats-he-think-I-got thinking.
Note that bluff RAISE has equity on his part and if you really think he's desperate then bet and ENCOURAGE a bluff!
Now had hero smartly check-raised the flop there are a lot more good hands he can call you with (he's a lot less likely to raise with a pair after hero raised) so betting for value seems like a top option.
- Louie
Yesterday in a 5-10 game I was in the Big Blind and had 78c. I couldn't really classify these players. If anything Id call them loose aggressive.
Anyways I have 78c and a player 2 to my left raises, he usually raises with big pairs, and Slick and AQ. So I know I can put him on at least a decent pair. After 6 callers to me I decide to call. (Maybe not a good choice? What do you think?)
The flop comes 5c 8d 6c
I check- then the pre-flop raiser bets out, then another raise and its re-raised to me. I am on an open ended Str8 flush draw, and with top pair-no kicker. I feel that the pre-flop raiser has A big pair. And possibly the second raiser has flopped the str8 as well. I feel that if I hit a club, I may win this pot, so I call. Then its capped by the pre-flop raiser. There is another limper other than me that calls.
The turn is a 7h
Same pre-flop raiser bets, It is called this time by the second raiser, and the limper folds. I call. I feel that I still have a shot at winning this pot with a club. I have 2 outs for the straight flush draw, 2 outs for the full house, and even 7 outs on a club for the flush.
Am I out of line here? I have 11 cards that could fall here that could make me win this pot.
What would you do?
I will post results later
Jayman
Easy B4 flop call.
Great flop. Lets cap it. The only time you should fold is if you're SURE you're up against the big made straight AND someone has a big flush draw. Unfortunately, it looks like this MAY BE the case since a big pair would be brain-dead to 4-bet it and probably has a big draw.
On the turn I count 9 clubs, and 4 full house cards for a 13 card out; but only 2-8s are the nuts. 6 cards may split it for you. The turn worked out nicely (except that you lost 6 outs) since it sure looks like your drawing REAL live after its not raised and the limper folded (an apparent stiff 7 and NOT a big flush draw). If the raiser really DOES have a big pair and the caller a flush draw; well you've got the best hand right now. Even if the raiser has the big straight and the caller the big flush draw, you still have 4 outs for your full house; more than enough considering the size of the pot. There are no combinations these TWO opponents can have that would not justify a call. Your biggest consern is whether your flush is good if you make it; but since you are NEVER going to lay down YOUR flush there isn't much you can do about it so "being conserned" doesn't do you any good; so don't be.
The pot is large (19 bets) and you have lots of outs; your fears or my thoughts above don't really matter. Easy call.
- Louie
I might lay this down pre-flop depending on how things were going. With 6 other players you can call easily. You might even raise if you're daring and you believe all 6 players will continue for 1 or 2 more bets.
Here's what I would have done. I've written this as I would have played it with just a few seconds for thought.
Great flop for this hand. Ok, just call along. I'm not knocking out anybody here and it's going to be raised. The more in, the better. I have drawing odds but am not in first place yet. Overall the cheaper the better here. SIDENOTE: I'm not folding an open ended straight flush draw for any number of bets at this time.
On the turn, Now I have 2 pair. Damn I wish I had raised those singleton 9's and 5's out. Ah they weren't going to fold anyway. I've got the preflop raisers beat but there's a 50/50 chance (quick guess) that I'm beat. Any 8 is good for sure and I pretend that any 7 is as well. I've got the two str8 flush cards for 6 cards to the best. Lots of outs to win or half the pot. My clubs are likely good.
What! He just calls. Are they both betting and protecting overpairs. Big pot, now a good chance I have the best and have all the draws except a another pair or their overcard. Raise. They can't fold, pot's too big. Hope I don't get killed on the river ....
Hurry up and turn over that river card!
I missed that you were Big Blind! Of course call.
Pre-Flop:
After 6 callers to me I decide to call. (Maybe not a good choice? What do you think?)
Your in the Big Blind It's one bet to you with 6 callers. 7c8c need good implied odds and it sure seems like your going to get that. The call is correct.
On the FLOP:
After calling all the other bets you sure are commited to the pot and one more big bet should not stop you now. You have many outs but also may be drawing dead to suited over cards.
On the TURN:
I would be very concerned with the players that cold called preflop. Some one could be on a set. Also the 9 makes JT good so your also introuble there. 4c 9c are the nuts you are really playing a two outer. The pot is large but your true outs are few.
On the River:
Check / call 1 bet if you hit your flush or the straight unless you get the Prime Nuts then you know what to do RAISE....
Best of it !!
MJ
:
It looks as though one players has JJ's or higher, and the other guy has a set of 5's or 6's or probably an ace high flush draw or KQ flush draw. I would see what the river brought.
The preflop is no-brainer. Flop seems like you should call since you got about as good a flop as you are going to get maybe you should even raise or maybe you should even fold who knows. On the turn the action slows down and you only have a bet and a call when it's your turn to act. Call seems the most reasonable to me at this point with a raise being second and a fold, well they will have to show me their cards something like 9Tc and a set of 8's to get me out at this point.
I think the best option is to call and check call the river again. There is a chance that the preflop raiser has aces and the other guy has a flush draw and your two pair is good without improving.
WIth that many outs and your assessment of the other hands, I might raise myself. It appears that the raiser is trying to make it expensive for anyone who might hit a flush or a straight because he/she knows they can't beat it. I'd put him/her on an overpair, and possibly the other player on a set or a straight draw. I'd stay until the river. If I don't improve, I'd check with the intension of folding if there's a bet and a call. If there's a bet and a fold, I'd call with my 2pair. What did you do?
After my call on the turn the flop was a 5d.
The Pre-flop raiser bet and the next guy raised. I folded. Pre-flop raiser called.
Pre-flop raiser had AA
Second caller had pocket 6's for the boat.
Another player that folded on the turn said he had flopped a straight, but folded I'm not sure I could have laid a str8 down at that point.
The reason I posted this is because it only left me with 2-1/2 Big Bets and I decided to call it a night. I felt like I played this right, but because I was on the end of a loosing session and it made me think. However, If I had won this hand, I would have been even for the night and probably never gave it a second thought. Its amazing how much thinking a person dose on the end of a loosing session!!!
Thanks
Jayman
Ah, we were never best but our draws were mostly good.
You're going to make this a winner about half the time (probably more). The seven was a nice card since it gave you 4 more outs. The so called straight on the turn doubtfull but didn't matter since you behind the 3 sixes anyway. The AA sure made a lot of money for the set of sixes considering he was a 23-1 dog.
Glad you posted this hand. Hands like this (especially when you win) are the ones you remember.
I agree with most of the comments above, but I would be tempted to raise on the turn, figuring that I had best hand against a top pair and a better flush draw. If a blank or a flush hits on the river, I check-call.
Interesting hand yesterday. Don't know how much analysis could come of it but maybe some. 10-20 Taj usual suspects.
I'm in the BB w 8-4 of clubs. I have been getting miserable cards for about two hours and think here we go again.
Three callers (all tight)to the SB (Weak Tight Habitual Bluffer) who calls and I check my option.
Flop 8-8-8
SB checks, I bet... I figure nobody has much hope of improving and I might actually grab some deception value by betting out. I was right I get Three callers. Turn is 10c making the board a complete rainbow of suits. Small blind checks, I check, next player bets, fold, SB Check raises I smooth call opener folds.
SB announces I bet blind and tosses $20 out before the river card. I raise and get paid off.
River 2s (I think a black 2 for sure)
Really the only analysis I see is on the flop. Would you bet out? I usually find that a flop bet followed by a turn check screams I am weak so that is what I did...
Now here is the SCARY part
Next Hand
Flop 8-8-8 Turn 10 River 2
I suspect if I play poker for the next 50 years I will never see that again!
Flop: Great bet. You are almost screming "I am weak and trying to steal the pot!"
Turn: Great check. Your announcing "My attempt to steal did'nt work but I will call, please bet!"
River: Not sure whether you should have smooth called here since you mentioned that on the turn you had three callers. If your sure your raise would not send them packing then raising is good (you mentioned table was pretty tight)otherwise why not try to extract an extra bet out of them? I am assuming that the only player who paid you off was SB, but that is not sure since your post did not get into those specifics.
Love those big blinds.
Joe...
My original post was confusingly edited.
Betting
Flop I bet 3 callers
Turn I check - next player to act Bets - next (button) folds - SB raises (check raise) I smooth call - opener Folds.
Only the SB and I (BB) are still in the hand.
Then the SB bets the river (before the river card was exposed) Announcing "I bet blind).
I raised her and she paid me off...
Sean
Good raise n/t
I like the play. I think a check on the flop might be better only against very very poor (i.e. brain-dead) opposition -- you might want to let them catch something for free. But against a normal or good field, you played it great, IMO.
With 888 ANY over card on the turn can improve anybody to top boat; a hand most people will bet and never fold. The habbitual bluffer in the SB encourages you to check. The "tight" players encourage you to check since "tight" players don't call "one more time" on the flop; and the hands they'll call with are close to the ones they'll bet with.
Otherwise this is a good bet. JOE's comment about appearing weak is a great reason to bet; and this reason REALLY counts in loose games where you may get 2 raises in before they suspect their 55 isn't any good; but will call anyway.
SURPRISE! The "tight" players called. Perhaps "tight" to you means "passive" to me. If so, it was a good bet.
Successfully disguising your hand on the flop should encourage you to bet the turn, heheHA!
- Louie
I've heard these arguments, abbreviated a great deal here:
1) In LL you need to tighten up considerably. If you don't, they'll draw out on you. You can't protect your hand with a bet so you need a monster to ensure you'll have the best hand after the river. If you do have a draw, try to see the cards for as cheap as possible.
2) LL players play so loose that you only need to play a small bit tighter than them. If you play just a small bit tighter than they do, you'll make your draw more often than they do and you'll get the money.
Can we compare and contrast?
May be in loose aggressive one needs to tighten up A LOT. And in loose passive you can loosen up A LOT.
I kind of agree with #2. When they are playing any A any suited cards and making it 4 bets to see a flop.
I say play quailty cards and some go way up in value.
All pairs, AXs, mid to big suited coupled cards. In other words ou have to be just a bit better than they are.
Trick here is to dump if you don't hit the flop hard.
I think is it ia truly a no fold'em hold'em with many maniacs it is almost imposible to beat consistantly.
Although it's not quite right, I think your last sentence comes the closest to being correct. You can loosen up a little preflop in a passive game but have to tighten up a lot in an aggressive game.
In a loose aggressive game with 5 or more people often taking the flop for multiple bets, you need durable hands like big suited cards and big pairs. Big unsuited cards go down in value and Axs and Kxs go way up. AJo and below isn't worth much. You still prefer to play your good hands aggressively.
In extremely aggressive games with 5 or more people constantly at the turn and nearly every round capped, you pretty much have to wait for AA, KK, QQ and AKs.
(Notice that there's a difference between an aggressive game and just having a maniac at the table.)
In a loose passive game with multiway pots but little preflop raising, you can play small pairs, suited connectors, Axs and Kxs out of position more frequently. The big unsuited cards go down in value, but not as badly. You want to play AJo and KQ in this game, and often earlier than you would in a more "normal" game, but less often for a raise. My guess is that Q9s does okay in these games, but I wouldn't play it up front. Unsuited connectors remain trash although you can probably get away with something like 98o on the button. (One reason that these hands fare badly is that your opponents are playing them too, so that your draws more often end up making someone else's two pair and vice versa).
You also want to consider how far your opponents will take their hands in the passive game. If the answer is pretty far (they won't ever let you bluff), you need more durable hands. If your opponents can fold on the flop or turn, however, you can play more often.
Whether the game is mostly passive or aggressive, you still generally want to raise or reraise with AKo, depending on what you know about your active opponents.
All these descriptions are gross generalizations that don't say much about what you should do after the flop.
Classic Louie Abrasion:
#1 is for two types of people: (1) Those that are used to playing "tight" where they expect to win a high percentage of hands they contest and don't understand they really only have to win more than their "fair" share, and (2) those people who NEED to win a very high percentage of hands they play.
#2 is for two types of people: (1) undisciplined people who "want" to play any old piece of cheese, and (2) desperate poker writers.
#3: You can play a lot more "speculative" hands in multi-way pots but no more and probably less trouble hands. This will increase your frequency but no where near that of the loose players.
#3 is for two types of people: (1) Those who want to maximize their win and can handle the swings, (2) Those who wish to play-by-rote following top authors advice, and (3) those who for whatever reason NEED to follow MY advice.
- Louie
You should read HPFAP. The hands you should keep of course depend on your position, etc... With an aggressive table where 5 or more usually seeing the flop, I like mainly pairs and high suited connectors AK AQ KQ and maybe a few others. With a table like this you realy don't want drawing hands. A hand like 77 is easy to throw away on the flop if you don't make trips, and if you do make trips, then you should win a big pot with this aggressive table. And with this many players Axs isn't all that bad, just be very careful if an A hits.
The looser a table is, the looser you can play (this doesn't mean you play the same crap they do of course).
The more passive a table is, the more hands you can play.
The ideal is to always be one step ahead of everyone at your table, but just one step, if you are too many steps ahead, you're wasting your time, and not maximizing your earnings.
D
"The looser a table is, the looser you can play (this doesn't mean you play the same crap they do of course). The more passive a table is, the more hands you can play."
Good points. I wasn't addressing the passive/aggressive aspects of hand selection.
- Louie
Would like to hear opinions about the way this hand was played..
Button is at seat #8, I'm in seat #6 and call with Kd9d after 3 limpers, SB calls, BB checks. 6 handed, no raises, flop comes 8s5d7d. I flop a flush draw and a gut shot straight draw. Action- SB checks, BB opens, call, call, raise to my immediate right. I call the 2 bets, SB calls, BB calls, call, and the second caller makes it 3 bets. Original flop raiser makes it 4 bets, and I decided to cap it, trying possibly for the free card on the turn. We lose the SB and BB, but the rest call. Turn- Qd. All check to me, I bet, everyone calls. River, 3c. All to check to me, I bet, only flop 4 bettor calls, shows 87o- he had flopped 2 pair, and I take it down with the K high flush. My question- could I have extracted any more bets out of this? How would have played it?
When 6 people see the flop and 4 call 5 bets on a 2 suited flop, with rags, it is virtually 100% that someone is on a flush draw. When the flush card comes you only figure to get action from those drawing to beat you, 2 pair/trips/Ad. You couldn't have done better.
Danny S
Why would you possibly think that you missed bets on this hand?
x
"Original flop raiser makes it 4 bets, and I decided to cap it, trying possibly for the free card on the turn".
Assumption: This is not a good hand to run a bluff, and the BB and SB are likely to call 2 bets again.
So instead of getting 5 opponents to put in 4 bets (20) you got 2 to put in 2 and 3 to put in 5 (19) for a net of -1 at a cost of an additional bet. I hate it when that happens. And you took away the chances of the 3-better making it 5-bets for you, getting 25 bets in with your big draw.
You had a GOLDEN opportunity to make it 3-bets so I cannot imagine what hand you could possibly be representing. I would not hesitate to bet my two pair on the turn into such a play. <-- Keep in mind I HATE this "free card" stools and it gets my blood churning.
So your 5-bet appears to minimize your win and maximize your loss and reduces the chances of getting extra pay offs if you make it. MAYBE it may save you a big bet every now and then.
Lets not chase players out with your big draws. With raises on your immediate right; Call the raise, call the raise, bet or raise if you make it.
- Louie
I agree with Louie. On the flop you should probably just call all bets. They may still put you on the flush draw but the 4bettor with top two pair could put you on the straight draw and bet when the diamond comes off on the turn. Then you get to raise the turn. With all that action on the flop you can't reasonably expect you putting in the last bet on the flop to get you a free card. It just doesn't make sense.
chris
In retrospect, the blinds on this flop probably had straight draws, top-pair (or mid-pair) with poor kicker, or possibly even two small diamonds. They both were in for two bets post-flop, but then folded to the prospect of three more bets. They got pushed out of the hand by your cap bet, most likely. (Since small blind had already cold-called two bets, he would probably cold-call two more given the multi-way action. Likewise, if the small-blind sticks around for the four-bet, then his call would encourage a call from the large blind.) In order for your hand to win this pot, you need to make your flush or your gutshot (or maybe hit runner-runner K's). The only hand that you really want to see fold is someone with the naked ace of diamonds, since he could hurt your made-flush if the river shows a forth diamond. Then again, if he stays in this instance, you extract at least one more big bet on the turn. Of course, if the A-x diamonds is out against you, it will never fold, so you'd be dead to the gutshot draw). To summarize, your holding welcomes callers and profits greatly if you can keep the multiway flavor of this contest. Noone with a made set or made straight on this flop is going to fold for the cap. The diamond that makes your flush on the turn may make a smaller flush or two-pair for someone else; or may induce a call on the turn bet from some optimist holding Qd or Jd. I, too agree with Louie. You don't need to pressure the blinds out with this drawing hand.
You did good!
vince
"and I decided to cap it, trying possibly for the free card on the turn."
At this point there ain't gonna be no stinkin free cards. Unless you are playing against blind opponents that can't count they will certainly notice that there are a few of the same suit on board. Your raise is correct not for the free card but because of the odds you are getting. the big problem that you have is that you don't have the nut flush draw. A big consideration. But once it gets back to you and you are going to call two more bets anyway you might as well try to get as much money in the pot as possible. (The reason for the raise here not the free card). Thoses that claim you drove out players with your raise must be psychics. Here you have players that called two bets cold so what is it that you are thinking? I would be thinking that they are in for the duration but if I'm wrong I still get the last two raisers to call so I don't lose much by having them fold and gain a lot if they call. You have to take into consideration the fact that you will not get another chance to raise. If a flush comes noone but you will be betting. In fact you really don't want anyone to bet unless they are very weak and will bet with less than the nut flush. Of course there are numbskulls that will do just that so you should be aware of them and spank them when they bet into you. But normally you won't get a chance to raise when the flush comes against reasonable players especially with all that action.
Once the flush comes all you can do is bet. If the pot were not so big and you were head up against a strong player you could check the turn and try for a raise on the river. But that's another subject.
Notice something about Holdem. Controversy on how best to play this hand. Louie Landale recommends calling. I respect Louie Landale. My buddy SKP I believe will take the side of raising. I think Mason and David would say raise. Then again I bet that both Mason and David can argue either side. I can tell you that I recommend raising as you did but might not raise if it didn't "feel" right.
So, Good luck!
Vince
I agree about the reason for the raise: its for value since you will make your big hand over one time in three and can expect more than 2 callers.
Perhaps I AM psycotic but I think it reasonable that once they call 2-bets cold, they are much more likely to call 2-bets cold again than 3. If so, raising is profitable but just-calling to keep them in is even more profitable. If you believe they'll stay in anyway, then raise away.
- Louie
I am fairly new to the game of HoldEm and Poker in general. I have recently begun thinking about calculating odds and such. My question is, how do you calculate your odds of hitting your hand with two cards to come (i.e. after the flop with the turn and river still undealt)? I already know how to calculate the odds of hitting my hand with only one card to come (i.e. the river card).
To make the question simple let me take an example: It's common knowledge that it's 1.86:1 against making a straight on either the turn OR the river (i.e. with two cards yet to come). How do you arrive at this 1.86:1 figure?
Ok, well first I'm sure you meant it's 1.86:1 against making a flush (not a straight) with two cards to come. You can find the answer in one of Sklansky's books. But I'll just give you a hint so you can figure it out on your own. You know how to calculate the odds on the next card you said. So, figure out the odds for NOT making your flush on the turn. Then assuming that happens, figure out your odds for not making it on the river. Multiply those together, and subtract from 1.
Good job ;)
D
The correct way to determine the probability of improving with two (or more) cards to come is to first determine the probability of not improving, and then subtract this result from 1 (or 100%)
For example, in the case of a flush draw, your chances of not improving are 38/47 * 37/46, or .65 (65%).
Your chances of making the flush with two to come is thus .35 (35%), and the odds against hitting the flush are .65/.35, or 1.86 to 1.
....turn turn river river t/r t/r
Outs (%) (X:1) (%) (X:1) (%) (X:1)
------------------------------------------------------
20 42.6 1.35 43.5 1.30 67.5 0.48
19 40.4 1.47 41.3 1.42 65.0 0.54
18 38.3 1.61 39.1 1.56 62.4 0.60
17 36.2 1.77 37.0 1.71 59.8 0.67
16 34.0 1.94 34.8 1.88 57.0 0.76
15 31.9 2.13 32.6 2.07 54.1 0.85
14 29.8 2.36 30.4 2.28 51.2 0.96
13 27.7 2.62 28.3 2.54 48.1 1.08
12 25.5 2.92 26.1 2.83 45.0 1.22
11 23.4 3.27 23.9 3.18 41.7 1.40
10 21.3 3.70 21.7 3.60 38.4 1.61
9 19.1 4.22 19.6 4.11 35.0 1.86
8 17.0 4.88 17.4 4.75 31.5 2.18
7 14.9 5.71 15.2 5.57 27.8 2.59
6 12.8 6.83 13.0 6.67 24.1 3.14
5 10.6 8.40 10.9 8.20 20.4 3.91
4 8.5 10.75 8.7 10.50 16.5 5.07
3 6.4 14.67 6.5 14.33 12.5 7.01
2 4.3 22.50 4.3 22.00 08.4 10.88
1 2.1 46.00 2.2 45.00 04.3 22.50
I took the 9 out line for this example from that chart.
9 | 19.1 | 4.22 | 19.6 | 4.11 | 35.0 | 1.86
Drawing 1 card (Turn)
9 outs
Percent chance to make your hand: 19.1 % is
9(outs)/47 * 100 = 19.14%
Odds against making the hand(Dog)
4.22:1 is 100 - 19.14 / 19.14 = 4.23:1
If you miss the turn and are drawing 1 card (river):
Percent Chance to make your hand. 19.6 is
9(outs)/46 * 100 = 19.56% (19.6 rounded)
Odds against making the hand(Dog)
4.11:1 100 - 19.56 / 19.56 = 4.11:1
Chance of making a flush with two cards to come
35.0%
Chance *against* making a flush with two to come is
38/47 = 8.08
37/46 = 8.04
8.08 * 8.04 = 64.96 , or .65
Chances of making the flush with two to come is .35
100% - 65% = 35%
Odds:1 against making a flush with two cards to come
1.86 = 100-35 /35 = 1.857 (1.86 Rounded)
Best of it !!
MJ
Thanks for the very clear and thorough answer to my question.
10-20 Game, I open raised in middle position with AK offsuit. Everyone folded to the small blind who reraised and I called. The flop came 48J with 2 diamonds, of which I had none, and he came out betting and I raised to get a free card. I was ready to drop if he reraised me. Anyhow he just called and the turn was an offsuit 3. He checked and I checked. The river card was an offsuit 6. There was still no flush on board. He bet and I called with the Ace high. I thought the way he played his hand only made sense if he either was slowplaying on the flop with an overpair and ready to check raise on the turn, or if he had something like AK or AQ and was trying to steal the pot. I thought that someone with AK or AQ could easily have played the hand exactly as he did. Although Id probably have checked the river with AK as a hand thats only getting called if its beaten or at worst tied. Anyway he had a set of Jacks. Was the call on the end foolish? Or how about the play on the flop? I never know when to give up with 2 overcards. I think heads up Id pretty much always raise there with position.
This was a unique hand for you? Wadda ya play, once a millennium or somethin'?
There's no reason to post only those hands that are unique. Some of the best discussions on this forum have been started by posters who had a question about an 'ordinary' hand.
I'd probably muck on the flop. The pot's laying you seven to one when he lead bets the flop, and only three and a half to one when you raise. If YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO IMPROVE TO WIN, which is highly likely if you were three bet from the blind, a raise here is questionable, since a) You'll only improve by the river one in three times, and since you were three bet by a man out of position you can't be sure if one of your cards will be good if it hits, and b)When someone gets this aggressive from the blinds they usually don't have a hand worse than yours. AK makes money when it hits the flop, but isn't worth much when it doesn't. I'd probably drop it.
Curtains,
You wrote: "10-20 Game, I open raised in middle position with AK offsuit. Everyone folded to the small blind who reraised and I called."
This is reasonable against most players. It would help if you could tell us more about what you know of this opponent and so on.
"The flop came 48J with 2 diamonds, of which I had none, and he came out betting and I raised to get a free card. I was ready to drop if he reraised me. Anyhow he just called…."
Raising is better than calling here. Against a reraise I would take one more off unless the opponent is extremely tight.
"…and the turn was an offsuit 3. He checked and I checked."
I might have bet this one representing a jack-kicker, which cannot be ruled out by my mid position raise. This may get him to lay down an AK or an underpair if he is semi tight. Of course I would have been check raised and been forced to fold but I'm speaking pretending I do not know the outcome.
Checking behind is OK against bluffers and tricky players. I do believe it commits you to calling on the river unless a queen falls (most won't bluff into a board of 48J3Q).
Your check on the turn followed by a river blank means you should call absent information you have not provided (such as a tell). The call will lose more often than not but should be a small money winner given the size of the pot.
Regards,
Rick
I don't understand why most players take one off in this situation (and I mean this particular situation, i.e., with the reraise coming from the blind in a heads up pot, with the hero's raise clearly being a 'value' raise and not a blind steal, etc. etc.). In the words of the old flop rat himself, 'please elaborate'.
GD,
I would take one off after a flop reraise from the small blind because in games I play, the typical SB raiser could have a wide range of hands. Remember, pre flop he figured to get it heads up (when the big blind folds) and he will be aggressive after the flop with underpairs, a pair of queens, AQ and other hands I have a good shot against. Only AA and JJ is extremely unfavorable and even these hands I can catch up with a running straight. And AA is less likely given that I have an ace.
Note that if “Curtains” were reraised on the flop, he would be looking at 12 to one on his call. Given that he can’t get squeezed between two players and is playing short handed, he can’t give it up that easily here. Neither would I.
Regards,
Rick
I guess that's the thing; our decisions are largely based on what kind of playing style our competition favors, which makes some (much?) of this exchange irrelevant. IMExperience, when someone three bets out of the blind they usually have a monster. Since I don't get to play in those shoot 'em up Cali games, I couldn't muck fast enough. But, I see and understand your point.
Yes your post flop play was bad. But so was the set of jacks checking behind you on the turn. Old axiom, if the flop misses you entirely - FOLD.
Good luck
JOE, its very difficult for the small blind to check behind someone.
My mistake, still the small blind should bet a set of Jacks.
No?
He was going for a check raise JOE. He was probably hoping that I had either AJ or AA, KK or QQ, because then Id surely bet after he checked and when he raised me Id probably have to pay him off. If I dont have any of these hands I will probably fold when he bets anyway.
The reraise preflop by your opponent plus the 2 diamonds on the flop make this hand a questionable call. Of course if you plan on calling then a raise for a free card is certainly an option. Fold to a reraise? Maybe. What would he reraise with Q,Q, K,K or A,A, Ad,Kd. He certainly would not reraise with A,J mainly because he probably would not reraise with A,J preflop. He wouldn't reraise with A,K or A,Q either. He would'nt reraise with a set we already know that, which makes him a knowledgeable player BTW. Only the three hands I mentioned would he reraise with. So let's see Q,Q = 6 ways, K,K = 3 ways and A,A = 3 ways Ad,Kd = 1 way Your even money to have 2 over cards to his reraising pair. Plus you gain a lot of valuable information from his reraise. If you get reraised here the pot is probably big enough to call and see the turn. That bull about this flop missing you entirely is just that. If you have two over cards to the flop and those two over cards are exactly A,K then the flop didn't miss you entirely. This is limit poker not big bet poker. You are head up, precisely where you want to be with this hand. Don't be too quick to give it up. The big problem here is the J. A reraise from the SB by a good player usually means a premium pair. J,J , although the minimum raising hand for some, is still considered a premium pair. But once you got your free card on the turn you did just what you shoud do. consider the play of the hand and make a decision based on the information available. That's all you can do. I guess if this was a bad call, and I'm not saying it was, then it is the best place to make the bad call. The river!
Vince.
What's wrong with re-raising with a set here?
and how many make wn unprofitable ocean? I am constantly beating the games with good players in the seats and losing more against the lesser players of the poker community. It seems like it should be the other way around. Some players have told me that if there is more then 2 "fish" in the game it becomes harder to win because both of them will call you down to the end and one will hit their 2nd pair or hit their gutshot or make runner-runner,etc. Is this true? At the Bellagio this past winter I played in the 15-30 games and beat them up for about $2800 over a 3 day weekend. I would say their was probably an average of about 4-6 callers pre-flop. This low-limit game I'm talking about (5-10-20) usually has 7-10 players in the pot and if they flop anything(Bottom pair/w bad kicker) they are in there to make trips or hit their kicker and against 8 opponents I am no longer the favorite with top pair/top kicker(Correct or Incorrect?) My question is do I need to quit playing in these types of games or are the odds in my favor and I've just been getting bad beats and to keep letting them draw until I have their money?
RAZOR
maybe you play better against good players. Maybe not.
You definately have to play differently against those loose gambling opponents than good players. If you don't, then you're in big trouble.
Also you have to realize you are going to win fewer pots against 8 players than 4 or 5.
Your question depends on the texture of the flop, but yes thats probably true.
D
Table personality or mix is a very important thing to me. When you say fish I assume you are refering to maniacs or real loose agggressive players. I don't like to see more than 3 at my table preferably 2 they creat action and can be isolated for the kill.
Table personality or mix is a very important thing to me. When you say fish I assume you are refering to maniacs or real loose agggressive players. I don't like to see more than 3 at my table preferably 2 they creat action and can be isolated for the kill.
I don't play in the sort of games you described as I find them impossible to beat on a consistant basis.
Give me a table full of fish. I don't care if 9 of them stay in for the show down on everyhand. True that you will win fewer pots, but they will be BIG. I want to win a lot of money, not a lot of pots!!! I am only seeing the flop in about 15 to 18% of my hands. Maybe you have fell prey to playing to many hands in this situation.
No I haven't I never play to many hands - I just want to be a consistant winner and you CAN'T be in a situation like you describe. I too am in it for the money not the pots.
In Response To: Re:How Many Fish make a profitable Pond?Full table (ProPokerPlayer)
No I haven't I never play to many hands - I just want to be a consistant winner and you CAN'T be in a situation like you describe. I too am in it for the money not the pots.
---------------------------------------------- A table full of loose fish is available everyday at poker.com's 1/2 table. They call everything and anything all the way to the river. Its easy consistant pocket change while waiting for another table.
Sorry I thought we aere talking about *poker* not some cyber game. I stand corrected.
I am talking about *real* poker as you put it. The cyber poker is just a place where anyone can go to experience no fold'em hold'em. Go to any LIVE 3/6 or 4/8 table and players are loose and uneducated about poker. They play way too many hands. They call many down to the river sometimes with only 3 outs. Bet for bet (not dollar for dollar) the pots are larger. How often do you see 50/100 get capped on every round? The lower games(for me)are easy to beat.
I certainly didn't mean to offend you. I am sorry you feel the need to attact. I'll let you continue to be in charge without an opposing opinion.
Not offended at all. I just have this anti cyber gambling thing - didn't want to offend eigther.
PPPlayer,
No, I don't play a lot of hands although from reading 2 plus 2 you should play a few more hands then usual in this type of game. Not only can I not beat this game but neither can Caro, Chan, Brunson, any 2 plus 2 author, and certainly not you.( No disrespect) This type of game cannot be beaten on a consistent basis as Rounder noted and I wanted to see who would answer and in which way. I have long sinced stop playing in this particular game and I find that 2 maniacs in one game is the msot profitable. 15 to 18% of hands in this game is fine but I would say that pocket aces get cracked 80% of the time when unimproved and at least 50% when trips are made.
RAZOR
Razor it's the collective outs most players don't realize are killing them. 5 players with say 6 outs each assuming they are not the same outs are 30 outs x 2 tough to beat those odds. Someone is bound to catch most of the time.
I know you are wrong. I prefer a table with 8 fish, especially if they are tenacious and well funded. Poor players, by definition, will make many mistakes. If you believe that you are a good player but you can't devise a way to beat a table full of bad players, either the rake has to be exhorbitant for the limits played, or your assessment of your playing ability is erroneous.
Bad players lose to good players. If one accepts your premise, one has to deny that basic tenet. If the players you mentioned in your post could get a big side action bet with you, I'm pretty sure they'd be willing to sit down against any group of bad players you can put together and prove that you were wrong. Having you make an assertion that something is impossible doesn't make it impossible.
Good players find the weaknesses and exploit them. They adapt their strategy to the texture of the game at hand. Because you are unable to adapt your play to beat this game, don't assume that others have the same difficulty. I advise you to give the game some thought and see if you can come up with a plan to beat it. Good luck.
.
. . .the more the merrier. Those that believe it is better to have some number of good players at the table are wrong. There are two reasons why they are drawn to this incorrect conclusion.
In tighter mid limit games, your opponents make the huge mistake of folding much too often heads up against you, while in loose games the opponents "implicitly collude" to virtually eliminate this particular flaw of theirs because somebody will call you down in a multiway pot. Additionally, loose games are slower and have a higher variance, so that's two hits on your hourly return on investment. Your hourly return on investment will likely be higher in a weak-passive-tight game than a loose-aggressive game, unless the loose game players are really, really loose, like cold calling two with gutshot draws and always going to the river with any pocket pair and that sort of thing.
I have a hard time answering the original question, since I don't know how fishy the fish are. If they're megafish, then the more the merrier, though I'd be happy with even just one or two. If the fish are loose-aggressive veterans who love to play suited cards and jam with flush draws (e.g., typical LA 20-40 players), then I would prefer to have only 0-2 of them, as otherwise they will be playing pretty much correctly if joined by more of their loose-aggressive comrades.
-Abdul
There is an essay in my book POKER ESSAYS called "Too MANY BAD PLAYERS" that addresses this question. In it I conclude that everytime you add a bad replace in place of a good one you get diminishing returns. Specifically, two bad players is better than one bad player but not twice as good since some of the time it will only be the two bad players in the pot together and they will be pushing their money back and forth.
Here's what I wrote:
"Consequently, it appears to me that the best games would be those made up of about half good players and half terrible players. (Actually, the best games might be where half of your opponents are weak tight players and half are live ones.) Of course, exactly how well or how bad your opponents play can make a big difference, and exactly how their styles mesh with your style of playing also can impact your results. But I suspect that these "half-and-half" games are not only the most profitable, but also the easiest to play well."
Mason,
I told you that guy was "Dangerous". His theory of the more the merrier is about as out of whack as his idol the Mad genius when he tells you to ridicule your opponent. No Dangerous is actually further out in left field. If you find yourself in a game full of bad players then I suppose you would have to deal with it an adapt. Adapting is the key to winning with almost any mix of opponents. All of us have personal prefernces for what comprises a "perfect game". Of course "Dangerous" says that we are just plain wrong if we prefer a few sane solid opponents in the game. What, right way, Dangerous fails to take into account is that most "bad" players are just not that "bad". Nor are they "bad" in all aspects of the game. One fundamental poker concept is that "One cannot put a bad (loose) poker player on a hand". Yet, Dangerous, wants us to play against a table full of bad players and focus exactly on what they may have. My conclusion is that your essay addressing this issue is right on the money even if I will have to listen to Dangerous all the way to Mohegan sun this weekend.
Vince
Finally, the post I've been waiting for. Leave to to Vince. . .
Suppose you are sitting in your perfect game, with whatever ratio of good to bad players you think is right. Now, next on the list is your favorite fish, el guppy de tuti guppies (or whatever). This guy plays any two cards, raises only big pairs and AK, never bluffs, and calls to the river with any pair draw, and pays you off with any pair. He also has a strong tell, in that he literally tells you what he has! He's made of money, loves to play, and has a great time losing. He's just dying to get into your game, but if he has to wait more than 5 minutes he's going to another card room.
Now further suppose that you have a teleportation device in your pocket that will cause the best player in the game (excluding yourself, of course) to instantly vanish from the table along with his chips, jacket, lucky charms, and whatever else. No harm will come to him, he'll just wake up the next morning well rested, thinking he had a good session and quit.
Do you use the device?
dangerous dan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
wishing he had a teleportaion device that would only work on Vince :)
obviously a much different model than the "best player" version :-)
"Do you use the device?"
Silly question! Perfect is perfect! Don't fix what ain't broken! Careful what you ask for you just may get it! Mason has written about isolating the live one. Read and head!
Vince.
"obviously a much different model than the "best player" version "
Yeah, but I talk a good game! Sometimes.
O.K. Vince, here's another what if for you.
What if you are down to your case Thousand? A rich stranger tells you that he thinks you may be the worst poker player he has ever seen. He further states that he will back any nine poker players, and you can pick them from any that are now in the Foxwoods Casino, in a single table, winner take all freeze out for $10,000. You have to put up your case Thoudand, he puts up the rest. You decide to go for his proposition, since his attack on your playing ability has wounded your pride and you are on tilt.
Where do you look for your opponents, in the 2-4 or in the 20-40? I know where I'd be looking.
John, you remind me of the story of the guy who bet his finger against 1 million dollars that his Zippo would light 10 times in a row - this guy only had a few bets left on his hands. :-)
I pray for 9 Mason Malmuth's to be around!
Vince
2-4 obviously. However I would be willing to say that the 20-40 players you see around Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun don't play any better than the 2-4 players. They just have more money. The reason I look at 2-4 is not because of the difference in the quality of play which is not great but I look there because of experience and intimidation. I figure to be a big favorite when the stakes are set at a reasonable level for a $1000 freezeout. But what has your scenario got to do with the question Dan posed. A perfect game for me does not have any qualifications like "freezeout".
Vince.
Here is my take on....its a different game..so you play differently....draw hands pay off in games with a lot of callers it is usually correct to draw to a high straight or flush....The power of AA and KK are significantly reduced in a game with a lot of callers...A friend of mine who plays poker professionally once told me that sometimes he will play only against one person at the table..so there you go...you only need one fish....
I'll add my 4 cents since I did not see this point in the several responses I read. If these 7-10 players are usually seeing the flop for one bet, this is a very profitable situation provided you know how to adjust your play according to the number of opponents. OTOH, if most pots are raised and reraised before the flop, the game approaches a crapshoot.
Forum,
I knew this topic would cause much debate as we have all played in most types of games; However, the suggestion that playing with a full table of fish is the most profitable is indeed an erroneous one. As someone noted you want to play more drawing hands even for some raises in this type of situation but the swings can be awful. When you have to pay 4 bets to see any flop it can be tough even when your going in with the best of it. Forget about bluffing which I normally don't try a whole lot in limit play anyway because you will get called down. Sometimes that's great cause you have the best hand and want to get called but many times you don't. I liked Rounder's post about 5 players in the pot with 6 outs each(Not a lot) with a card to come(30 outs). I think it was Abdul who said 1 to 2 fish is best which is my personal favorite. Maybe 1 or 2 maniacs who I can isolate, a couple of fish, a couple of solid tights who you can put on a hand and a few calling stations. This is my perfect game...Hope you find yours...Oh yeah, one very important note,
MY PERFECT GAME IS ALSO LEAVING WHILE I'M WAY AHEAD NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE I KNOW I CAN WIN BECAUSE NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE GAME, THE SWING IS INEVITABLE IF YOU SPEND TOO MUCH TIME THERE!
is very good for poker. I am actually quite happy that many people will never be convinced by simple logic or plain truth.
dangerous dan
-----------------------------------
after all, that's where the edge is
You did real good until you added those upper case letters!
Vince
I just entered my first No Limit tournament today. Needless to say, it was a learning experience. I have a question about how many chips to start off with. See, I have 9000 in chips. I can start with 2000, than use my two re-buys later, or I can start with 9000 and have no re-buys. Every other player started with 2000, so I did the same. If I start with 2000 and lose that, I can than re-buy for 3000, or the rest of it which is 7000. So my question is, should I just start with my whole 9000 or 2000? If I do play 2000, should I buy in 3000 or the rest? Thanks for the help in advance.
I am confused by your post but if I understand it you have options as to how many chips you can buy up front.
It this is true I would buy in for the min. and add on as I needed it.
If you are a conservative player with good self-control, I'd buy in for the T9000 and spend the first three or four levels waiting for a very big hand to double through with. If you like to mix it up in the early stages and try to make something happen, then buy in for the minimum and rebuy as needed. It is a question of styles of play as much as anything else. I would personally favor buying in for the minimum at first. If busted, I'd take the whole T7000 rebuys and adjust my playing standards.
Ok, I know I need to get some more of Sklansky's books. Your's too Mason. My opinion of expertise poker play, is the ability to make a few extra bets, and save a few here and there. Is that how your hour hourly winnings is made? You save or make an extra two big bets an hour and thats how the professional earns his living?
-D
Expected value is the amount you win (or lose) on average in a particular situation. If your expected values add up to positive amount, then you'll win in the long run if you play long enough.
If forced to state it simply, I would say that a professional makes major mistakes only very rarely, and makes the majority of his income when other players make major mistakes. The money he makes by modifying his play to exploit his opponents mistakes is then icing on the cake; exploitation can make for some major coups, but it can also backfire and opponents can adapt.
Competent playing skills plus great game selection skills is better than great playing skills plus poor game selection skills.
-Abdul
Most experts will make a profit without the extra bets. They make profit by folding.
They make a better profit by getting the most from each hand. This involves not making betting mistakes like checking when you should have bet. They have a strong read on the situation and a good "feel" for the game.
Ok, here's a situation. I've played in a game a few times with this player, and except for possably when he's in the blind, if he has called, and it is raised preflop, he will always make it 3 bets. Always, it doesn't matter what he is holding. I'm curious of what adjustments I might need to make with this possability. All I do now is play a little tighter, and never limp in AA, KK or AKs, since I know I'll be able to make it four bets. Any help would be great.
-D
This is not so unusual - I run into a lot of players that only play for a raise if their in the pot. I do it at times too depending on the table I am at. When I am at a table with a player like this I like to be on his left so I know what he is doing before I committ to the pot. Your thinking about using his propensity to raise is good. Keeping in mind that a player raising on every hand is not giving you any info about his hand that is one of the reasons he is doing it. To get the info you have to watch his post flop play real close for the info you need from him.
A lot of these sort of players only play as described for a period of time then revert to more conventional play.
Thanks, It was the second time I played with him, and both were for a couple hours. He did this consistently, every time the pot was raised. I'll do this on occasion, depending on how well my hand plays with the number of people in the pot. From what I could tell, he liked the action, but was a big loser on both days.
D
5-10-20 hold'em. Have been playing close to 3 hours. Not a good run of cards, not a completely bad run either. I've played on average 1 hand to the flop every round or round and a half(excluding the blinds). I'm bored. I'm in middle position, get AJspades and decide to raise. I raise for three reasons here: My hand can take a some heat if there are other good hands out, there's a decent chance I can get the pot two or three way which improves my chances of winning it, I want to maximize my chance of winning so I can loosen up a bit.
Well, It's capped before it gets back to me but its six way(including me and the bb). I call and the flop comes Qc Jh 10c. BB bets and I fold. I know it'll be capped before the action closes, I also know that AK is a possibility, as is AKc or another flush draw. Also a set of either queens or jacks or tens is a possibility. Any A gives me two pair but makes a one card straight possible. I didn't have any leverage in the hand and I don't like calling in big pots. Anyway I folded, and it was capped on the flop. Kc turned and it was bet and raised with 4 callers on the turn. Little non-club rivered and it was bet with two callers. The winner: A8hearts for one card to broadway. Obviously I would have split the pot with this numbskull but I still think that folding is without question the correct play on the flop.
Which brings me to my point. It's better to ascertain the liklihood that you're in the lead and take the lead than to become frustrated and start gambling with the local baboons. Yes, they take some pots from you. But they don't know that because you never show your cards unless you get a caller on the river. It's more immportant to win the pots that you show down than to win the most pots that you possibly can. This means tightening up preflop but also on the flop.
How can you have a tight,aggressive winning image if you only show down one hand every other hour and half the time you turn over a loser? I haven't figured out any other way to gain the respect of my opponents other than to win their money through solid play. Sometimes this can take a while because the cards can run shitty and you might not have an opportunity to play and compete for a pot for hours. That's why I say folding on the flop for one bet from my right on the hand described above was the "best play of the night". It's the kind of hand that can get you for way too many bets with way too few outs. I hadn't played many hands and I had hit even fewer flops. I wanted to play the hand but reason or maybe experience intervened and I dropped(it was the best hand I'd seen in an hour and the best flop I'd seen in two but that doesn't mean it was any good). It just felt good to make the right play in a frustrating situation. This play seems like it should be ordinary.
Any thoughts?
chris
quit the night at minus 40 bucks. Really nothing but a year ago I could've very easily thrown off 2 or 3 racks of red with these cards and facing these players.
What you are describing is exactly why AJ is a piece of cheese in early/mid position. OK pre flop but with heat if you flop eigther pair you are in trouble in a multi way pot with decent players. Your fold was a good one and your thinking clear.
Congratulations, it sounds like you are improving. To dump middle pair where you only have 4 clean outs and many more cards against you is a good laydown. I can remember a time when I would chase to the river a hand like that.
Highly coordinated boards like the one you mention are an opportunity to throw away money when you are not coordinated with them. Had two spades dropped would obviously be another story.
What I have trouble dumping is AA's. Even when the board is coordinated (and my AA's still have a chance). For example, I had AA's in early-middle position the other day and UTG raised. I re-raised and guy to my left caps it! Nine of us see the flop! $144 in pot pre-flop. Flop - 5d,5h,T. UTG checks, guy on my right bets (I really know this guy has a five from playing with him before). I call and player to left calls and a couple other people call. Turn blank. River a beautiful Ad with a diamond flush available. Early bettor showed Kh5h. Capper had KK's.
My problem with the hand is that even though pot odds on the last bet were good, overall pot odds of what I invested to get to the river were not as good as the odds to catch the Ace.
Do you have trouble dumping big pairs?
Assuming you knew for sure you needed to improve.
Your chase was legit if there were no raises post flop.
55T better has a five and assume caller has pocket somethings. You're getting about 40-1 for your 4$ call on odds of 22-1 to catch. Good Call.
On the turn now. You could toss your aces since you're only getting 20-1 for your 22-1 shot. With a little implied odds and knowing you will muck the Aces if you miss, I think a call here is good. Same for the Kings, if you both know the other guy has a five.
I would appreciate some advice on what is the best Holdem software out there. Thanks very much. -Dan
Dan:
No contest. Wilson's Turbo Texas Holdem. Their website is www.wilsonsw.com.
Especially helpful for people like me that are 2+ hours away from the nearest card room.
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Hey Dan, I think the best way to learn is against real players. Check out ParadisePoker.com they play for real money, but also have plenty of play money tables, and its free!
It's gonna sound like I played this hand terrible. Maybe I did. The person to my right can be quite the maniac. He had been stealing over me in late position all night with anything. (46o,74o,KXo, etc.)
Finaly, he raised 1 off the button (everyone folded to him) and I re-raised with AJo. I normally muck this hand for a legitimate raise, but chose to take a stand here. The blinds folded and he called.
The flop came KQQ rainbow. He bet, I raised, He re-raised, I called. Again, I thought he might have been trying to run me over. The turn came an off 3. He checked, I checked. The river paired the K. Board = KQQ3K, no flush. He bet. After some deliberation, I called. He had JTo, and my AJ won.
I thought I had made a decent pickoff until someone pointed out that I should have raised the end. "What if he had pocket 5's?" What does everyone else think?
Obviously, I should think before I post. Pocket 5's wouldn't have been good. But it still raises the question, what if there were not 2-pair and I still thought he was bluffing? When should you raise rather than just call?
All you can beat is a bluff, so I don't see the value in raising. Now if you had a hand worse than A high, like his ten jack and he bet into you, then you might raise because you can't pickoff a bluff with jack high and you want him to fold. You run a counterbluff.
BTW, with a board of this sort in a short handed pot, especially when the odd card on the board is lower than either pair your A kicker will be good pretty often. Although this is true the best play is usually to check call because obviously any hand that can beat you has an easy raise, even the underfull, and the board looks scary enough to unaware opponents that they will often bluff at it.
chris
His A here beats all pairs jj and less. I love this situation.
Easy 3-bet with AJ against THIS guy.
The advise to raise was to steal half the pot from him if he has a stiff Ace. This is weak advise for THIS situation since its obvious you have neither a K or Q and therefore no raising hand; and it doesn't look like he has an Ace except maybe AT.
If there was a Single pair on board you are less likely to raise since your AJ is more likely to win without a tie.
It sure looks like HE doesn't have a K or Q (checking the turn), so if YOU had the now worthless pocket 5s you have a good raise bluff situation.
- Louie
A bet or raise on the river with KKQQ on board is NOT a bluff at all -
The missed bet came on the turn why the check. He checks to you - you miss a bet here more so than on the river which you should have bet too.
Good read on the player!!! My question...Did this slow him down stealing blinds? You have to hit some guys like this more than once.
He got up and left shortly after that hand.
Since my reputation is that of a tight player, once in while, someone will call 'open season' on my blinds and/or steal over me whenever I have the button. Most who play with me, know that I will allow this to happen for only so long. Eventually, I'm gonna play the first playable hand I get and usually make it 3 bets. I want someone like this to know it can get expensive to continue this strategy. Luckily, it worked out for me this time. (It also served as notice to the rest of the table).
Rounder: I didn't want to get check/raised on the turn. I think that's exactly what he would've done by the way, with his up and down straight draw, he would have tried to represent a Q or KQ. Now where am I at? I'm drawing at a gutshot into a paired board. I thought it better to take the free card for my straight. It also gets him to bluff at the river which ended up making me $20. I've been a follower of your posts and have as much respect for your play as anyone I've never played with. So, what would you have done if you got check/raised on the turn?
Depends on my read of the guy if I make him a loose player I reraise, I definately call the raise.
Most maniacs/loose aggressive players will be very aggressive pre flop and on the flop with two more cards to come they usually slow down on the turn and river. With the two big pair on board I feel like my A is good for a split or outright winner.
I would probably be betting/calling the turn and river.
I mis read your post I had the board KQQK now with the 3 on the turn it is a different story and I agree with your check. I like the 2 big pair on the river and would bet it and call any raises.
Sorry for the misread.
Darn, I was going to post the following
"Please Rounder, Call or reraise me on the turn when I check raise you. Please Please Please!
But you re-read the post and changed the answer so now I can't post the above.
Regards
XX
One of the things that impresses me about the top players is their ability to give up on a good hand like top pair/good kicker or an overpair when it is apparent that they are beat. I have a real hard time with it, in part because many players in these looser games try some bizarre moves and until you get to know them, it's hard to credit them.
Example: I raise w/ KQs from middle position and get two late position callers. Flop is K-4-6 rainbow. I bet, next guy raises, fold to me, I re-raise, he calls. Turn is a rag -- 9. I bet and he raises. Assume you know almost nothing about the player. Could you lay this down? Obviously if you know the player is solid and not tricky, it's easier, but this guy was new to me. Turns out the guy had AA and did not reraise preflop, which worked out okay for him because I paid off.
Another: I have KK. There's an early raise, a call, I three bet, early raiser caps all-in, caller and I call. Flop is 10-Q-3 rainbow. Check to me, I bet, he calls. Turn is a 9. He checks, I bet, he raises. This player I know to be reasonably solid and on a bit of a heater -- I figure he played KJs or 10-10, but I can't get myself to release on the turn. He checked the river and showed 9-9. I would have folded to another bet on the river, but do you fold the turn?
Scott reading players is the key to this game. Knowing when to fold is a key to winning and as you progress you will find that it is easier to dump a hand that no one else at the table would dump.
For example one guy makes bigger bets with a big A than he does with a big pair. Get to know what people do in different situations.
Each of the last 3 times I've played, I've released the winner. Two times with pocket J's and once with pocket Q's. Each time there were overcards and betting. Each time the winner had a pocket pair smaller than mine. It really is quite annoying! But what am I to do when an early position pre-flop raiser bets a flop of 3KA rainbow. It can really eat at you when you release a SOLID pre-flop hand and it turns out you would have won. These were all in 3-6 and 4-8.
What's a guy to do? Just call to the river next time? Mind you in the same game you'll see a guy play K4o and win with a pair of K's with an A on the board or even win with a pair of 4's with a coordinated board - each time with moderate betting.
It sucks, they're'll idiots and they're walking away with my money (really just with what should be my profit, I do ok, usually break-even - overall I'm down $90 for 210 hours of play)! May be I'm the idiot?
What can you do there are plays like this at all limits though I feel better caling a bet with over cards on board to my pair in a bigger game than in a LL game.
Depending on the players I will often bet out in on a big flop if I read thet no one hit it. These usually get folds here with not much of anything. And since I usually have a tight image the players naturally put me on a big hand.
Playing the player is the key here - position is also a key here. Keep up the good folds (seems like they are not good folds but they are in many cases) you are OK -$90 for 210 is not bad and if you continue to play solid poker you will be winning in no time.
If you watch what hands these players are showing down after betting or raising on the flop and turn, you begin to see which ones need to be called down and which ones almost always show what they were representing. In low limit games it is profitable to piggy-back raise these guys who are constantly getting out of line with bets on the turn with their come hands, just overcards or small to medium pocket pairs.
This reminds me of my last trip to vegas....I was sitting at a table at the palace station filled with lots of old and I do mean old players...talke about tight.......well I befriended one of the older prop players there.....and everytime I thought I had a decent hand and I told him what I had...he would look at me and say..."that ain't crap!" he actually didn't use the word crap but I can't use the other word here. Often these hands would be KK, QQ, JJ, these guys will sit and wait for AA and if they are dealt KK If another k doesn't fall on the flop it is rare for them to raise in the face of a bet....if an Ace falls and there is a bet they will fold.......just thought I would share that with you.....I read a book recently it said the only way to win at this game is to play to be even.....
You can't beat this game eigther - you lose a chip to these rocks and you'll never see it again.
I swear these guys chips grow roots in the table.
All good players lose to overpairs and sets. Sometimes people have bigger hands than you do, that is part of the game. Don't give people credit for the nuts. So the guy had AA. Look at it this way. Assume this was a 10-20 game (or any game of x-2x structure). Before the flop there is $75 in there. On the flop put in another $60. On the turn you bet $20 and got raised $20 more. There is now $195 in the pot. Even if he has AK and you only have four outs, you are getting odds to draw if you think he will pay you off on the river. If he has AA you have six outs. That's not even counting the times he is going to pay you off with something like K-J.
Same goes with the second hand. There is $135 in the pot before the flop assuming the 10-20 game again. On the flop put in another 20, so now there is $155. On the turn you bet and are raised and it's to you. $215 in the pot. Against 99 you have 6 outs again. What if he is strongly playing a pair-draw combo, like KQ or QJ? The only way you can be sure this is a good fold is if you are ABSOLUTELY sure he would not raise without a straight.
Poker players tend to be pessimists. We tend to forget how many pots we win because our opponents turn over unbelievably *bad* hands when we think we are licked at the river. We only remember the pots we lose when we gave our opponents too little credit. No one likes to be a loser in a big pot, but most of the time its better to pay off in these situations than make a mistake and surrender a huge pot when you actually were ahead or had odds to pay off.
In the first example Scott raised with KQs in midddle position. To me it seems this is a hand you want to see the flop cheap. If you were in later position and no one had yet called, then I think a raise would be the better play in an attempt to make the pot shorthanded and/or to steal the antes.
Comments?
I'd like to introduce myself to the members of the forum. My name is Simon and I've been playing hold'em for about 2 months now. This last weekend saw my first foray into the casino scene and I wanted to share my experiences and get some feedback.
I've been reading the 2+2 boards since I discovered them 2 months ago, and have gotten a lot of great information from the discussions. Shortly after I started, I picked up Lee Jones's book (which I now know very well), and recently picked up HPFAP, which I'm now reading. I also have been playing IRC poker for about a month. I try to play a tight aggressive game, tossing junk and generally following Jones's starting hand guidelines.
I played 6 hours of 3-6 on Friday night and 6 hours again Monday night, coming out $100 and $205 to the good, respectively. The game is loose passive, with the occasional maniac and lots of loose fish. In short, a wonderful game.
I realize these results are not typical, and have just taken them to be good nights. I can look back and see a few mistakes, but there is one situation that has me stumped. If you are heads up with a player, and your straight/flush draw busts on the river, do you bluff on the river, or check and hope for the best? I tend to play open-ended straights and 4 flushes fairly aggressively (I'm usually drawing to the nuts), so I feel not betting on the end is a sure sign of a busted draw. Here's an example from last night:
Dealt AhKd one off the button. I raise 4 limpers and all call. Flop comes Jd 8d 3d. All check to me, and I bet, looking for an overcard, and representing a made flush. All fold except a very loose aggressive player on the other side of the table. Turn is 10h. Check, I bet, he calls. River is 4c. He checks to me. At this point I (incorrectly) think that he won't fold for one more bet, as he's called a lot of stuff on the river just to see it. I check and he shows a pair of 4's to take the pot. In this particular instance, I realize betting probably was my only shot at winning, but is that always the case?
Any advice you can offer this rookie would be most appreciated. Thanks!
SN
I have a couple thoughts (none original) on this.
This is a typical LL situation and it always vexes me too. I think I hit a point as a rookie where I tried to outthink myself too often by folding when "I knew" he would call. Especially in low limit it's important not to think too much. Even though YOU might analyze your own hand from afar as a busted flush draw, don't assume that your opponent has thought it through.
Depending on whether the blinds were among the limpers, you had either 9 or 10 big bets in the pot. It costs one to bet. If you think he will fold a winner once in 9 or 10 times, then it's a good bet.
Also you get a little better price from the fact that AK COULD be the best hand and he still might call. Stranger things have happened.
Good luck to you.
Thanks for the response Mickey. I'm going to hear that from a lot of people, I'm sure, so what about a situation like this:
AQs, flop comes 9s 5s 2c. I play this aggressively in late position, partly for the semi-bluff, partly trying to buy a free turn card. If no one bets on the turn, let's say a 10d, I'll bet again to try and win the pot right there. Assume the river is 4h. I have nothing, my opponents may or may not think this. Should I bet out if I have players behind me?
SN
..Inside joke, Simon. Sounds like you're off to a good start, but beware the first time wins; the first two tournaments I ever played I finished second and third, and it damn near killed me. Try working on the problem Abdul mentions; practice for the higher limits.
As to this situation here, depends(that word) on your opponents, your image, and recent game history, but I'd bet, though you'll probably get called by K2o or J9o, or raised by 94s or A3s....
You got that right - in this situation you MUST bet it is your only chance to win the pot. Bet it like you got it since you are betting all the way to the river a bet is called for.
The moronic maniacs lose courage as the cards and potential dwindle. A lot of good things happen when you bet so if you are on the fense as to bet or not it is usually best to bet it out.
You are representing a big pair when you bet the flop, not a made flush.
He had 54d?
Well SURE if you know he just made bottom pair you should bet. But it looks like he doesn't have a pair since this aggressive player never bet; meaning your AK is likely good.
Lets say you've been betting a small draw and cannot win the pot with 8 high. Bet out on the river? Some criteria favoring a bluff are: (1) There is one or two opponents (2) If the opponent is LIKELY to have bet at some point with some hand but didn't, it dramatically increases then chances he has little. (3) If you are perceived as a nervous tight paranoid newbe. (4) You've bet some good but marginal hands for value lately (like 2nd pair) (5) You haven't been seem bluffing like this in recent memory. (6) You WOULD bet the hand the opponents think is your most likely hand (if you routinely check one pair on the river almost all bets look suspicious). (7) The opponents WANT to fold, but that's a whole nother level of awareness...
If I've had the lead I will routinely bet it out; I need a good reason not to. Remember, it doesn't have to work very often for it to be VERY profitable.
- Louie
When you have nut no-pair in a situation like this, and someone has been calling all the way, you might as well just check along on the river. Opinions on this may vary, but IMExperience someone who calls the turn is not planning on folding on the river unless they improve (this only applies to low limit games. In bigger games a number of different factors will determine whether or not you bluff at the end). Also, let me strongly encourage you to burn your copy of Jones' book (or give it to a player you hate). The pre-flop advice is horrible, and much of the flop/ post flop stuff is questionable. If you're going to read HE literature, stick to Sklansky's first book, which is the best thing ever written on the game.
GD:
It's been months since I've had a chance to rebutt your dislike for Jones' book. So I thought I'd take advantage of it. :)
Admittedly, to be a consistent winner at HE you need skills beyond the scope of Jones' book. I will agree wholeheartedly that 21C-HFAP is the book to read.
But for a brand new, novice player like Simon (and like me 1 year ago) Jones' book is a god-send that lays out a simple, albeit conserative, "playbook" that any green rookie can implement with a little discipline and study and a typical Low Limit game. I credit that book with my early success and I'm sure Simon and many others do too. I feel it is a must read.
While more advanced books are invaluable now that I can relate them to my limited experience, I'm sure you will agree that many advanced tactics do you no good against a table full of fish and some actually will cost you a lot of money in the long run.
Everyones entitled to their opinion. But I would just encourage us to keep in mind who Jones' audience is. And for that purpose, it succeeds very well.
Just my 2c
Michael
PS- When are you in IL? I don't suppose you'll be in IA for the WI Poker Championships? (there's an oxymoron, kinda like having Alaskan beach volleyball.)(That's not a dig on our fine WI players, but on the gaming laws in our poker wasteland.)
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Whether or not you played the hand correctly for this situation, the thing to understand is that you played it correctly for the vast majority of similar situations. Your bet on the turn is for the privilege of checking it down on the river. Think about what happens versus a small pair when you check the turn. In that case, you induce a value bet on the river, which you have to pay off by calling with AK high. On the other hand, if you bet the turn, you can then bet the river if you make a hand, but check it otherwise, so sometimes you'll get two bets out of a small pair. You also prevent the disaster of where you had the best hand on the turn but check, letting your opponent catch a small pair on the river and additionally inducing a thin value bet from him.
You think a 3-6 player would fold a pair of 4's on the river here?! No way! And neither would a 300-600 player, who would also sometimes check-raise bluff you with less than AK high. A 10-20 player might muck a small pair, though.
This particular circumstance is a bit tricky in that if you are check-raised, you are put into a difficult spot since you could have outs or you could be drawing dead. (Reraise? Call? Fold?) In general, when you have outs and would have to at least call versus a raise, you should be less inclined to bet than when you could easily/correctly muck to a check-raise. This advice contradicts either HfAP or Theory of Poker, which contradict each other.
-Abdul
"In general, when you have outs and would have to at least call versus a raise, you should be less inclined to bet than when you could easily/correctly muck to a check-raise. This advice contradicts either HfAP or Theory of Poker, which contradict each other."
I thought this was perfectly consistent with the 4th st. rule of thumb in HPFAP, which is to check when you have outs and bet when you don't.
Ergo Hold'em for Advanced Players contradicts Theory of Poker, page 82:
"Before betting, you should take into account what your chances are of outdrawing the hand you fear your opponent might have. The higher those chances, the more reason you have to bet. The lower they are, the more reason you have to check. ... The fewer ways you have of improving, the more convinced you have to be that you already have the best hand in order to bet."
The example it gives is of a flop of J73 rainbow and you hold either 88 or A7, saying you should be more inclined to bet the A7 than the 88.
Now here is my example. Let's say preflop there's a middle raiser and you called in the big blind with A7 or 88, heads up to the flop of J73 rainbow, facing a 30-60 caliber professional. You bet the flop and get raised and call. The turn is a K, for a board of J73K, not rainbow anymore. Now, should you be more inclined to bet your 88 or your A7? I argue that you should be more inclined to bet the 88, because if you get raised then that's a relatively easy laydown, whereas with the A7 you're faced with a painful decision if you get raised (you have just short of the odds you need to call, except that sometimes you'll have the best hand already.) If you call the raise then you just paid 2 big bets to see the river with a weak hand with few outs. Had you checked the turn then you might induce a bluff from a worse hand, so then a call is not so painful despite apparently not having the odds to suck out on a superior hand, and you might also get a free card from a better hand, such as perhaps a J9s that fears its kicker is no good.
When I posted this discrepency between Hold'em for Advanced Players and Theory of Poker before, David Sklansky muttered a non sequitor. (Well, seriously he did, but I think he just failed to understand me.) Later, in February 1998 Randall Busack also pointed out the discrepency and David replied:
"Much depends on the chances your opponent will raise bluff, just call with the nuts to trap you, or bet a worse hand if you check. In the specific situation mentioned most players are more likely to bluff if you checked than to raise bluff if you bet. So in the case where there is a fairly large chance you are beaten, it is better to bet your no outs hands and check and call with your some outs hands against those players who will not get tricky if you bet but might get tricky if you check. HOWEVER this is an exception to the general rule that having outs INCREASES your inclination to bet marginal hands."
-Abdul
Abdul,
I like your arguement. I have one issue that you may be able to clear up. IMO, once the K comes on the turn and puts a flush draw out there neither hand 8,8 nor A,7 offers an easy decision if you bet and are raised. Especially by a 30-60 pro. Suppose for instance your opponent raised with A,Qs and now the K is his suit. Won't he play the hand the same way as if he has A,Ko or K,Q? In fact if I were raised again on the turn I would have to conclude that my opponent had either a big hand or a big draw. Thereby, making the decision difficult or at least not easy.
Vince.
In a post last week, I made the comment that I pay just as much, or more, attention to who is calling raises, as to who is making the raise. A hand came up over the weekend that illustrates this principle very nicely, and I would like to get some comments from the forum on both my play, and the play of the other player.
In Calgary on business Friday, and I stopped in to the one major casino there that has a decent poker room. Get into a 5-10HE game with several players that I recognized as being among the better local players. Game was tight, aggressive, with about half the hands being raised pre-flop, and usually only 3-4 people taking a flop. On this hand, though, I pick up As-Qc on the button, and there are 4 limpers before it gets to me. I don't usually raise with this many players in for 1 bet with AQo. Both blinds call and seven of us take the flop of Ad-Td-4c.
Both blinds check, UTG checks, and the next player in line bets. Fold, fold, and I raise. Both blinds fold, but UTG calls two bets cold, and original bettor just calls. I had played against the UTG guy several times, and I felt he was a pretty solid player. The other guy is a bit of a loose cannon, and he was on semi-tilt. At this point, I was putting UTG on a diamond draw perhaps, and the other guy on a weaker Ace, as he would have in all liklihood reraised me with a good Ace or 2 pair, I felt.
Turn card was the 8h. Check, check, I bet again and both players just call. River card is the Ac, which I felt was a good card for me. UTG "obviously" missed his draw, and I felt my kicker was better than the other player's. However, much to my surprise, UTG bets out. Now the other guy makes a comment along the lines of, "Dave is betting? Dave is betting?" He hums and haws for a few seconds, and mucks his hand ( he had A9o I found out later). I was a little suspicious of this bet, but with trip Ace's and a decent kicker, I put in the $10 and the guy rolls over pocket Ten's. As I said, "watch out for the guys calling the raises!"
Now I was behind the whole way; losing the pot was a little disappointing, but did the UTG guy play this hand to his best advantage? I would have probably bet out my set off the flop, hoping for a raise from someone with a good Ace or diamond draw, and 3-bet it. Or at the very least, get in a check-raise on the turn or river. If he had checked the river, I almost certainly would have bet my hand, and probably would have paid off the check-raise given the size of the pot.
I think my play was pretty straightforward on this hand, but any comments about the others?
i would have raised the turn or check raised river.(but probably raised the turn and bet river).
I think slowplaying a set here, with two broadway cards and two diamonds on the board, is a horrible play in a three way pot. Like you, I would have bet out with it and either a) three bet the flop, or b)called and then check raised or lead bet the turn, depending on where the flop action was coming from in relation to my position on the table. What was this guy planning on doing? He could have check-raised the river (or, at least that's what I would have done, had I already butchered the hand on the flop and turn), lead bet the turn, check raised the turn... as it stands, he made the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM with his set. A frickin' chimp would have made more with tha t hand (or certainly wouldn't have made any less).
Good points, GD. It wasn't so much that I lost the hand that bugged me about this one; it was that I lost the hand to a guy who IMO completely butchered the betting. Good thing for me, though. I saved at least $10. My opinion of this guy as a "fairly solid player" went way down after this hand. And he was on the wait list to get into the 20-40 game!
I woulda been tempted to follow him... :)
Dunc Mills,
That was in response to my post with A10 and u are absolutely correct about the players that cold calls 2 bets (after the flop). The same happened to me this weekend and both times the players had flopped sets. I once posed a question to the Forum "Defense against a set" I was looking for the tell tale signs of a player has flopped a set. I find (as most do)that I lose the most when I flop a good hand and get killed by the player that flopped the set. The cold call of a raise seems to be one of the main signs.
Best of it !!
MJ
So, what does trip tens think YOU have? Early obviously has a medium Ace and you can beat that. Most people would raise pre-flop with a big Ace. So it APPEARS there is a good chance you have two pair. When the Ace hits on the end there is an excellent chance that either you will check the river (having been counterfeited) or raise with Aces full. Ace was a terrible card for the trip tens.
Reasonable or no, Tens-full doesn't like his hand enough to raise on the river (like he was planning) so he bet out.
Anyway your priciple about "beware the caller" is very sound; but really just applies to tight players calling raises. Loose players do that all the time and there are MANY times more weak hands to call cold (for these people) than good ones. Whoopie Do when they call cold.
Another consideration: a solid UTG with a big draw is likely to bet out with that flop since it looks so reasonable that he can have an Ace (having called UTG). When he check-calls-cold the red flags should go up immediately.
- Louie
Good analysis, Louie. I was thinking exactly that at the time: why couldn't I show this guy AT or A4s for the overfull and whack him. I overheard him muttering after the hand to his buddy on his left that he was hoping we both had an Ace. I think he was hoping we would either both call, or hopefully raise, but I don't think he bothered to figure out that if we were raising, he was probably beat.
You are also so right about weak hands calling 2 bets cold. I see this all the time in LL where weak or marginal hands check, it gets bet and raised before it gets back to them, and they call 2 bets when they have no idea it won't get 3-bet or even capped. I often think,"What kind of hand can they have that they can't muster up a bet on the flop, but they can cold call raises?" It is not very often the hidden sets that this guy came up with. It's usually garbage and a prayer.
"What kind of hand can they have that they can't muster up a bet on the flop, but they can cold call raises?"
The kind of hand that probably isn't the "best" but has some chance of maybe becoming "good".
Why do you ask?
- Louie
Read the title, believe it, ponder it.
When he calls two cold, I'd be thinking flush draw rather than set. It is so much more likely for him to have the suited cards than the pocket pair that hit a set. I too would lower my opinion of someone that checks a set into a coordinated flop like that and then doesn't stick in another raise after he gets a bet and raise behind him. Be thankful for the bets that you saved.
His most likely diamond would also give him some kind of straight draw, perhaps a gutshot to a royal. This isn't a typical hand that a tough player checks into a field of six. When he calls the two cold you should be thinking of other possibilities, and there aren't many others. I often make the mistake of assuming "draw" whenever a player calls multiple bets after checking.
No Limit Hold 'Em Tournament, 6 players left. Blinds are up to $400-800 and I have $5100 left. I'm dealt A-Q under the gun. I call. Everybody else folds including the small blind, and the big blind checks. Flop comes 7d-Qc-3c. Big Blind checks again. As of now, I have no idea what he has. This is my first tournament, and the guy knows it because I had talked to him before the tournament about the betting structure. The blinds double after the button has been passed around the table until the blinds reach $4000-8000. Anyway, I bet $1600, double the ammount of the blind. Big Blind raises me All-In. Last hand he showed was k-k. I figured he might be trying to bluff at it knowing that this was my first tournament and wanted to put me to a choice for all my chips. Maybe he had 4 clubs and was semi-bluffing? I have only $3500 left and the blinds would double to $800-$1600 soon, so I figured I had no choice but to call rather than wait for a better day. He shows K-K for the second straight hand. Turn and river card come up blank for both of us and he takes the pot. My question is, was I correct in betting $1600 after he checked? Or should I have went All-In with top-pair, maybe making him think I flopped or set or a pair with a flush draw, ect? If I was correct in betting $1600, was I correct with calling the All-In raise? A-Q was the best hand I had seen all night before the flop, and top pair was the best hand I had seen after the flop. I hadn't took a turn card all night and was struggling to try a bluff in my first tournament. If you're wondering, the buy-in was $25 dollars with $250 prize for 1st place. No runner-up recieved any money. It was only 1 table of players. Started out about 9. Each player recieved 9000 in chips for his $25 buy-in though. So I didn't think it was that bad of an investment. Plus I feel like I learned a lot more than if I sat at a Low Limit table. I just have a thing for No Limit Hold Em. I'm only 19 and live in Washington State, so their's not many places to play around here. I've been playing about 8 months at my house against players weaker than myself and just started playing at local cardrooms this year. I have very few hours under my belt. I've read Lee Jones WLLH, infact own the book. So I'm excited about getting my next paycheck and hitting the Low Limit table. I'll probably be posting more questions in the future. Thanks in advance for help with this question and sorry for the long-post.
I'm far from an expert, especially at no limit, its a very complex game, but I don't think your play was bad at all. You probably should have considered making a raise preflop. Unless you could read your opponent, and knew for sure that you were beat, then your raise and call were not bad at all. It sure makes it easier to win a tournament when you get KK. D
Outlaw,
Your youth and your claim of being "excited about getting my next paycheck and hitting the Low Limit table" raises some concern that you could be at risk of developing a gambling problem. I'm surprised the minimum age to gamble in WA cardrooms in not 21.
You may be perfectly capable of controlling your gambling activity. I would just like to recommend that you be mindful of this issue, and that you play within a budget.
MJS
The only reason I made that statement was because I have filled my brain with so much more information since the last time I've played LL. This was only my 2nd session of poker at a cardroom my whole life. I haven't been going a lot cause right now, I got a couple things I need to take care of money wise. I'm down $54 at the tables so far. I have money right now, and could play if I wanted to, but I'm not going to. Not until my next paycheck and I for sure have enough. I don't gamble or anything, just play poker. I've read Lee Jones book cover to cover 3 times and a lot of chapters more than that. Been reading the 2+2 hold em board, card player magazine, ect. The first time I went, I didn't go with all this knowledge in my head, that's the only reason I'm excited. Thanks for the concern though. I'll watch my friend closely, cause he calls me everynight wanting to go. Take care, peace.
When you play for the first few times, all that information will be jumbled in your head. As you gain experience it will make more sense.
I've played poker for 20+ years and holdem seriously for the last 5 years. The thought process is slowly becoming more sub-conscious. It will take time and experience, one of which you have a lot and the other very little.
Don't forget, poker is gambling. You, as an expert player, have the best of it but can still lose (even over long periods of time). Poker can also be addictive. Here I am on my lunch hour looking at a Poker Forum.
Good Luck
I'm glad you took my warning well. I was also excited when I began playing in cardrooms, and my interest in poker bordered on an obsession. It may be wise for beginners (and for all players) to budget their poker time as well as their poker money.
Good luck and have fun!
MJS
First points: You didn't play the hand very well (especially preflop), but no matter how you played it (1) he was not going to fold and (2) he was going to move all in on you.
In an early position with AQ you have to raise (at least triple the BB) coming in if you're going to play. The BB would let you know where you were immediately then you could get away from the hand more easily (if you wanted) - and you would not have to worry about how the (random) flop may have hit his random hand. Given that you didn't raise preflop and were check raised on the flop you have quite a quandary. Calling or not calling depends, among other things, on how BB played previously when he had a large pocket pair. Did he come out swinging or slow play for the trap? I wouldn't put him on a bluff or draw. You bet out, he had to figure there was a _very good_ chance you would call his raise. $3500 left w/400/800 blinds and six players is not yet a desperate situation but without specific knowledge of the BB's play, you're going to need a very, very good reason to muck. Given your inexperience I think you had to call.
What do think of the following.
If you're going to limp in (play weakly) then you must be willing to throw away medium strength hands later. (At this point with a dwindling stack).
A stronger pre-flop move (raise) let's you know where the other players might be. The original KK might even let you off the hook since he could suspect AA or QQ.
When he comes out betting with a tester of 3BB then you have the option of folding or raising all in. He might fold in this case. He might not, but there is a reasonable possiblity if a call puts him in danger. Calling his bet means there is NO chance of him folding.
By the way, I am not a Tournament player.
The best response here is from MJS. This is how it starts, wanting to get in there, waiting for the weekend, thinking a knowledgable player can and should win consistantly. It can lead to an addiction.
I am not good at relating this, however, there is a terrific article by Tad Perry in the No. 11 Summer 99 edition of The Intelligent Gambler, entitled, "So You Want To Be the World's Best Poker Player?"
One line that hits home is after talking about the fun of the game, and chance at profits, he states, "and that is exactly how poker can hijack your life." With all of the reading you are doing about the game, I hope you get a chance to read this one article.
Be careful, have some fun, and don't end up like a lot of guys in the card room who sit every day, all day.
The best response here is from MJS. This is how it starts, wanting to get in there, waiting for the weekend, thinking a knowledgable player can and should win consistantly. It can lead to an addiction.
I am not good at relating this, however, there is a terrific article by Tad Perry in the No. 11 Summer 99 edition of The Intelligent Gambler, entitled, "So You Want To Be the World's Best Poker Player?"
One line that hits home is after talking about the fun of the game, and chance at profits, he states, "and that is exactly how poker can hijack your life." With all of the reading you are doing about the game, I hope you get a chance to read this one article.
Be careful, have some fun, and don't end up like a lot of guys in the card room who sit every day, all day.
A pre-flop raise is mandatory, this way you can gain some info by the actions of your opponent. By not raising you had no clue what he had. By raising he would have moved preflop and you can get away from the hand. If he just calls, you still would have an idea about the strength of his hand. But based on the way the hand was played a call is the right play.
10-20. I have AsAc UTG. No thought of limping because there are two posters (just came in) just before the button, so there is $35 in potentially-dead money out there. I raise. One middle position player cold calls. One poster ("Poster") re-raises, all fold to me, I cap, cold-caller ("CC") calls.
Flop is: 5c5s7s.
I bet, CC calls, Poster raises, I re-raise, CC calls, RR caps, call, call.
Notes on the players: don't know either very well, but CC seems reasonably solid. RR is more of an unknown, and the game tends to be loose, often loose-aggressive.
Turn is the 8h. I check. Checked around. I am angry at myself.
River: 3s. Checked around again, I show and both opponents muck.
Comments? Be gentle. I have already flogged myself quite a bit and the skin is tender.
I think you played correctly. With a couple of unknowns in the game making it expensive aces are precarious to that flop. I'm glad you capped the betting pre-flop since you already have the best hand.
Sounds to me like you had wild men in the game and that is not a good thing since your variance will go up like crazy and nothing is safe to play pre-flop except AA and KK or AKs and maybe even QQ's. This was a situation I was in last night with this guy betting and capping with cards like 95o! Two flush draws and one two pair and I was down $200 within 3 hrs. Quit playing after that.
Don't you just hate wild games?
Scott,
Was the check on the turn due to fear, or just an attempt at a fancy play? It would help to know.
Given the preflop action, I would assume that your opponents have larger pairs or suited big cards. All that dead money in there may lower standards a bit, though.
I think you have to bet the turn! The rainbow 8 is not scary, in and of itself. But the two suited on the board (AKs might be a realistic hand for one of these guys) means you can't give a free card. If they have a smaller big wired pair you can't give them the free chance to land trips.
Granted, due to the action preflop and on the flop you may have thought a check-raise would work, but look what happened -- the 3s fell (now you have to worry about the flush). At the very least, I would have bet out the river.
Jon (just dropping in).
With all the preflop action you can put the poster on a large pocket pair or AKs, the cold caller on a large or medium pocket pair or large suited conectors. Accepting that, the flop, turn, and river were nothing for you to fear. A T, J, Q, or K appearing might have been another story - but I'm sure they'd let you know. I would have bet the turn and river. Too much money already in the pot to risk a check raise. Bet out, make 'em pay.
Solid players aren't jumping raises from tight UTG raisers with 65s nor 77. The more "solid" they are the more likely you are to have the better hand with AA; since there are NO big card combinations that can have you beat.
While some players may raise with trips or a full right away, most have the sense to smooth call a 3-bet correctly figuring to raise the turn, hehehe. The "poster's" play looks VERY much like a "free card play", (you know, the play where you pay the maximum to get a chance at a "free" card). Would he REALLY 2-bet and 4-bet a "monster" like trip 5s or better? I don't think so. I wouldn't hesitate to bet it out on the turn.
I wouldn't like betting out the river but there is just too much chance of getting paid off twice. I'd MORE likely bet if I had also bet the turn; since they are much less likely to bluff and less likely to have a flush than when they are given the chance to check the turn, and they do.
Notice how well the hand would have played if you had just called the 3-bet B4 the flop, hehehe.... But I'll leave that as an excercise. No I won't. You bet out, CC calls, Raiser raises, you 3-bet ... it sure looks like Qs or Js to me. A tight player 4-betting is ANNOUNCING AA or KK. But if you wait you can get a couple-three extra raises in before they figure it out.
- Louie
No question about it. I think I could have made a lot more money by playing it as you suggest. I stalled out because I have seen so much crap turned over in that game and I could not put a solid label on the aggressive opponent at all. But no question I butchered this hand. It pains me.
I assume RR is the same as Poster?
A good rule of thumb for these types of situations is to bet the flop, back off if raised, and then bet the turn. The reason is that if you opponent has a strong draw he can afford to go to war with you on the flop, but not on the turn if he misses. You don't want to let him 4-bet you when he's got close to zero EV and then get a free card when you had him hurting. And when you are beat, like by trips, you don't want to put in 4 small bets on the flop and possibly a couple big bets on the turn, especially when you would be unable to lay the hand down, like when you hold AA.
In this particular case, it's unlikely that either the cold caller or the 3-bettor have a 5 to make trips, though I certainly would not rule it out in 10-20 versus unknown opponents. 77 is a possibility, but somewhat unlikely for the 3-bettor. So, since you have little fear that your aces are beaten on the flop, 4-betting the flop and then betting out on the turn would probably be best. If the flush comes in on the turn, betting is optional, since you hold the ace of that suit.
On the river, what sometimes happens in 3-way situations where you show weakness by checking is that suddenly the cold caller idiot thinks his TT is best and value bets it, and then the preflop 3-bettor is pretty sure his QQ beats the cold caller's hand and sees an opportunity to get rid of the AA or KK he fears you hold and so he raises. It's pretty hard to cold call two in the face of a flush. Therefore, I'll often bet out in such a situation, figuring to lose money on the bet, which is better than being robbed of the whole pot.
In this particular case, if I had played it your way, by the river I would be concerned about the guy who has been passively calling along, as well as the guy who apparently made a free card play; both have been screaming "flush draw!" If raised, I "must" pay off here, so given the high chance of being up against a flush I would just check.
-Abdul
This is one of those hands that makes people crazy. You will never get ONE right answer, because there isn't ONE answer. You have to make a decision at the time based on your gut feeling and go with it. Maybe you missed one bet. Next time you maybe saved one bet against a set. Bottom line... YOU WON THE POT, thats what counts.
(1) "A good rule of thumb for these types of situations is to bet the flop, back off if raised, and then bet the turn." <-- Unless you are in the habit of doing that with other hands (like when the turn helps or this is a common slow-play) you are ANNOUNCING what you have: a paranoid big pair. You're dead meat if you plan to fold for a raise, and are dead meat against two aggressive opponents who are likely to 3-bet you just because they smell your fear. This play makes sense if you really have reason to be fearful you don't actually have the best hand AND you know EXACTLY what to do if raised or draw bad on the river.
(2) "If the flush comes in on the turn, betting is optional, since you hold the ace of that suit" <-- Having the likely "best" hand and having the "best" draw for sure is not an "optional" bet IMnsHO; excepting of course the routine check-raises and check hoping for a bluff. After the 4-bet flop I'd bet the turn without hesitation.
(3) "It's pretty hard to I think a fundamental difference in this situation is you fear ..err.. suspect a flush much more than I do.
- Louie
Whereas when you 4-bet preflop and then 3-bet the flop, you are ANNOUNCING EXACTLY what you have: a nonparanoid big pair, namely AA. Limiting your raises with your big pairs helps them blend into your other hands. I extremely often play other hands exactly the same way. Sometimes it's with the intention of folding to a raise on the turn, like with AK or a weak pair. There is no way a raise on the turn will make me muck AA, not even a double raise here.
My concern is that I may already be up against a flush, combined with the desire to induce a bluff or let AK catch a second best hand on the river rather than having him fold while drawing dead. I think the hand has some flexibility, and you can consider playing it either way, depending on what hands you put your opponents on; it won't be a big mistake either way. Without the flush draw back-up, I would always bet here.
If you're going to cold call, then sure, you can attempt to induce this pseudo-bluff. If you're going to fold to two cold, like especially if the pot is smaller, then you have to be more careful. Keep in mind that I don't know that the opponents have TT and QQ. They likely each have overpairs or a flush, and I don't know which, but I smell at least one flush (wrongly, here.)
-Abdul
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 February 2000, at 1:18 p.m. (1) "A good rule of thumb for these types of situations is to bet the flop, back off if raised, and then bet the turn." <-- Unless you are in the habit of doing that with other hands (like when the turn helps or this is a common slow-play) you are ANNOUNCING what you have: a paranoid big pair.
(2) "If the flush comes in on the turn, betting is optional, since you hold the ace of that suit" <-- Having the likely "best" hand and having the "best" draw for sure is not an "optional" bet IMnsHO; excepting of course the routine check-raises and check hoping for a bluff. After the 4-bet flop I'd bet the turn without hesitation.
(3) "It's pretty hard to cold call two in the face of a flush. Therefore, I'll often bet out ..." combined with "If raised , I "must" pay off here" <-- Assuming you expect to lose this pot most of the time ... Since you suspect the last guy is MORE likely to raise the river when the OTHER guy bets out ("..TT .. QQ.."), then checking-and-calling-cold has higher EV then betting and calling, since they'll raise more often (with a worse hand) when you check. It also has higher EV since you will often be faced with only a single bet when you check. Betting makes more sense the more likely you are to have the best hand and the less likely they are to bet a worse hand for you (which is the situation I think hero are in).
I am making my first trip to AC this weekend to play some low limit Hold em. I am planning on arriving at the Taj or Trop friday night between 7pm and 9pm and was wondering what kind of wait (if any) I should expect to sit down at a $3-$6 or a $4-$8 table. I know you put your name on the board, but how long does it take, on average, for a seat to open up? How many tables of low limit are there usually? Also, if I show up at 9pm, and plan on playing 8-10 hours (i.e. into the early morning) do the games go on all night and into the morning?
Sorry for so many questions, but I appreciate any information you can give so I have an idea of what to expect.
The games will run all night. There will not be a 4-8 game. Probably 4 tables of 3-6. I suspect you will wait approximately 20-30 minutes, unless you catch a game just starting. Sorry for the short response, but I was heading out of the door. Any other questions, please write.
Zach
"how long does it take, on average, for a seat to open up?"
I've waited as little as 30 seconds and as much as 25 minutes for a seat at the 2-4 and 3-6 tables at the Trop. The Taj, on the other hand, I've waited as much as 45 minutes to an hour for 2-4.
"How many tables of low limit are there usually?"
I'll speak about the Trop, as I play there more. From 9 to midnight, there are usually around four or five 2-4 tables and around two to four 3-6's. After that, it depends on how the games break down. I've seen it go at 3 or 4 tables all night, and I've seen nights when all 3-6 tables shut down due to lack of players.
"Also, if I show up at 9pm, and plan on playing 8-10 hours (i.e. into the early morning) do the games go on all night and into the morning?"
All night! But remember, the tourists catch the bus home around 11:30 at night, so the pickings sometimes dry up a bit when you get into the wee hours. Prime time to take pots away from fish is between noon and 11 pm, IMO. Not to say there's no money to be made late, it just changes the feel of the game a bit.
hope this helps, shooter
I agree with the above. The Trop is about 30-45 min on a Friday around 8:00. Put your name on the list and play some stud while you wait. Get a comp card. Take a piss; get a drink; watch a game. Take a short stroll on the boardwalk. I like the Trop better than the Taj, but I have not been there since they went no smoke. The best place to park is the Trop in the ground level lot on Brighton and Pacific Avenues; easy in/easy out and safe. Forget the inside parking. It sucks unless you like dents in your car. Cost is 2 bucks. Taj's parking is OK but it is a long walk. The valet parking takes 30 minutes and they ain't too good about taking care of your car.
I'll be at the Taj this weekend (Saturday and Sunday)-- hope to see you there. I'll speak about the Taj, since that is where I usually play, especially now that it has gone no smoking. If you get to the Taj around 9:00, there will be plenty of action. I don't suspect that you will have to wait to awfully long (30 mins. max), although I usually get there a bit earlier then 9:00. There will be 2-4 and 3-6 games going all night, most likely (no 4-8 there, but 5-10 is pretty much the same quality as 3-6, a bit tighter, but good if you have the bankroll/confidence). Very late/early, it might get down to a single 3-6 table, but there should be some low limit action, even if shorthanded, all night. Good luck this weekend.
PS, the Taj parking garage entrance is on Virginia. I have never had any problems there.
I was just reading the fish in a profitabel pond thread below and still am undecided as to whether one wants a lot of bad players or not.
What if the game was 20 handed and 10-15 people saw the flop, 5-10 saw the turn, 3-6 saw the river and stayed. Would you want to play in this game? Of course the variance would be outrageous (200 BB just to sit down?) but would it be worth it?
Now suppose its the same type of game but filled with really good players. If a fish sits down in place of a fisherman, isn't that good? And now another guppy swims in. Isn't that better? At what point do we not want any more fishies replacing the fishermen? And why?
Now that's really something. I just posted the same argument in the other thread, using a different hypothetical. I guess we'll just continue the discussion here.
My contention is, and I believe will continue to remain, that there is no point at which we do not want fishies replacing fishermen, assuming that we can financially and emotionally handle the swings, and that we play well enough in these types of games. Which means really well. One time when I will leave a game full of guppies is when I fell that I have lost my sharp edge.
Maybe we're stuck on definitions. I agree with Abdul that a table full of the 20-40 SOCAL players that like to ram and jam when they flop something is less than ideal. But I was not classifying these players as fish, because they are playing somewhat correctly after the flop. Just because they may not understand the theory behind what they're doing doesn't make what they're doing incorrect.
I'm referring to a different kettle of fish. Perhaps you don't find too many of these games at 20-40 out west anymore, but on the east coast they're still fairly common. Players who will raise and re-raise before the flop with any two suited and small pairs. Guys (and gals) who bet after the flop because it's their turn (is all I can figure). And the strong means weak, weak means strong tells are everywhere. Guy limps with a pair of tens, flops air, then waits until an ace comes on the turn to check-raise (this really happened to me last weekend). And the few players who know a little bit about starting hands no nothing of position, and only bluff in the most obvious of spots. Would I like to face 19 of these guys? Wouldn't you?
dangerous dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
wondering if they have a big enough table at the Mohegan Sun. . .
Don't know about 20 handed games but the 10 handed games I play in having 4 maniacs make it tough to win. Capped pre flop makes it hard for a guy like me who likes to see flops cleaply then make up for it.
Maybe the defination of a fish needs to be expanded on.
If 3-4 players are seeing flops and going to the river the collective outs against your quality hands is tough.
So if a lot of flushes and straights are winning the hands I'm in trouble. I make most of my money isolating bad players and taking them down. When they are ganging up on me I have less chance of winning.
So I like 1-3 loose/maniacs no more and preferabley 2 BTW a table with no loose players is very hard to beat too I like to see a mix of players so I can use one as leverage againse another.
Maniacs contribute to an increased variance and generally make suited connectors unprofitable to play no matter how many handed the game.
But if you get 20 fairly reasonable players (behavior collectively unskewed by any maniacs) the game would be eminently beatable. Hand values would shift. Suited connectors would be king. The difference between big pocket pairs and small pocket pairs would compress somewhat as both would need to make trips to have a chance and (preflop) pocket pairs in general would go up in value.
Hey Dan:
The last time I was in AC Taj, the 10-20 game was definitely NOT full of fish, only professionals. I have played a lot, though not as a profession, in AC, LV, and CA, and I was surprised at the toughness of the game.
And my last trip to CA, San Jose, at the Garden City, or Garden Club (I forget the exact name), the 6-12 game (next jump was 20-40) *was* full of fish. I feel that it was the easiest game I have seen in years. The players were horrible. The props even helped my game: They practically told you that they were playing only AA AK AQ and QQ...and they did almost exactly that. And the regulars, well, might as well have shown their cards. Really. Well maybe I was having a good week, but I don't think so.
Mark
OK Mark, here's a trade secret. In Atlantic City, play on Sunday and Monday nights. There is generally a very beatable 15-30 or 20-40 holdem game that the regular rocks don't play in. Also, in case you're interested, the 20-40 Omaha high game goes most Saturdays and can be particularly awesome.
dangerous dan
------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . but your enemies only win when you hate them back . . .
and then you destroy yourself." - Richard M. Nixon
Any type of game where players don't make the proper adjustments is beatable. When we talk about "fish", we are usually talking about players who play too many hands and call too much. In a 20 handed game, you would often times need to make the nut hand to win. Any player who wanted to beat this game would need to highly value suited connectors, Axs and the like hands (much the way fish tend to overvalue these hands in 10handed games). However, you would frequently need to make the nuts, so it would probably be correct only to stay on draws that make the nuts (same sort of advice that applies for Omaha). However, almost any draw would be playable in a loose game, including backdoor flushes and straights, providing they were to the nuts. Potentially, a "fish" who rams and jams with nut flush and straight draws would be an excellent player in this game. Big pair, big kicker "rock" type play probably would not work. However, many "fish" would still make the error of pursuing draws that make second best hands, thus rendering the game profitable.
Hello....playing a 4-8 game the other day and I got a free play out of the big blind with a 6 3 of spades. The flop comes 5, 2 ,9 of spades.There were about 6 players seeing the flop. I bet out and someone raised whereas I reraised and she called. The next card was a 5. I bet and she raised it to 16 after some thought. Now I was 100 percent sure I was losing the hand, to a full house, (Yes this may seem like a low limit game, but the players are not insane....after this raise there was no chance for me to have the best hand) so I was about to muck, when I realized that if I got the 4 of spades and she had quad 5's, I would win 7500 bucks as the winning side of the bad beat jackpot. So I called. On the river another spade came, but unfortunately it was the 7, so I folded. I feel bad letting the jackpot affect my play like this, but it does make sense, no? Also she had 95 for 5s full of 9s.
NO! I never let the jack pot affect my play it is bad eneough the damn thing sucks a dollar off the table every hand.
The odds are huge, maybe that is why I have only had table shares last year.
Her playing 95 is a tell tell sign of low-limit don't you think? I think you were correct to continue play in that situation. I wouldn't have liked it either - knowing you have a losing hand with 1 out and the pot odds do not justify a chase. But with her playing the hand that strong she could of had quads and a jackpot payoff of $7500, I think it's correct to chase. I don't like jackpot poker either, but many times you don't have a choice and in a situation like you describe, the payoff is just too immense not to chase.
I had a similar situation in Vegas at Luxor where they have payouts for high hands in addition to the jackpot. Straight flush pays $60 bonus. I was dealt an small open ended straight flush (I had a small flush on the flop) and I slow-played. Another card of my suit came on the river and I lost to a higher flush when someone had a singleton of my suit higher than mine. I think I played that one wrong as there was no chance of a jackpot.
Curtains,
I agree with rounder on this one. Do not let the jackpot affect your play. On the last card the odds are 45 to 1 (at least its better than lotto) that you will get the 4s, but the odds are even worse that the lady has quads! I play in a jackpot game and have a rule of thumb that might help, if I don't flop quads or aces full (full higher than tens) or a straight flush, I am not going to be drawing to the bad beat. Just play the hands that you know that have a chance to win. The problem with jackpot games is that they inspire people to play too many hands and go too far with them.
Good luck
I admit the 9 5 suited was a bit shady for her to play, but she was the button and it was multiway....Ive seen a lot worse. I should have just asked her during the hand if she had quads. She would given it away somehow and then I could safely save my precious 8 dollars. I wonder if I was getting the correct odds on my 8 dollars, but I suppose that all depends on the chances that she has quad 5's. Actually I was thinking that its almost possible for me to simply check and fold on the turn, however wimpy it seems. Oh...nevermind.....she could easily have the Ace of spades. But otherwise its hard to think of a possible hand she could have that she would play in that fashion that couldnt beat me....except if somehow she played with 92 suited. Or I suppose she could somehow be slowplaying a pair of aces. Ok so I had to bet the turn. Also...how many people would play the following hand in this situation....
On the button.... 32s, there is a live straddler and almost everyone, save maybe one or two people is in the pot.
Muck it. 32 is so hard to win with you have to flop quads for the nuts. Even flopping a straight, flush or full house might not be eneough.
Some hands are not worth it.
Yes yes I did muck it. Naturally the board ended up giving me a straight flush, and giving the straddler a higher straight flush. If I had just went a little wild for that hand....I woulda made 15000 dollars. But its ok....it doesnt affect my play nowadays, its just everyone was getting on my case for not playing the hand. But I dont really play to win the lottery....Im trying to play good poker.
You flop a gutshot straight flush draw. This is good. You bet and are raised and then called. She has either a good hand now or a good draw. The turn pairs the board. She will not fold a good draw or anything like top pair (this is a lousy player correct?).
Why did you bet? There is no semi-bluff value here. If she calls she could be calling for the 2 pair she now has or for her strong draw. You would gain no info and could have guessed she would not fold. The raise means you could have folded by checking first. You no longer have proper odds to call even 1 bet.
I suppose if you had you thought of the Jackpot first then you can check call which would have been my first impulse. I think in this case the possible Jackpot could have allowed you to make 1 call to hit the straight flush. If you made just a straight or a non-pairing flush you would have to call the river costing yourself 1 bet.
I believe the bet UTG on the turn was a bad one.
Regards Mike N.
Let's say there's only a 10% chance she has quads. There's 44 unseen cards (4 board + 4 hole cards known). So the odds that she has quads AND you get the straight flush card are
0.10 * (1/44) = .0023
A 0.23% chance of winning the $7500 jackpot. So 99.77% of the time you lose $8, 0.23% you win 7500. Overall you have a +$10 EV by calling. Even if there's only a 5% chance she has quads, you should call (barely).
Is something wrong with my math or thinking? There's a lot wrong with my poker playing, that's for sure.
I bet because I put her either on a good hand...Or on an ace of spades, which Im pretty sure she would have played in a similar fashion. If she has the ace of spades Im making a big mistake giving her a free chance at a spade. She could easily have ace of spades with a 9 for top pair and top draw. This was my thinking. I wasnt thinking of the jackpot at all until after she raised me on the turn. It annoys me to have the jackpot alter my play at all, but I couldnt resist this time, and I do think mathematically it was correct, depending on what you think her chances of having quads are.
I think as "mashie" said, if she has a 10 percent chance of having quads, then the call seems to be completely correct and is a money maker. If there is a 5 percent chance then it gets close. But I suppose it was difficult for me to calculate the chances of her having quads in such a short period of time.
Also, Rounder, perhaps because my game is almost surely a smaller limit game than yours, it makes this call less suspect then if you had made the same call for 20,30 or 40 dollars. If I was playing 10-20 and the same situation occured, then it would surely be correct to muck.
Greetings all. Suppose that I am in a typical 3-6 game at the Taj. It is not uncommon for there to be 2-4 players at the table who will play ace/anything. I do mean anything. Moreover, it is easy to identify those players. Let us say that I am on the button with ATo. Two of these predictable ace/anything players limp in and it is to me. If I have no reason to suspect a raise from a blind, should I limp in? Is a raise a good play, if I am virtually certain the blinds will fold (this will rarely be the case)?
Post flop, if an A hits, and one of the ace/anything players bets, I raise. I can seriously think about folding if reraised (given that the players I am trying to describe will rarely reraise without a monster).
If the turn is a blank, its checked to me and I bet and the ace/anything player calls.
The river comes and is also a blank (the board is not scary at all, with the always present possibility that the ace/anything player has made two pair). I bet again knowing that such a player will call with only an ace and a lower kicker.
It seems to me that in the kind of situation I decsribed (which may seem idealized, but can frequently be found in low limt AC games), at least limping in with ATo has +EV, provided that I am willing to fold top pair if things get hairy. Against these players though, things don't get hairy too often. How about A9o?
Any advice that can be given about playing AXo against ace/anything players would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Carlos
EASY raise with AT if the players are aggressive but choose to call this time. Pretty easy raise anyway since these loose players are such a favorite to have inferior and dominated hands (A4, QT). "Just" call is a reasonable option if a tight player called early (so is "just" fold).
Every hand gets "better" when you can play it without errors after the flop.
Play A2 against these predictable players since you can "just" fold if they bet when you flop an Ace. The button is a huge advantage especially when they play loose and predictably. This isn't really profitable but it sure looks good.
- Louie
A2 is only going to be playable if your opponents play very poorly after the flop and if not many of them have limped in.
My basic advice here is raise with A9-AT and muck A2-A6. A7-A8 are borderline for raise, call, or fold.
-Abdul
Problem with A anything players is they hit 2 pair so their A6o beats your AKs when the board comes AQ6 - players like this ignore the kicker so you have an advantage.
I think in a game with A anything players you can play as low as A8 and usually have the best hand.
It is a real crap shoot huh - not the way I like to play poker.
If you're certain the blinds will fold, then by all means raise the two late limpers with both AT and A9. If raising will just create 5-way action with 10 bets in the pot, wait for the flop, especially if your opponents tend to limp late with medium pairs.
I too have a lot of these Ace/any opponents (3-6 & 4-8 in Arizona). King/any too. Until now I have been playing ATo only in late position with few callers, and playing it very tenderly, having read in multiple places about what a "trouble hand" it is. And I throw away A9o; it doesn't even make Category 8 in S&M's rankings.
Do we have a consensus here that IF there are limpers who are known to play AX and call with it to the river, these hands go way up in value??
BTW, I have another indication that I am being too conservative. Whenever I play AJ and flop an Ace, I have had great results with it! In 600 hours or so, I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the times when I wound up being unexpectedly dominated by an AK or AQ.
Reminder to mid- & high-limit posters: I play in a very loose, usually passive no-fold-em 3-6 game. That's the only context I'm asking about.
Dick
I agree with the posts in this thread, with one caveat.
It is said that these players come in with any A. It does not say with which A, if any, they raise preflop.
If these guys limp with every A, including AK, then the value of AT goes down, since you cannot as easily count on being the dominator, rather than the dominated. If these guys raise with AK, AQ, and especially if they include AJ, then I agree that it's a mistake to not play the AT, A9, and maybe A8 hands.
Of the players I see who play every A they're dealt, I do see a few (10%?) who never raise preflop without a big pair, so you have to consider AK a possibility for them. I saw a lot more when I frequented the 3-6 games in California than I do in the mid-limit games in CT.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Flying back from LA I sat with a couple of people who have a prop supply company as their client. I heard from them that the props are at any one time carrying around over 1/2 a mil. He said the props are "trained" to play a certain way and "only" that way - they check up on them.
Does anyone know how this works. Also how the training is conducted. I can imagine but a former prop would shed a lot of light on this subject.
This sounds nothing like when I was POKER proping; nor sounds like any prop situiation I have every heard of.
I suppose they may be refering to high-roller props in regular pit games (I suppose they exist) but I don't know anything about that.
- Louie
The way a baccarat prop is normally used is that they are given chips out of the rack, bet the minimum (usually $100 per hand), and then give their chips back to the rack when they are done. I've seen a couple of them. This type of prop is obviously not trusted to carry around money, but I suppose for a $5000 minimum table, i.e., a "reserved" table, a prop might have half a million in front of her. These props are always women, usually very old and well dressed. I think their old age thing is because of them being leftovers of a past age, when they started out as young babes. Now they are in danger of going extinct.
I suppose it's also conceivable that they were talking about either high stakes poker, where the props make very good money in California but have to play well, or banking at Pai Gow or similar games, where there is indeed a certain way to play. These types of props would indeed sometimes carry around large sums of money.
-Abdul
I suspect they are the "corporate" props for the California asian games sides. Since the house can't bank any action, there are these props that do it. I will let others ( who actually go to that side of the casino ) elaborate.
D.
BTW, I usually hear this sort of person refered to as a "Shill": playing with the house money. Poker "props" play with their own money.
Besides the blantant cheating by bystanders peaking at your hand and telling their buddies...
... Then these props's job is just to (1) attract players to a "lively" game, and (2) to insure there is a lot of action, such as making sure the bank can cover all bets or that the players can about match the bank?
- Louie
Here is a situation that I was in yesterday and I still can't really figure out how to play in a low limit game.
I was in middle position and got 76h. There were 5 players seeing the flop for one bet.
The flop was Jh 4h 2h
It was checked to me and I bet, two other players called.
How do I play the turn? I don't have a real high flush here, In this particular game a check raise will not get anyone out of the hand. And If I try to check raise it will most likely be checked around. Should I try to limit what I put into the pot Vs. Showing power and trying to get The players holding Ah X out ?
In most instances these players wont fold the lone ace/king/queen for just one bet, and most will not even fold for 2 bets. I find this being a tough situation. If I check it's a free card for them, If I bet they just call and they look for their 6 outer on the turn and river
On the other hand If I have position on the other players I can raise and try to get them out, But I am risking more, with really a small chance of improving my hand, except Runner-runner straight flush.
I would like to hear some opinions on this, Anything would be appreciated.
Thanks Walleye
It is unlikely that anyone else has a high card made flush (Q or higher) otherwise they'd be betting and raising. And yes there may be players with the Ah or Kh hanging round trying to catch another heart, but then they are probably getting the correct pot odds to do just that. However, most of the time they are not going to hit that card and you are going to take the pot, so you must charge them for hanging around. Check raise if you're sure someone will bet (for example if there has been a raise preflop or the later position players are the type who always bet the flop). Otherwise bet. Bet on the turn. If you have position raise. You are putting more money in the pot, but you don't need to improve your hand - its already reached its potential (other than the tiny possibility of a str8 flush) and will win the pot the majority of the time.
Hope this helps,
Jon
Walleye,
In general, you want to bet early and hard in the hopes of getting a player who holds a middle heart out. You will not get the big heart(s) out anyway.
In this situation, you must bet the turn since it is unlikely you will get in a check raise after betting the flop. I would bet even if a heart came and make them raise me to make me consider a laydown. Some players I would call down with my seven high flush.
Of course, there is more to all this. So much depends on the style of the opponents. Will they steal on scare cards? Will they call with lessor hands? And on it goes.
Regards,
Rick
I feel you have to play the hand fast on the flop. Make all bets and raises you can, show power. Make any one holding a higher heart pay or fold. If a heart falls on the turn or river then slow down, a check fold may be in order since you are probably beaten and since a check raise will just get called even if someone just has second nut.
More times than not you will not flop a flush and if by some chance someone flopped a higher flush, than paying off is just part of the game.
You are not getting the AhX out of the game maybe even the Kh or even the Qh - you can check raise pull a 357 and ski mask out but they ain't folding the nut or near nut draw. All you can do is make them pay to drew out on you.
So as long as a heard doesn't fall I say bet turn and river. If the heart does fall you are in trouble if the hand is not already lost.
I disagree with all the posts. Playing a 7 high flush hard and fast doesn't work in low limit poker. I would check the flop, even if the players behind all check. On the turn, since all checked the flop someone will be inticed to take a shot a the pot(assuming another heart didn't show),especially top pair with a heart kicker. That's when I would make my move and raise and make all the rest of the players pay 2 big bets to see the river. They might even put you on A high heart draw and call with draws other than flushs. If the players check to you again on the turn, I would now bet, you will most likely get more callers with non flush draws calling you, thinking you might be trying to steal the pot, so you will get paid off by more players if the fourth heart doesn't show. The A high flush draw might even raise you, thus allowing you to 3 bet. Betting the flop in most cases knocks out the players who aren't holding a heart, so why not keep them in the game.
Suppose that you have a pair of glasses that allows you to see the other player's cards. These glasses work perfectly for maybe 4 hours a day, 5 times a week. Now, assuming that your goal is to make the most money you can (in the long run) playing Texas Holdem, what type of game (disregarding the limit) do you want to play in? How big would you like the pots to be? How much raising would you like to see? How well would you like the other players to play?
Now suppose that the glasses don't always work perfectly. In fact, most of the time, they fail. But they fail in a very specific way. Instead of seeing the other players actual hands, you see several hands of different sizes. The size of the hand correlates roughly with the probability that the player has that particular hand.
Further suppose that every player is wearing a pair of these glasses. Some glasses work better than others. Some have only clear plastic in them, allowing the wearing player to see nothing special at all. Others work so well that you'd like to trade pairs, if you only could.
Can't anyone else see that, the better your glasses, and the worse the other player's, the more money there is to be made? And, in fact, if you're going to wade in to one of these very fishy, loose-wild aggressive ponds, you'd better have a damn good pair of glasses (or goggles)? And further, that if you have an extremely good pair (and do all the other things well) that these are the very best games to be in?
Or maybe not.
dangerous dan
-----------------------------------------------
who's working on his glasses right now ;-)
Well we don't have these types of glasses. All we can do is to try to read the other players possible hands and in a loose wild - aggressive game this task is very very tough.
MJ
Hi all,
I do not think I quite understand what is meant by the term implicit collusion, and that is a term used quite often on the forum. I was in a game the other night where there were four wild players in the game. Pots would be capped preflop almost every hand. Show downs had players with hands (some that won) ranging from AKs to 95o and even 83o!
With all those wild players betting and capping with about anything, is that what is meant by implicit collusion? Or does it refer to something different?
IMHO- What you witnessed was not implicit collusion. You witnessed a bunch of idiotic maniacs playing cheese. A game like this CAN be profitable, if you have the nerve for HUGE bankroll swings in the session. 1 maniac, I'll stay. Two, I'll consider it. More than that, I'm outta there. I had the HUGE swings.
Implicit Collusion, IMO, is when some friends are playing at the same table and they play soft on each other; i.e., If it's just the two of them, they'll check to the river.
Also - it could be when you're at a table with a bunch of fish, and you and one other player are the only good players there- You look at each other, and smile. In all liklihood, you two will do the best you can to "avoid" confrontation with each other, as you both know the bulk of your profit will come from the others.
One way that your situation may have been collusion (a more explicit form), is if two or three of them get into raising wars to build the pot, then the weaker of them folds, leaving it heads up between an unsuspecting victim and the colluder who is holding the stronger of the hand.
Again - I think you just had maniacal idiots at your table.
Comments anyone? Tim
Implicit collusion is when players at a table change the value of your hand by unknowingly playing together. Because you have to play against each and every person at the table so long as they are in the pot, when many of them stay in it changes the value of a lot of hands. I believe Sklansky and Malmuth referred to this as the horse racing paradox.
For example if you have KJ off with seven people seeing the flop, they are unknowingly, or implicitly, colluding to make your hand almost worthless. The hand is simply not valuable because of all of the players in the hand. I think that the original example of the maniacs was a form of implicit collusion.
The later examples of Tim's, especially the wink and smile between the two good players, is a form of explicit collusion.
Agreed. Tim's examples are explicit as he notes in the last example. The 2 players not confronting each other is not that common that I see. I am myself learning not to get into battles with very good players. This is a change in my own philosophy. That doesn't mean I,m folding AA or KK to players. It just means that I don't expend the energy into a very small +/- EV situation. When you are raised by a strong player and you hold an average hand with little investment, there is nothing to be gained by continuing.
2 players not betting out is more common and usually they are friends. Doesn't really hurt anyone else so ... who cares.
The players raising middle players out is also uncommon but is really cheating. They must trade signals etc to communicate. They should be taken out back and shown the pavement repeatedly.
The most common form of explicit collusion (and I do this all the time) is the chopping of blinds. I say you can keep your small blind and we won't play.
Regards Mike N
"Also - it could be when you're at a table with a bunch of fish, and you and one other player are the only good players there- You look at each other, and smile. In all liklihood, you two will do the best you can to "avoid" confrontation with each other, as you both know the bulk of your profit will come from the others."
I do not consider this collusion of any form. Rather, it is smart poker. If you can identify (another) good player, no matter how, then it makes sense to be more circumspect when they are involved in a hand. If you and Karl do the look and smile (or you simply have played often enough before) and acknowledge each other as the prime players in the game, then if you see Karl cold calling a raise, you won't be as likely to call or raise with AJ before the flop, say.
Both of you realize that there is little profit to be made by butting heads with each other (ie nearly 0 ev), so you don't do it. If the other players were as smart, they wouldn't do it either.
Eric
When players without each others express knowledge play together against you.
The fact that 9 players play against your AA means you likely will need to improve your hand to win. Their draws are made more valuable by the # of players.
This collusion is done without intent. It is IMPLICIT in the fact that there are so many callers against you.
You can collude in different ways. Same for implicitly. The four maniacs are colluding to make you gamble more. In this game you now can play only very premium cards such as AA, KK, AKs. Maybe KQs, AK, and AQs if you feel like gambling.
If all players were calling all raises you would play and win very few hands. The swings are large. Some players would lose huge, a couple win big and the rest would push money back and forth.
You would lose 4 SB per hand played if you always missed and never went past flop. You could also win very big.
Implicit Collusion is likened to the schooling of fish which individually can't beat you but together create a situation where they through ignorance are playing almost as correctly as you.
Mike's explaination is the most recently evolved definition of implicit collusion and has taken this form over the pasr five or so years.
If you ask Lee Jones, the first author to publish this phrase, he will tell you that you are incorrect. His first usage was refering to the tendency of many fish to always end the hand with a show down, effectively preventing bluffing. Lee is currently alone in this definition and will eventually see that his little turn of phrase has changed through usage.
A little help please. Been playing a grand total of 10 hours but have been reading/studying as well.
3-6 Hold 'em, I'm on the button and the game seems to be loose-passive, but only been at the table a little while. I get 7s6s and 5 bets are in when it gets to me. I call, SB folds, BB checks. Flop comes 7d 3s 6c. Check to me... I bet four drop leaving BB (no idea what kind of player) and loose guy (from what I have seen). Next card is 10c. Check to me, I bet, BB drops and LG calls. Final is 4d. Check, I bet, raised, I call. Lose to trip 4s.
Did I play things right and just got beat by a lucky last card? Should I have dropped when raised?
Thanks... trying to learn.
Calling on the button with 76s is fine, IMO. When you flop top 2 pair and it is checked to you, of course you bet. You still have 2 limpers hanging around on the turn looking for presumably some sort of gut shot or runner-runner club flush perhaps. The river card is troublesome as you now lose to a single 5 for the straight. Heads up when the LG checks to you, I would check it behind him and show down my 2 pair. What sort of worse hand could he have that he would call with?
Now he's got the temerity to check-raise you. It's too bad that you didn't have something like 9s8s as you would have bet the hand exactly the same way and you could punish this clown. He had hung around basically trying to catch a gutshot 5 for his straight that might only tie you or would lose to the bigger straight, and then he check-raises on trips. IMO betting the river was a mistake, but once you did, you pretty much have to pay him off for the 1 additional bet, or else anyone and everyone in the game with any card sense will start taking shots at you.
You played it fine..Welcome to 3-6 Hold'em.
He had a gutshot draw and a weak pair.
He got lucky that all.
Best of it !!
MJ
They got lucky on you. I'd take your cards (with that flop) up to the turn over pocket fours any day. There is nothing you could have done to get that guy out, he is purely gambling. Against guys like that you might as well (figuratively) turn your cards face up on the flop and say "I've got two pair" and then he will still proceed to try and draw out on you. This is one of the things that gets peoples goat in low limits all the time, long shot draws that stay to the river and get there.
I would call the raise since it is really hard to put the guy on a set, unless you know him well.
By the way, 10 hours is just a drop in the bucket of playing time. You play the hand you had against his 22 to 1 shot and you will theoretically win 21 times to his 1 time of winning that hand. I like those odds.
So he's got six outs. 6.7 to one shot. Pot odds do not justify hanging around to river. Still a bad call.
Actually, Joe, he's got 6 outs - two 4's for trips, and four 5's for the gutshot str8. But that's only if he can see through the back of your cards and he knows for certain that you have two pair. For all this guy knows he might be drawing for half the pot, or completely dead. Anyway, it was a somewhat typical 'chase to the river' 3-6 result that MichSt. better get used to.
Yeah Dunc, I would drop pocket fours so fast to that board I would (did) not even see the inside straight draw. But I would be willing to bet that that guy would stick around without the inside straight draw. In low limits I once flopped a set of 6's against KQo and there was a 9 on board and would you believe the guy caught a T J on the turn and river? He had nothing on the flop! Welcome to low limit poker.
I guess a question I would have is a new guy better of jumping right into higher limits to get "better play" even though the loss potential initially will be significantly higher? Or should I rack up time in low limit then move up once I can play better. If yes to moving up, would that apply to internet play as well??? I have very limited access to live poker and and looking at that as a way to build some skill.
Thanks for your time....
I think you should practice on a TTH game or free Web games. TTH is better since you can play faster.
Small investment.
Then start at low limit. Play tight and learn how bad players play. When you do not make any mistakes at such a game then move up.
He had a 5 to hit as well, tripling his outs and making this 7.5 one against.
He would have continued to call even if you filled up on the turn. After all he has a gutshot. Note he would be drawing dead.
Then when his 4 hit on the river he would fill up and might raise you a few more times.
Good Luck
Thanks for the responses. I'm still struggling mightly with trying to put guys on particular hands/plays, though I had a "vague feeling" of what he might be having (basically that he was chasing). I'm hoping that comes with playing.
Thanks again...
You did Ok you weren't getting this player out of this game as long as he/she has a gut shot and hole pair to draw to. Some players live for draws even long shot ones. She had 6 outs 4 5's and 2 4's for a possible win. I hope you recognize that a player like this won't win over a period of time and you shuld look at is as an opportunity rather than a loss.
I had several beats that were the last card that I felt I played pretty well. Almost all were working top two pair off the flop and losing to some sort of finished hand on the river. Just wanted some validation I guess since I still have jitters and loads of inexperience. Should probably change my moniker to Flounder for a while since that's where my game is.
Thanks again...
Look at it this way as long as you are in the lead and they are drawing you will win your share of pots. The key is to know when to muck and cut your loses in a hand. This will come with experience. Don't be afraid to muck the odd winner if you never muck a winner you are seeing to many bets. SO it takes a balance.
It will come with time.
Without reading the other responses - You played that fine, even good. It may have been quesitonable to limp in with 67s, but you did what you did ... it wasn't terrible. It's just that you don't know how your opponents play yet. The flop hit you hard ... but again, one of your opponents may have flopped a straight. And not knowing how they play at all is prohibiting you from making informed decisions. The guy who won the hand had 6 outs (straight and trips). From the size of the pot, it sounds like LG was correct to call your flop bet and incorrect to call yout turn bet. But he was definitely playing catch up the whole way and you were right to charge him to do so. If you knew how he plays better you might have been able to check the flop and charge hime a BB to call the turn -- he may have folded then. But if he is as loose as you suspected, there was nothing you could do. You played it right -- just charge him the max and hope he misses.
Your bets on the flop and turn were both correct, however, when your oppenent checks to you on the river, there is really no reason to venture forth with another wager. There really are few hands that your opponent could realistically call you with that dont beat you. Check the hand down and hope that it is still the best... no reason to put yourself in the position you were in(check-raised and most probably holding the silver medal). The old phrase applies: Id soon win a little bit of something than a whole lot of nothing.
I play in a number of hold-em games. Most of them have the typical blind structure. However, I play in one game that has no blinds but does have an ante structure. It is dealer's choice: the games that are played are hold-em, 5 stud, 7 stud hi and 7 stud low.
I'm interested in people's thoughts on the ante structure in regards to hold-em (not so much with the other games).
A few thoughts:
In your typical hold-em game, you have to post a small and a big blind as the button moves around. To get in the hand you must call these forced bets. That makes it so you have a mandatory cost for each cycle around the table.
With an ante structure, there is an immediate cost every hand (albeit smaller). This actually results in more money coming off your stack and into the pot (as a forced bet) per cycle in the games I play in. In one case, there is a 2.5-1 ratio.
In the blind structure, you must call a forced bet to come in. You can raise and make the force bets call your raise if they want to come in.
In the ante structure, there is no forced bet before the flop. Of course you can still bet before the flop. But it is possible -- and when the game is passive it is likely -- that it will get checked around pre-flop.
In a blind structure you have limpers, pre-flop raiser, cold-callers, etc. Therefore you can usually get a pretty good read on how well people like their hands -- blind structures also (in my experience) tend to lead to tighter play.
In an ante structure, a bet before the flop can mean lots of things. Especially since there is no requirement that there be a bet. Position seems to matter even more, because a bet or a call should mean more with an ante structure.
It seems to me that -- in the ante structure -- you should play even tighter when there is a bet to you since people should (in theory) only bet with the premium hands and should call only with pretty good hands and should fold (or hope it's a free flop) with anything else. Of course, in practice, I've found that isolating players who bet is extremely profitable. For example, a fish who doesn't know that any two-suited cards aren't worth betting out pre-flop will pay dearly when I raise him and everyone else folds.
Additionally, I've found that an extremely tight image helps in the ante game more so (or maybe my image isn't as good) than in the blind games.
In any case, I'm interested in people's thoughts on how to adjust play with the ante structure for hold-em.
If there really is a 2.5:1 ratio that's like a $1 ante ($10) in a 3/6 game ($4 blinds). This relatively huge initial pot will attract looser play and rightfully so. Hard to believe there would EVER be a heads-up flop.
Do I understand this structure correctly? Your talk of "means more" and "premium hands" makes me suspect not.
If the antes were about the same as the total blinds this structure is gold for a solid player in a passive game: YOU get to see lots of flops with your cheese hands when you'd rather not pay and get to see with the really bad hands.
All-in-all I'd say, for starters, play the same way before the flop.
- Louie
I understand that it is necessary to play "looser" as the ante goes up. Because of the ante structure, in this game you frequently (about 20% of the time) do not need to pay to see the flop.
The mention a pre-flop bet "means more" is that, unlike the situation with blinds, there is no reason to bet unless you have a decent hand or you think you can steal the ante's (unlikely given the looseness of many players). Fortunately, most player's definition of a "decent hand" is not very good. Nevertheless, when you don't have to bet to see the flop, and you do so anyway, I think that certainly qualifies as the bet "meaning more". A pre-flop bet is more similar to an initial raise in other games.
Obviously, if that is the case, then you must be more careful calling those bets. Fortunately, you get to play more hands because of those times when there is no bet pre-flop.
Depending on the player, I react differently when there is a bet to me pre-flop. If it is a tight player, I tighten up considerably. If it is a weak player I will often raise to try to get it short-handed (assuming I'm holding decent cards). Many players will bet with suspect holdings (Q/9 or any ace, for example) that tend to work better if you can limp in cheaply. For example, if a weak/loose player bets pre-flop and I am next to act, I will almost always try to isolate them if I have a category 4 hand or better (though I may smooth call w/ the hopes of a re-raise if I have category 1 or 2).
When the game is full, there is very little ante stealing (though it sometimes gets heads-up if there is a bet/raise) since there are so many weak/loose players. Short-handed, of course, there is more ante stealing.
I think you are right about the initial starting requirements. For example, if I bet from UTG, you can almost bet that I have a high pocket pair, AK or AQ. Of course, I'll vary my play occasionally.
An additional note: there is no check-raise in this game. This leads to somewhat odd plays. For example, it was a 1-10 game a few nights ago. Ante 50 cents. 10 players. First position, I picked up aces. Since I knew that a few players in late position nearly always raised, I only bet $2. 4 players called to late position. Cut-off made it $7, button called and I raised it to $17. Everyone folded to the cut-off and we ended up three-handed.
I guess what I'm curious about is people's thoughts on dealing with bets to you in this sort of structure. Since there is very little ante-stealing (given player's looseness) should I be viewing them as more akin to pre-flop raises in games with blinds?
This is a situation that happens often. Before I read HPfAP I used to play very aggresively if I flopped top pair, no matter how high it is is even if the pot was capped pre-flop. But then I read in HPfAP that when you flop top pair when the pot has been raised more than once, you need to proceed with caution by checking and calling. I am not sure if I misunderstood something or messed up tremedously, but I missed a lot of bets following this advice. Here is a hand from last weekend
Game is 5-10
I am in middle position, pot is not opened yet. I had AsQs and raise. Fold to button who re-raises, SB called, and BB re-raises capping the betting. We all call for a 4-way action. Flop is Qh-9h-4c. Now I have top pair with top kicker, but am worried about AA, KK, or QQ being out there plus a flush draw. I would be inclined to bet but decide to check when SB and BB check. Button bets, we all call. Turn is 7s. SB and BB check, I think about betting, but still being a chicken check, button checks. River is 2c for a board of Qh-9h-4c-7s-2c. Again SB and BB check, I decide to go for a check raise, button bets, but SB and BB fold, I raise and button mucks.
What I realized is that no one had any sort of hand in this pot, not even a worse pair than mine. I played way too timidly. In general, how much do you factor the fact the pot was capped. I would have never played that way if no one raised me preflop, but I had to worry about AA and KK. Any suggestions appreciated.
Even if you played this more aggressively, you would not have gotten many more bets in.
The only possible bet you may have missed is raising the button on the flop. When its checked to him, you have to worry that he may be trying to steal - which is probably why the SB and BB called as well. With top pair, you might as well raise here and see what he does.
If he re-raises you, you can check-call all the way - same if everybody calls you. If he just calls and you are heads up, it may be a good idea to be more aggressive provided the board is favorable.
Anyhow, the most likely scenario if you play aggressively here is that the SB and BB fold to your raise on the flop and you actually make less money because the button folds on the turn.
This might be a little results oriented. The way Azad played the hand turned out ok in this instance. However, generally, the better play is to bet the flop. Given the size of the pot, you don't mind it even if if the button raises and knocks out the other two. In fact, you would hope for this to happen.
I think there is reason to fear a check-raise from the preflop capper here.
However, once the button has bet and the blinds have just called, it may be a good idea to raise to find out where you stand against the button and perhaps get the blinds out.
That's the way I probably would've played the hand - but, as I pointed out in my post, this probably would have won less money.
Bet the flop.
Betting and then judging their reaction buys you a lot more info as opposed to check-calling particularly given that you know that the button will likely bet no matter what he has got.
If I understood DjTj correctly then I would like to add even if hero couldn't get any more bets in, it is still advisable to bet and win it rather than give them their slim draws for free.
But back to Hero: The advise is suggesting that the 3-better or 4-better may already have your flopped-pair beat. This is often the case when the 3-bet is from a solid after a solid raised UTG. It is also probably a big pair from someone who never 3-bets without one; and probably for a cold 4-better. Otherwise, and trust me on this, its probably NOT a big pair. If he'll 3-bet with AA, KK, QQ, or AK its only 18:16 in favor of a pair. Add JJ and AQ and its 24:32 or 3:4. Add other possible hands (such as small pairs) and the likelyhood drops drastically.
You should be raising with lots of high cards in middle position, and reasonable buttons should be 3-betting with lots as well. Your consern is the BB. If he checks-and-calls its either trips or a lesser pair; and there are lots more lesser pairs than trips. So when you check and BB calls, you're back to playing the button who you probably have beat. I think the check can go either way, but you really gotta-raise especially since button may check HIS lesser pair on the turn.
You need to APPLY the stuff you read to the situation. Attempting to play mindlessly by rote will result in you playing 3/6 and 5/10 for a very long time; and the 2+2 books aren't written that way anyway. If you really DO want to play by rote then follow this advise:
Always 2-bet with top pair top kicker.
- Louie
Since you already hold AQ it changes the odds some. Now for instance there are 12 ways your opponent can have either AA, KK, or QQ and just 12 ways he can have AQ.
Since you already hold AQ and the flop shows the Qh, it changes the odds some more. Now, for instance, there are 10 ways your opponent can have AA, KK, or QQ and 12 ways he can have AK. (Of course, this neglects to take into account the likely distributions of hands held by the two blinds.)
The HPfAP section is on pages 133-135 of the 21st century edition. The advice is indeed to check and call all the way. They point out an exception, however, as follows: "An exception would be when you are against two or three opponents and the reraiser is last to act. Now you may want to come out betting. This might force the players who are between you and the original reraiser to fold, since they will fear another raise." [This advice is for when the flop looks favorable.]
Your situation is different in that, although the original reraiser is last to act, there is no one between you and him and the pot was capped by a third player. But since both other players checked the flop (and it is very unusual for a capper to check the flop no matter what flops), I think you should bet, hoping the original reraiser raises again, hopefully driving out one or both of the other players. You are only costing yourself, if you lose, one small bet compared with checking and calling the flop.
Checking and calling is more dangerous when there are other players in the pot who are getting proper odds to chase. They don't specifically mention it, but the advice on pages 133-134 implies (to me at least) that they are talking about one on one situations. They do mention that "risking free cards is not as dangerous in this spot since you may be beaten anyway." It seems to me that the risk is multiplied in a multi-way pot.
Perahps David or Mason can comment.
Actually, I think that you played your hand okay. But I also think that you misunderstood what we said in HPFAP. We were talking about a heads-up pot. That is not your situation. In your spot you should be thinking of ways to maximize your chances of winning since there are already a lot of bets in the pot by the time the flop comes.
For instance, assuming you have the best hand on the flop, if you bet when checked to you what will happen. If you think that the player behind you will automatically raise with a weaker hand -- perhaps with AK, KQ, or a pair of jacks -- and the other players will fold, you should consider betting. On the other hand, if you think that it is very unlikely that you have the best hand, and/or that the player behind you will virtually never raise with a weaker hand, or that the players in the blinds will virtually never fold even if it is two bets to them, then betting becomes wrong. You should now look to fourth street to try to eliminate players so they won't draw out on you on the river.
Though I would favor betting on the flop, your check was reasonable because of the risk you were beaten, and the infrequency with which low-limit players fold on the flop after the pot was capped. (I routinely see low-limit players call 2-4 bets on the flop, only to fold for one bet on the turn.) However, after the button bets and the blinds refrain from raising, you could have raised (i.e., check-raised) with less risk that you were beaten.
On the turn, I think you should have bet. The blinds have shown much weakness, and there's a good chance the button was semi-bluffing on the flop; you shouldn't offer a free card here.
Your check-raise on the river was incorrect IMHO, since the button was unlikely to call your raise with a hand you could beat. Check-call here to induce a bluff.
Last night I was playing $10-20 holdem and had quite a few situations come up where I was in the big blind, facing an obvious steal raise (on different circumstances from either fairly solid or loose players), and holding marginal holdings. I found myself often unsure how to act.
BTW, the game is raked.
I don't have anything in front of me, but I seem to remember that Abdul recommends folding JT in the BB versus a middle position raise from a decent player (in a raked game). Also, if I recall correctly, the recommendations differ tremendously if the game is not raked - i.e. defending with much weaker hands.
The raises which I was facing were from obvious steal positions. My question is what type of hands should I be defending with in the BB? Of course I realize that the answer depends on how well you play compared to your opponent, but for now let's assume that you're of equal ability. (or maybe we could talk about different circumstances - i.e. opponent is very loose agressive and not easy to kick out on the flop, opponent is generally passive, etc.)
Thanks for all comments,
Puggy
Greetings,
Seems lately Ive been calling many more marginal hands in SB and maybe been getting sucked it.
Heres a hand for example...
6 call the I call w/ 2s 6s, (yeah I know i can hear the grunts now), my thinking is the BB rarely raises I have six callers and if I hit the flush it will be good and quite a few people at the talbe will pay me off.
SO the flop comes J 5 9 w/two of my suit , a player in early postion bets 3 call and i call.
The turn is a offsuit 3. i cehck bet raise and a cold call and fold . I have picked up another 3 out fo r the straight and i make a fishy call and 4 see the river (no further raises).
Its a blank and i Check and fold, i believe 3 rd pair took it down...
So should one just fold most suited cards in SB unless they have some other valued . ( I would think suited connectors, suited one or even two gappers would be the least one would call w/but in many cases one can easily be drawing to a 2nd best flush.)
Sorry for the lack of more detail in this hand it was at the end of the night, and i pbly shoudl have gotten out earlier...
All comments appreciated!
I used play the SB a you related. It's a leak with a prominently negative EV. As you state there are so few ways to win with the hand and so many ways to lose. Unfortunately, human memory is both selective and creative and we remember that one time we won a big pot or how close we came on the last SB hand.
You did not play this hand badly, it's just a bad hand, and this is the problem. You were getting justifying pot odds to chase. However, over the long run you're going to put in more money than you get back on this trash especially when you factor in those painful (and forgettable) times you make your hand and still lose.
A good place to start is asking yourself, 'would I play this hand for a full bet?' If not, you had better be sure you have the discipline and bankroll to handle the post flop decisions.
In a 3 chip and 2 chip structure such as 15-30 I think your call is borderline. While it may be neutral EV-wise it tends to open up your play in other areas where you give action that is clearly -EV. If you can inventory your personal poker skills and find excellent post-flop play along with iron starting hand discipline then go ahead and toss in on chip with 62s in the SB. Otherwise stay away from it.
suspicious,
Keep in mind that the small blind can be anywhere from 1/3 the size of the big blind to 2/3 the size of the big blind.
Good for you are the suited cards, seven opponents, and players who pay you off (ideally, they would let you draw cheap yet pay off on the river),
Bad for you is the triple gap, which leads to only one possible straight that is vulnerable to a higher one. Also bad is the total lack of high card strength and nearly the worst position (I actually think this hand plays worse from the middle if one were to somehow play it). Finally, this sounds like the sort of game where player's play Qx, Jx and Tx suited which hurts the suited nature of your hand.
Given the above, here is my not so humble opinion -;),
If the small blind is 1/3 the big blind it is a clear fold.
If the small blind is 1/2 the big blind it is a marginal fold or call.
If the small blind is 2/3 the big blind it is an easy call.
Now for someone truly not so humble, hopefully Abdul, Mason, or even the great one himself will weigh in. Oh yeah, I forgot, these pre flop plays are not that important. So forget about David.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with Rick's decisions but might lean towards folding in the 1/2 case. S&M gave this tip about being careful with a 2 or a 3 in your hand.
D.
Seems the biggest problem with the hand is hitting the flush and not winning the hand.
Anytime 4 of your suit hit, you most likely have a loser. If 3 hit, you have a flush but with that many people seeing the flop, getting outflushed is a real possibility.
Hand: 15-30, fairly loose passive.
I pickup red aces in the cutoff seat.
There are early limpers and the player to my right makes it 2 bets. I make it 3 bets, blinds cold call, 6 players see the flop for 3 bets.
FLOP: J 7 2 with 2 clubs.
everyone checks to me, I check!?
TURN: offsuit Q.
middle position player bets, player on right calls, I raise, one cold call and only the flop better calls. ( 3 players )
RIVER: offsuit 2. ( board J72Q2 no flush )
check to me, I bet, flop better calls.
I am mainly interested in what you think about making this play when the flop is 2-suited. In the HFAP example there was a pretty connected board so me thinks it might about the same as that. Also any other comments.
D.
I'll post the result right below.
My aces held up. Flop better showed AQ.
A few comments I have.
I felt like this was good time to try the play even though the flop had a flush draw. I especially liked the fact that the player to my right raised before the flop, giving me hope that he would be the turn better and have maximum chance to shutout the others.
The river 2 was a great card for me as I could beat QJ about the only serious worry as I was pretty sure the other 2 remaining players had better then total trash.
D.
I like it. Even better if you have the ace of clubs, I think. This play screams that you have AK, no one is going to fold a flush draw anyway, and you set up the raiser perfectly. I like it.
Methinks it's a very bad play. First, if someone is chasing a flush you must make them pay...so the the money they put in when they don't hit is used to pay them back when they do hit against you. Giving them a free card means they don't pay when they don't make the flush but you (include previous round bets) pay when they do. Secondly, you are not heads up, there are SIX players any card that comes could help someone. A bet would not give a free card to a hand (small pocket pair, small connectors than flopped 1 pair, etc.) that would fold to a bet. Thirdly, someone may be going for a check raise, a late position bet by you help you by helping him.
I am of course aware of all that.
I would suggest you get a copy of the HFAP21 and read the loose games section where the similar play is described.
I certainly wouldn't make the play heads up. The idea is not to slow play but too get some players to fold on the turn and give the pair a chance to hold up on the river.
D.
Anytime someone says about the pointed-out pitfalls of a behavior "I am of course aware of all that" then adds 'but The Good Book says...' I have to chuckle and marvel at the strength of the human will to flattering self-deception.
Are you sure you understand The Good Book? On WHAT PAGE in The Good Book does it say pocket aces giving a free card to six players on the flop will "get some players to fold on the turn and give the pair [your aces] a chance to hold up on the river"? Really, Mr. Steele, forgetting what The Good Book says (as if you haven't already done so) what does your commonsense say?
See page 171 of HFAP21.
In fact the case is very much like the example there, the only real differnce being the flush draw as opposed to the connected cards. That is why I posted the hand here. To see if the play still makes sense with the flush draw.
Personally I like making this play. I am not sure that it really works but it feels like it does.
But you know I have at least read my copy of the "good book" and posted a variation of the play to debate here.
D.
Your play is indeed similar to the example on page 171 of the "good book." The Dark Pragmatist should not have taken you to task for misunderstanding the "good book" because you understood it perfectly and executed it perfectly.
He also asked you about your "commonsense." S & M understand that some of the advice in the loose games section may strike some of us used to playing a different way as unusual. On page 170, they preface a piece of advice with, "This may sound insane, but. . ."
I like your play because it is probably true, jsut as the "good book" points out, that no one is going to fold for your bet on the flop, but a raise can knock them out on fourth street. S & M also acknowledge that the play can on occasion backfire. But I agree with them and with you that the positives exceed the negatives.
As for their example vs. yours, I think, if anything, yours is safer. Against a J-7-2 with a two-flush, you know exactly what someone on the come needs. In the S & M example, the flop was J-8-7 (rainbow). Here you're not sure if a T, 9, 6, 5, or 4 is the card that makes someone a straight.
It's still take cojones to check those Aces and let them all have a free card. Well done.
Thanks and an excellent point about the flush vs straight.
D.
Well put. I don't have much time to post for a while here, but I was reading this thread with interest. I think Andy sums it up well. I hadn't thought it through with regard to two suited flops versus straight type flops, but I share the impression that the play makes sense here.
As for their example vs. yours, I think, if anything, yours is safer. Against a J-7-2 with a two-flush, you know exactly what someone on the come needs. In the S & M example, the flop was J-8-7 (rainbow). Here you're not sure if a T, 9, 6, 5, or 4 is the card that makes someone a straight.
I think the problem with this reasoning is that you can't be sure that someone has a flush when a club comes, even when 6 loose players see the flop. In fact, I think you can be more certain that a T or 9 kills your hand on the J-8-7 board (if not a straight then two pair). Thus, even if the club comes you may have to pay off since the pot is so big. Plus, if you give a free card, someone who would have folded on the flop may pick up a flush draw and beat you on the river.
I'm not saying that checking may not still be the best move, but I think the 2 suited board makes it less viable, not more.
It is an interesting play and one that I have used at times as well in the wild games that I play in. One thing to keep in mind though is that your "cute" play can sometimes cost you the pot. For example, let's say the flop gets checked through and the turn card is a blank like an offsuit 3. The sb fires a bet with his K7 thinking that his pair of 7's must be best because no one bet the flop. The bb who was waiting to checkraise the flop now figures that his AJ must be good and slips in a raise. Are you willing to call 2 bets cold on the turn with your AA?
with the weakness shown on the flop I might even 3-bet depending on the players, and the turn card but I can see that there may be difficult situations. Still it is nice to do something proactive against the usual rivering.
D.
What's the point?
(1) Lots of players should call so you hope to induce a turn bet so you can raise and narrow the field going into the river.? (2) Your hand is so strong you WANT someone to make a pair or a draw on the turn? (3) ??
This play may make sense if the player(s) to your right are aggressive meaning you are very likely to get bet into on the turn by SOMEBODY, AND you are unlikely to ever get raised by a worse hand. Now you get two full bets in instead of one and a half. The single pairs you drop (in the blinds) should overcome the free shots you give every body on the flop.
There is lots of money to be made on the flop, especially from the "call one time" folks, and you may get raised in which case you're REAL glad you bet (you can call, hehehe, and raise the turn anyway!).
Everybody expects you to bet so you give up little information when you do.
I don't believe the "finesse" plays in 2+2 apply well in weak loose games; mainly since you can rarely put someone on a particular hand often and betting for value is worth so much.
Mom is right: Bet'em when you got'em.
2+2 is right: Advise given applies to the sample situation and should RARELY be quoted out of context.
- Louie
One of the main reasons I decided to experiment with this particular play with a flush draw possible that the preflop raiser was to my right and was a good candidate to bet the turn.
You wrote:
"I don't believe the "finesse" plays in 2+2 apply well in weak loose games;"
This orignal play is from a chapter called "Playing in Loose Games".
I assumed it did apply to weak loose games.
You wrote: "2+2 is right: Advise given applies to the sample situation and should RARELY be quoted out of context."
What is out of context?
D.
I've got my 1st edition HPFAP 1988 in hand. Pages 107 and 108 is the "Playing in Loose Games" chapter. I see no such example. I do see "absolutely correct I haven't ReReReReReRead these books in a couple years. Where is this advise? Since it doesn't sound familiar I'd appreciate the opportunity to review it.
- Louie
Oh well I was hoping to not reproduce the whole section.
This is the 21st century edition and it is a whole new longish section on loose games.
The example ( p 171 ) I am refering to is almost exactly like the hand I played except no flush draw but the flop is J 8 7 so it is a pretty coordinated board.
the advice is for when you know a lot of players will call your one bet on the flop and then a lot of their one bet calls on the turn will then be correct. So you make the insane looking check on the flop but scare them bigtime on the turn.
D.
"but scare them bigtime on the turn." If the flop check results in a turn raise you wouldn't have gotten then fine. Check your heart out (Sorry, I couldn't resist...:).
But if by some chance you are suggesting that you should check the flop just so they aren't getting the right odds to call one-bet on the turn and will correctly fold ...
(A) You check flop and bet the turn and they are correct to NOT pay 1bb to see the river card. (B) you bet flop and turn and they pay 1.5bb to see the river card. If they are not correct to play 1bb in (A) then they are clearly wrong to do so in (B), so you gain a lot when you bet the flop AND turn.
Notice that in both exampels the opponents are playing "correctly". The difference is in B you lose .5bb when they get there on the turn, and in B their reward is .5bb bigger than it would be (your flop bet).
This argument is central to my anti-"manipulating the size of the pot" stuff. And I'll be glad to engage all comers on this one ... my position will likelyb be weakened but it will still fundamentally hold.
- Louie
No the idea is to make it 2 bets to most of the players on the turn. I agree the play doesn't work out if you only get one in.
I think I would have to take the pot manipulation argument on case by case. I think it can make sense though in some.
D.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 February 2000, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 February 2000, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 February 2000, at 9:03 p.m.
What "flop bettor?" I thought "everyone" checked to you on the flop.
The problem I have with this play is that you miss out on 3-5 small bets and increase (perhaps just slightly) your chance of being draw out without significantly increasing your chance of getting more bets on the turn. If you bet and a blank hits, for example, there's a chance that someone with KJ will checkraise and let you take it to third. If you check a J72 flop after 3-betting, some players are going to think: JJJ.
I don't recall the scenario in HPFAP, but I suspect it involves a case where you might be an underdog or close to it on the flop, and need to wait for the turn to have a significant overlay. I don't think that's the case here.
that should read turn better.
See page 171 of HFAP21.
In fact the case is very much like the example there, the only real differnce being the flush draw as opposed to the connected cards.
I am well aware how to play normal poker. This play is straight out of the book except for the flush draw. The flush draw might make the play wrong. That is why I posted it here. Not to get treated like I am some kind of idiot, which is exactly how those at the table treat it naturally.
It seems like many of the people here don't even bother to read the 2+2 books. I have no problem if they disagree but most don't even seem to have heard about this idea.
D.
David:
I didn't mean to imply that I think you or your play here was idiotic. I don't. I'm altogether impresssed by your acumen and if I managed to convey the opposite I apologize.
Having now reviewed the explanation and example in HPFAP, I think the difference lies in the strength quality of the threat you face and the quantity of opportunities you provide others by checking.
In the book's example, checking the Jc8c7d flop allows you to (1) save money against the flopped or turned straight; and (2) play more aggressively when certain "blanks" hit on the turn (e.g., 5, 4, 3, 2). The aces here especially save money when a 9 or T lands on the turn and they fold to two bets. Weighed against this are the considerable risks of giving a free card to someone who picks up a draw that they otherwise would have folded and the disadvantage of getting less money in the pot when the aces hold up. The authors say that checking is (perhaps only marginally) correct, although they admit it may sound "insane."
Your example is similar except that (1) you have no threat of facing a flopped flush; (2) if the third flush card comes, you won't know if 2 bets mean that someone has a flush or picked up a nut or near-nut draw; and (3) checking the flop gives a free card to more opponents that would have folded on the flop but cannot fold on the turn.
By this last point, I mean giving an opponent something like a J-high flush draw and any number of straight draws to hands that could not have called the flop bet. In your case, the only cards in the deck that can't give someone a nut straight draw are those that pair the board or give you 3 aces. In a loose game with this board there are many hands that can pick up a nut straight draw on the turn cannot call on the flop despite all the money (JT, 86, 65 or 64, for example).
In a nutshell, your current threat is not as great and the opportunity you are providing others is greater. It's just a question of degree, but I don't see the risk/reward ratio justifying a check.
Regards,
Chris
No one is calling you an idiot, Mr. Steel. However, if someone takes the time to thoughtfully respond to your questions they will not appreciate your response of, "I know all of that already [,idiot], go read the book."
But back to the real issue. The example in HFAP21 p171 has pocket aces on the button checking a flop of J 8 7. S&M recommends then raising an anticipated bettor on the turn unless a 9 or T appears (eight outs). Your main stated concern was of the club flush hitting (nine outs). Surely you're not agonizing over the impact on strategy of a one out difference against your favored aces? Could anything you do influence your typical opponent to play differently if he were drawing to a nine outer as opposed to an eight outer?
I will restrain myself from further sarcasm. The real issue here is about the strategy itself. Rereading this HFAP21 section I am struck by several points: S&M state "you number one priority is to win the pot." Keep that in mind. We all know how this is generally done. And it's not by giving free cards. S&M then go on to state "it might", "it might", "it might", "sometimes", "occasionally" and "sometimes" it's advantageous to play in an unorthodox manner. Okay. All these peppered qualifications should tell you at least one thing: such unorthodox play is the exception and requires very good judgement and timing. S&M also uses phrases such as "sometimes it can get extreme" and "this may sound insane" and such plays "are not foolproof" and there are "drawbacks" and "danger", etc. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a shining path.
HFAP21 is a fine book but much of this section reeks of fear, defensiveness, and fatalism (give 'em a free card and hope it doesn't hurt you.)
There may be a use for this way of playing ocasionally. And there is certainly some very good advice in this section (mainly pertaining to preflop play and when to bet out or raise on the flop). But giving a free card on the flop to a legion of trailers because my bet might be called? Well, I certainly encourage my opponents take this advice. If you want to chase against me though, you'll have to pay. Sorry.
S & M don't need me to defend them, but I don't see any fear, defensiveness or fatalism in the section whatsoever. I see a discussion of an alternative way of playing a hand comapred to the conventional thinking. This way is the more bold, the more aggressive, the more inventive way of playing the hand. As I said in another post above, it takes cojones to give the free card on the flop and then raise on the turn when there are so many more possible hands out there with another card on the board.
Since you have Aces, the free card is not as dangerous as it might otherwise be. The J-7-2 is as close to as perfect a flop as you could want. There aren't a lot of cards that could give some one a draw on the turn that they didn't have on the flop. The key point is that your bet on the flop is not going to get anyone out but your raise on the turn will. It would have been wrong for S & M to recommend this play without discussion of possible pitfalls. This is not defensiveness, fear, or fatalism, but sound advice grounded in reality.
Unless you've got an unbeatable monster, you should always be thinking about eliminating the competition and checking the flop and raising on the turn, especially when you can't be hurt by an overcard, is a great strategy.
I really meant to suggest reading the book. I think that is a worthwhile thing to do and it shouldn't be construed as an insult. When I wrote my original post I (incorrectly) assumed everyone had read this book.
You wrote: "this section reeks of fear, defensiveness, and fatalism"
I suggest you try checking your aces in late position after they check to your pre-fop 3-bet. Then tell me if you felt courage or defensiveness at that time.
D.
When the pot is big, this play can be very dangerous for your vulnerable AA facing many players, because a free card can let somebody pick up a draw (like K-10), or make someone two pairs. Also the certainty of someone will bet in front you one the turn is always questionable.
regards,
jikun
Okay, let's see if this helps clarify the issue:
For this or a similar play (checking the flop while on the button with pocket aces) to be correct:
1. Your flop bet won't fold the hand that beats (draws out) on you ON THE RIVER. 2. Your flop bet will not be raised (i.e., you will not be check raised, which would be desirable since two (or three or four) flop bets might fold the river-winning hand). 3. The free turn card won't beat you. 4. A player in an earlier position will bet the turn, so… 5. Your turn raise will fold the draw hand that will beat you on the river. 6. If a turn card comes that beats you, you will recognize it (as well as scare card bluffs). 7. If you do bet the flop (and are not raised) a player in an earlier position will NOT bet the turn. 8. (The sum of the pots when this play succeeds (i.e., it gets the hand that would have beat you ON THE RIVER to fold on the turn) + the flop bets you save when a card that beats you comes on the turn) is greater than (the sum of the pots when the flop bet succeeds or WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED (i.e., gets (or would have got) the hand that would have beat you on the river OR (key point à) THE TURN to fold on the flop) + the extra bets you gain on the flop when the draws against you don't get there)
Manipulation of pot odds on the flop is NOT a factor, i.e., your flop bet may give someone proper odds to continue a draw on the turn whereas a check on the flop then a raise on the turn would give them pot odds which justify a fold. This should be obvious since the whole problem is predicated on a loose game, players going too far with too many hands. (This also make #5 above somewhat dubious).
I would suggest the criteria for determining whether such a plays as related by S&M and Mr. Steele are correct is (1) whether factors #1 - #8 above are complete and accurate and (2) whether a player, in the heat of battle, can reasonably be expected to accurately assess factors #1 - #7 and (3) #8 above is true.
I would further suggest that the criteria is not whether a player once made such a play and won a pot and somebody loved it, or somebody hated it, or somebody thought it was really clever. Nor whether theoretically there are situations where it might succeed. This is obviously true. The question and criteria relate to it's practicality, hence the list of criteria.
I think something that adds value and balance to this deliberation is to not only review the HFAP21 chapter on loose play but to also reread (among other things) The Theory of Poker's chapters on The Free Card, Raising, Win The Big Pots Right Away ("infinite odds"), and even Slow Playing (which if you do reread the chapter this play is an almost theoretical inverse.)
I pretty much agree with everything you say. In practise I believe it comes down to judgement more then calculation.
There are types of games where
a) the players all tend to check to the raiser.
b) check raising on the flop is not so frequent, particularly if you have 3-bet before the flop.
c) They will all check to you again on the turn if you bet the flop.
Then when the situation comes up, AA, large pot, late position, nice flop for it, the type of game I describe, you can just make the play if you feel it is right. So I think it is practical and would not base it on any small sample of results etc.
D.
One thing I didn't consider that is different from the S & M example is that you have made it 3 bets, whereas, although it's not specifically mentioned, it seems S & M are talking about a 2-bet pre-flop situation. It's very unusual, I think, for a 3-better not to bet the flop no matter what the flop and what the situation. But I still like your play and your analyses.
Someone pointed out an additional and very important contingency, so for completeness I submit it:
4.1 On the turn: The player who would beat you on the river is NOT between the player who bets the turn and you (who raises the turn). (Obviously, in such a situation your raise to her would only make it ONE bet to call and having already called one bet, she would call your raise. (In this senario (the riverer is in the middle) the reasoning of the whole play would not apply.)
With all these posts about the "beatability" of games with "too many fish", I was wondering what everyone's definition of a fish actually was. Do you define a fish as one who is simply bad? Calls too much? Doesn't know about position? What is the difference between a calling station and a fish? A maniac and a fish? Or are these just two different types of fish?
My thinking about a fish is a player whose strategy in a particular game is gravely off from what it should be. Let's say you have a player who doesn't have a clue about bluffing, plays too many suited hands and connectors out of position. However, he/she plays in a game where it is unnecessary to bluff, and because the game is so loose, he is not costing himself much to play in this way. Though this guy would obviously be judged a fish in a tight 50-100 game, he may in fact be a winning player at a lower limit.
Is there a certain way of playing that would be incorrect for ANY game? In other words, are there UNIVERSAL fish (excluding suicide play like folding on the river every time)? Clearly for a game to be unbeatable, that would mean that everyone would be playing in a manner that has equal amount of "equity". Thus for a game to be deemed unbeatable, putting in these universal fish would mean that no matter how bad they played they wouldnt be losing, even if there was one good player in the game.
Any thoughts about the concept of an unbeatable game and the definition of fish? I am curious to hear people's opinions on this topic.
Passive Fish =
-Players that play way to many hands.
-Has no clue about position (unless he can't smoke in seat #1 or #10),
-Likes to call alot with poor draws (best type of fish)
-Never thinks to bluff or raise.
Loves to hit a good long shot (but can't calulate what the odds are) just likes the rush when he/she hits it.
Aggressive Fish =
-Thinks he/she can run the table with bad cards.
-Capps it pre-flop to show off.
-Likes live straddles.(this 1 killes me ..put extra money BEFORE you get your cards...LOL
-Bluffs alot because he just has position.
Just a few of the fishy things I C ©¿© in the fish tank.
MJ
To me, "fish" means someone who is quickly separated from their money without much of a fight. That is, the "sharks" CAN just swim around and eat them without having to be awake.
Real aggressive loose players require energy to beat so wouldn't be fish.
I don't understand your 3rd paragraph. An "unbeatable" game (for me) is when some sort of "mean/average" player ability is at least within rake/toke/coffee-shot of MY ability. One good player against a table of bad players is going to win a lot.
The common presumption that too many fish make for an unbeatable game is hog-wash. Many of those who embrace that notion don't understand that their normal strategy they use to "maximize" profits against typical games isn't going to work (such as presuming you're beat when semi-bluffing or SOMEONE has a flush draw when you get 6 calls). These games are obviously beatable, you just have to change strategy which requires a paradigm(?n?)/serenity adjustment.
- Louie
I think this all gets back to the fact that for any given game, there is an optimal strategy. A bad player is only as bad as the strategy he/she is using compared to the game he/she is in. A maniac playing as such in a 3 handed holdem game may be playing close to optimally. A calling station type is usually the easiest in most games to separate from their money. The only scenario that I could think of that would make a game unbeatable is one where the ante structure is so large compared to the betting structure as to render the game a total crapshoot. In current day casino poker, assuming the game has a reasonable ante/betting structure and decent rake, there is no such thing as a game wtih too many fish as to render it unbeatable.
A maniac is not a fish. I would say a "fish" (like a "maniac") is a type of "bad players".
A maniac is not a fish because (1) a maniac can hurt you and (2) a maniac in a short handed game may then be employing a near optimal stategy and winning! This (2) is as you state in another context above using "strategy in a particular game [that] is gravely off from what it should be" i.e., it is not a universally bad stategy just situationally inappropriate.
The essense of a fish is PREDICTABILITY which cannot hurt you (and is also a universally bad strategy). Weak/tight and calling stations are classic fish.
I haven't seen anybody address your last question, so I'll give it a shot. The point has been made in this thread, correctly, that a maniac could be playing positive-EV poker if he/she happens to be in the right situation. However, I can't imagine a situation where playing like a calling station(weak/passive) is correct. Regardless of the type of players, and even the number of players, if you play far too many hands, you will lose. You may not lose as badly in some situations, but you will still lose. There is no time where calling 3 bets with 53o, flopping two pair, and check/calling all the way is correct.
Mike
Maniac, ie, super loose/aggressive Calling station, ie, super loose/passive Weak-tight...always afraid of the nuts.
I played in the "Perfect Game" recently. One guy (Maniac) had just won about $1000 at keno. He sat down at a $1-5 game (with 25 cent antes, no blinds). The game was mainly hold-em with a dealer's option of 7-stud variants.
At the table were also 5 calling stations. The Maniac decided to blind bet $15 each hand (shang-hai $5 with an automatic raise and an automatic bet on the flop). Every calling station called every bet to the flop. Thus every pot was going to be automatically $63 before the flop.
To make matters even better, the Maniac started the practice of ante-ing for everyone when he won a pot and all of the calling stations followed this practice. Next thing I know, I'm playing for free, just sitting there waiting for monsters.
Soon they start to notice that I am only playing 4 hands an hour and am up $300 (won 3 lost 1). Now when I come in (especially w/ a raise) the calling stations suddenly turn into weak-tight players). The Maniac remains a Maniac, but we usually end up heads up by the turn.
The game broke after about 2 hours. I was up about $600 (I ended up playing 10 hands).
They were all fish, and together they were perfect. This game certainly made my records look great.
Been there, done that. Ain't it sweet? I REALLY like the winner-antes-for-everybody custom against loose players.
Might as well super-glue $4 to a rock and leave it in the middle of the table. Except that they might notice something is amiss.
BTW, getting free antes does NOT make it a "perfect" game. While you can pretty much guarantee a win by playing REAL tight, this often isn't in your best EV interests to do so.
WARNING!! Stupid no-point-to-learn story follows:
...Someone started anteing for everyone when he won, I anted for everyone when I won, and the custom was on. The little-old Weak-Tight man decided it wasn't in his interest to do so. First time I glared, 2nd time I anted for him while chastising him real FRIENDLY like, third time and everybody else stopped. I couldn't resurrect it by suggesting "we" leave "him" out. Aaaaaarrrrraaagh. How stupid can he be? He was getting 4 antes for every one he gave up (he was REALLY tight), but it wasn't worth it. I'm tempted to get this post deleted by telling you what I thought...
I hate it when that happens.
- Louie
There is at least 1 fish in EVERY game. And if you can't tell who it is... It's YOU!
Fish: any of numerous cold-blooded strictly aquatic craniate vertebrates - some are good to eat while others taste like crap
Vince.
Pot limit 2-5 blinds I have 2black aces on the button sb and 2callers I just call.Flop 10s 9s andred ace sb checks limper bets 25 ,I am about toraise but sense sb is going to raise so I just call sure enough he raises max approx $100 1fold next player calls and goes allin ,now I reraise pot approx$400+ sb calls sure enough the next card is a2s although I know Iam beat I go all in for my last$100 non of my redraws come and I lose to Qs 6s other player had js4s toadd insult to injury the folder after the flop had Ks7s.Evev though I lost I think I played the hand to get the max out of it.By the way all in was calling my 400 not on the 100.This is about the 6th time I have played pot limit ,
I also play in that game regularly. You played the hand perfectly, you were a favorite attempting to maximize you expection (though increasing your variance) by not raising the pot preflop. In retrospect, given that there were nine (!) spades out on the flop you were a big (5:1) favorite. As well as having a full-house redraw.
It's a great game but the low blinds encourage players to call with garbage - then draw out. See you Saturday.
Six-handed pot limit hold'em game. I am first in from the cut-off seat with Ah7h and raise the 5-5 blinds to $20. I have over $2500. A loose German guy on the button (with about $1200) calls, as does short-stacked BB.
Flop is 9h8h6c. BB checks and I check, going for a check-raise against the German, a habitual bluffer. He obliges and bets $40. The BB timidly folds and I come over the top with a pot-sized raise and make it $185 to go. The German guy hesitates, but calls. Now I figure that he wasn't stone cold bluffing and actuall has some kind of draw, most likely a flush draw or JT.
The turn is a brick: 3s.
I follow-through with my semi bluff and bet $400, figuring that my Ace high is still probably good. He thinks for a while and calls. I now sense that he somehow liked the 3 and seriously fear that he is going to call me down with something like Kh3h.
The river is the Ace of clubs. Now I figure he can't call me with only a pair of 3s, so I check, fully prepared to call all bets.
Sure enough, he weakly bets out $500 into the $1200 pot, leaving himself with about bucks. I hesitate for a while (mostly for effect), and make the call. He turns over a Qh3h.
When I show my Ah7h winner, he declares in a thick German accent: "Whoa, is a goot think hearts didn't come!"
I nod my head in agreemtent and rake the pot.
Now that is funny. He does'nt mind that the ace came, while he was leading on the turn, as long as a heart did'nt come. What a knuckle head.
.
Michael 7,
This was a great read while I ate lunch. Save it for your book for it is not only funny but informative concerning pot limit thinking.
Anyway, there is one typo you may want to correct before you archive this. You wrote:
"Sure enough, he weakly bets out $500 into the $1200 pot, leaving himself with about bucks. I hesitate for a while (mostly for effect), and make the call. He turns over a Qh3h."
I figure the correct amount was "about $100 bucks" or so..
Regards,
Rick "the nit" Nebiolo
Godd catch. He actually had exactly 2 green chips, or 50 bucks. This was obviously a key part of the story's punch line. I feel like I blew a really good joke with that typo.
n/t
M7 wrote: >he weakly bets out $500 into the $1200 pot, leaving >himself with about bucks.
???
I think you left out a key term here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
... and I know a cutthroat like you would have check-raised him for his case chips here since he's got to call with anything.
I was actually not being benevolent, but figured that it was bad form to humiliate the guy. Especially since it might break a profitable game since it was getting short-handed;-)
See you at the NEPC; I am planning to play at least one of the NLH events.
I was thinking he was going to complain about the "bad beat" draw out you made against him.
I take it you don't think he'd call the flop raise with a pair of 8s?
- Louie
Nobody's quite as funny as those loose Germans.
Mike, you've reminded me of a similar story from my past. I'm playing the charity poker games in Chicago, 3-6 Omaha hi-lo. Now, this is a dream game, 10-handed, and everyone sees every flop (except me, of course) whether or not there is a raise. I am considered the Rock of Gibraltar in this game, but since they pay me off anyway, what do I care?
I get dealt AA23 double-suited, and raise. 2 players remark out loud what a great hand I must have, since I usually fold. 9 callers.
Flop is A45, with the 45 in suit with my A2. I have the non-counterfeitable nut low, nut flush draw, and top set. It is a dream come true. I bet, 8 callers.
Turn is a T, giving me the nut flush. Nut low, nut flush, top set. I may be splitting the low, but it is almost impossible that I won't get most of this pot. I bet, 7 callers.
River is a 5. Nut low and top full. Someone MIGHT have quads, but I doubt it, as they would have bet or raised earlier. I bet, 5 callers. I show my hand, and to my surprise I scoop the entire pot. No one else has the low with me.
Here's the funny part. One guy shows his hand to his neighbor and starts bitching about the river card. Apparently, he had the J high flush on the turn, and is pissed the board paired the river. The neighbor points to my cards, still face-up on the table, and tells this guy that I had a better flush anyway. The whiner's response:
"Well, he still got there on the river!"
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Pot limit HE at the Diamond Club Tuesday. $2-5 blinds. I've got 10-10 UTG (and a tight image) and make it $20 to go. Two players cold call, and an apparently solid player on the button raises the pot. I muck, and we all fold to the button. Turns out he had the other two tens.
I'm happy with both of my actions, but am I misreading the button as a solid player? Although his raise worked in this situation, I would think in the longrun he's gonna cost himself a bundle. In addition to the fact that most of the hands which I'd be raising UTG would have him beat, he's also gotta be concerned with the 2 cold callers.
All comments appreciated.
Steven Berkowitz
Hi Steve,
Michael 7 would probably have better insight than I, and I hope he responds (He was probably at the table during this hand).
In his position, TT doesn't seem too good of a hand for him to raise with. I would call, hoping to flop a set. Especially since it gives you a chance to re-raise with AA (Steve do you always call with big pairs in early position, hoping to re-raise if raised? If so, this player might know this and put you on AK or a smaller pair, and was trying to get you to lay it down.) Raising might be okay if he thought it would buy him a free turn card if he missed the flop. Of course, in either case, the other players would need enough money in front of them to give adequate implied odds, and their stack would have to be even larger if he raises.
I'm guessing he read you correctly and was trying to get you to lay your hand down. As well as knowing what kind of hand the other two guys would call with. But someone with more experience should have better insight than I. Hello Michael. Are you out there?
Hey George
I RARELY just limp in with a big pair in early position in this game. Too many players will limp in for a nickel just to see the flop.
Mike was not in the game.
Steven
I'm with you and George on this one Steve. No way I reraise with TT here. I already have: 1) A nice pot built in case I flop a set; 2) Last to act on the flop; 3) Two callers trapped between me and the raiser.
These are the types of situations you hope for in pot limit. No way I would reraise a tight/solid (like you) UTG raiser and risk getting blown out without even seeing the flop.
Sounds like a Peter A move to me. He will make this play if he thinks you will muck AK and won't reraise without AA or KK since it helps him define your hand and take control of the pot. This type of play works a lot better for him than it does for me.
3-6HE. I'm in the single BB with 63o. The table is loose passive and I've been there for 5 hours. A player who doesn't play well raises in late position. I call. 7 see the flop of 368 rainbow. I check-raise. #4 to act (best player at the table) re-raises. I cap. 5 see the turn card which is a 4. I check. # 4 to act bets. I raise. #4 to act folds. 3 see the river card which is a 2. Now the board is 23468 no flush possible. I check. My two opponents check and I drag $140 pot.
Any comments are welcome
I just wouldn't have played 3 6 off, but had I, I would have played it about the same.
D
Since you are getting 15-1 to make the call assuming no raises from behind what would be your minimun hand selection criteria to call?
That's a great question! I'm not sure if my expectation from playing 36o from the blind is positive or not with 7 players in for two bets. From the blind I'll call one extra bet with 5 or more players with anything that can make a straight on the flop. You can flop a straight or two pair or trips.
Am I playing too loose BTF from the blind position?
30-60. I am the BB with Qs-Jc. A tough, aggressive player (TA) raises from middle position. Button, who is loose and not too good, cold calls, I call, and we take the flop 3-handed.
Flop comes Jh-7s-2s. I bet; TA raises; button cold calls again and I call. Turn is 2h. I bet; TA raises again; button cold calls again; I call. River is Js, giving me jacks full. I bet. TA disgustedly folds and button disgustedly calls.
I assume from the reactions to the river card thatTA had a big pocket pair and button made a flush. All comments welcome; in particular, should I have folded to the raise on the turn?
There are lots of close decisions here. The thing I want to point out is that the call before the flop is borderline when the original raiser is both tough and tight.
BB - Q,Jo: 5+ to 1 is a borderline call with no chance of being raised?
Vince.
I think it is a borderline call even though the pot was offering almost 6 to 1 odds.
If the raiser is tight and aggressive, the pot is not offering enough odds against the range of hands he could have.
If he has A-Q, you have a 3 outer. The straight draw does not happen often enough.
If he has any over pair, particularly Q-Q, then you're even more dominated. If you flop a pair, you cannot bet with confidence, and may have to pay off all the way. The outcome of this particular hand should not change that.
If he has A-K, you still need to flop a pair to win. Even in that case, you still hope no overcards come.
Plus, you're out of position, giving all the pot to him if neither of you flop anything.
I'd hesitate to get involved with a tight and aggressive player if I don't have position on him.
What if he has TT, 99, 88, 7,7 A,K, A,T. What if you can out play him. What if 3 rags come and you bet.
Vince.
The increased pot odds provided by the "loose" caller do not necessarily improve the EV of hero's hand. In fact, I believe the caller more likely hurts hero's EV by decreasing hero's bluffing equity and increasing the risk that his cards are dominated and/or duplicated by his opponents' hands; this risk is related to TA's raising standards and the button's calling standards (see my previous response for a bit more detail).
Probably the optimal play, would have been to reraise on the flop. Unless your opponent is tricky, and would reraise with less than an overpair, then you know where you stood, and you would know you only had two outs on the turn, and you would have checked and folded on the turn. Or playing the way you did you should have still probably folded on the turn, either way you'd have less money in your pocket now.
BUT its not all too bad, and by calling you may prevent some really good or tough player from making a play on you. Ex. Say this same guy knows that you'll fold for a raise on the turn, since you think that he must have an overpair and now have only two outs with the two pairing. Then by raising he goes from an underdog to the probably winner.
But then again...you should have folded. D
Well, I played a hand similarly not long ago in a short-handed game. At the time I thought my opponent might be sophisticated enough to raise me a second time on the turn, still on a draw. I thought he might be reasoning (correctly) that I was making a kind of "stop and go" play so as not to give a free card. In this case I was wrong (he had picked a pair with the overcard that came on the turn), and decided he probably wouldn't have made such a play in any case. It depends on the player, but I think relativley few are both (a) capable of the second raise, *and* (b) willing to spend that much rather than just calling on 4 if they do have a good draw. But, if you know your player... (btw, is that stuff you were thinking about?)
I'm not sure that "relatively few" are capable of the 2nd raise with just overcards. I play 20-40 and 30-60 and although it is a rare play in the 20-40, I see it more often in the bigger game, and this player is very tricky, certainly capable of a 2nd raise on a draw. I felt two big hearts or two big spades were a possible hand and that the button was on the come. So there was a chance I had the best hand and 6 outs if I didn't.
David's point posted above is a good one. The biggest mistake was probably getting involved against him at all with a mediocre hand and poor position. And I think, in retrospect, it's probably best to assume a player who raises 3 rounds in a row has what he is representing, rather than a draw. I got myself involved with a tough player, out of position, and had to make a lot of close decisions. Not a recipe for poker success.
One minor point here, you do not have six outs if he has a pocket pair. If he has a bigger jack, say KJ or AJ you only have ~4 outs (I don't know how many outs you want to count the case jack as it would split the pot). If he has a pocket pair AA-JJ, you lose if a Queen shows up because he already has made two pair (or a fullhouse with JJ) with the deuces pairing up on the turn.
I was trying to get at the combination of "capable and *willing*". But on further reflection I don't think that actually hits on what makes me think they usually (not always of course) have a hand on that second raise -- even those capable of semi-bluff raising twice.
If I put myself in the raiser's place I would generally have to put the bettor specifically on a "stop and go"/"bet back into the likely draw with one pair" type of play to make that second raise. I'd also have to think the bettor was quite capable of folding that top pair. Otherwise, I don't expect to have enough chance of winning it right there to make the second semi-bluff worth it. My impression (from the point of view of the raiser) is that that combination of circumstances only comes up fairly infrequently.
So you need to have a player capable of the second raise, *and* who judges it to be warranted at the time, (or of course just someone very aggressive likely to overplay a lot of hands against you). You may well have had that; I just wanted to clarify my thinking.
Good points. Even with the conditions you specify, it still may be the case that he has a real hand; that is, although the conditions you talk about may well be present, the 2nd raise still probably means I'm beat most of the time, as you point out.
I find a weakness in my game is looking for a way I could have the best hand when the pots get big instead of looking for the most likely scenario. You correctly and carefully point up the conditions under which that 2nd raise could mean what I hoped it did, but the simpler explanation, namely that he had a hand, would, most of the time, be the more likely situation. Thanks for your help.
I think your preflop call was a close decision, depending on the calling standards of the button as well as the raising standards of TA in that situation. If you think TA probably has a premium hand, and the loose button would call his raise with hands like KJ, AJ, QT, KQ, QJ, and TJ (but not small cards), your QJ would be a good candidate for the muck.
I like your bet on the flop and turn. However, I would have folded to TA's raise on the turn, believing I had only two outs.
With a flop of J-7-2 in a 30-60 game, you can pretty much rule out anyone having some bizarre two pair or staying in there with a gutshot. Do you think TA would take a shot at the pot twice in a row with overcards? He may have picked up the heart draw and had something like AhKh. If he doesn't have a flush draw, there is no way he would be raising with non-heart or spade-suited overcards against two players, one who is likely to have a pair. If you think there is a good chance he is making a move with suited overcards, a call would not be a bad play. However, if you think the likelihood of him making such a play is small then I would fold. Against an obvious playing opponent, this would be a fold. With a tough, aggressive player, it's not an easy decision at all.
Good points. See my response to John Feeney above.
Has anybody even suggested the obvious play -- checking and calling on the turn? Why not?
Unless you beat this game for more than one big bet I consider your call a bad one.
On the turn I think the best play is to fold.
I usually play low limit hold'em in Southern California (primarily at the Hollywood Park Casino). I recently played 3/6 hold'em for the first time in Las Vegas -- at the Mirage.
I found I *very much* prefer playing in a rake game than paying a table fee on the button. I felt like my stack wasn't being whittled down by the fee on the button, and I seemed to have a better state of mind and to play a better game. The different structure helped me be more patient. (That and the fact that everyone played tight. Half the table regularly failed to call the BB.)
I understand that one cannot draw conclusions from one sitting in a what many here might consider a "chump change" game, and that one's results will greatly vary over time. I'm more concerned with how the different structure effected my attitude, and hence my play.
It seems to me that paying a fee on the button in a low limit game at the Southern California casinos gets very expensive relative to the amount being wagered, and makes those games tough to beat. (I also toke $1, and sometimes more, every time I win.)
Any opinions?
-- Charles
Charles,
I've written quite a bit on this exact topic on this forum and a while back on rgp. You may want to search the archives (some of this may be on the General Theory forum).
Regards,
Rick
Charles - I play regularly in raked games here in Arizona. I am sure that I would hate the dead button-drop fee. In fact, I'm not sure I could formulate a strategy to beat the game.
I have personally generated a basic strategy for attacking the low-limit raked game. My Poker Page contains an essay by me (no false modesty here! ) titled The Slot in the Table is Your Enemy. Check it out.
Furthermore, the Mirage game you described is not a profitable game. In an extremely tight game at a low limit, if the pot is raked it becomes an onerous high percentage tax. My preferred game selection and strategy has me trying for very few big pots. If I get that straight or flush and drag a $75 pot (at 3-6), my rake ($3) plus toke ($1) plus jackpot drop($1) (in Arizona) is $5. If, on the other hand, I am in a very tight game, and I attack the blinds and wind up winning a $12 pot, my tax is jackpot drop ($1) plus rake ($2), and I don't have to toke for such a small pot, for a total of $3. Which percentage do you like better: $5 out of a $75 pot or $3 out of a $12 pot?
I understand, from Rick N's posts and other readings, that you are stuck with the button drop in LA. My condolences.
Dick
Reminder! Everyone should send in their picture to my gallery of 2+2 posters, which is at Dick's Poker Page. E-mail to me or send a regular photo to my snail mail address found at my contacts page. ...Dick
A rake is like a winner's tax; it is paid by the winner of the pot. Therefore, it is correct to play relatively tightly in a rake game compared to a fee game. If everyone is playing tight, however, the game will not be profitable. When I played low-limit in Vegas, I found that the 1-4-8-8 games on the Vegas strip (e.g., Harrahs, Flamingo, MonteCarlo) were often good. Their relatively progressive structure (with a $2 big blind) also increased my edge over weaker players.
In LA, I would recommend that you move up in limit as your confidence and bankroll increase. 6-12 games with a $3 button fee are more reasonable than 3-6 with the same fee. However, yellow-chip players get the best deal; you can play 10-20 for $5 per half hour and receive free food.
Why do they fee per half hour anyway? Personally I prefer the rake over these other systems of payment. I play 3-6 and 5-10 but our casino has the same policy for 10-20 and 15-30 when that's available.
They take out $1 for the jackpot after $20 and 10% up to $3.50
Here's how I look at it: If you have a rake system, you can wait for the cards to come to you. The game is still fairly loose so when you choose to join the pot you can easily get it over the $35 hump to lower the percentage down. So basically, you're losing $3.50 per pot you win (in actuality, it's more like $5 with jackpot and tokes, but you can't count that because that's a cost accumlated in every system of payment).
Now, at a $5 fee per half hour, that's $10 per hour for, let's say, 35 hands. If you have a slow dealer, you get aggrivated players, and if you have a slow player you get even more aggrivated opponents. So, under a rake system, the only thing you lose to slowness is the ability to look at more cards in a shorter period of time. Under a fee per half hour, you actually lose money when things start to slow down.
Also, when you compare the two, you only lose more to a rake system when you win 3 pots per hour ($3.50 * 3 = 10.50). Sounds like a small amount to have to win per hour but if we go with the figure of 35 hands, we see that you lose more under the rake system if you win one hand in 12. If everyone played every single hand, you'd only win one hand in 10...and I know I'm a bit more selective in what I play. Sometimes I'm not playing one hand in 30! But you're not going to win every hand you're in. So let's say you just played one hand in 8, and won half of those, you're still ahead of the fee/time payment.
From the house's side, it makes sense too. 35 hands per hour at $3.50 is $122.50. $5 per half hour * 2 * 10 players = $100. If the house only dealt 29 hands per hour, it would still rake in more (assuming a 10-20 game where getting to $35 is pretty much a given). Anything after 29 hands is pure profit (ok...even more so) compared to a time fee.
So where am I wrong here? Are my assumptions incorrect? My math faulty? Love to hear responses.
Dan
The time fee for 10-20 (and higher) games is the best deal available for poker players in LA. Given the nature of most 10-20 games (9-handed or less, relatively tight), the time fee would be cheaper than the rake you described for most players. In addition, imposition of a rake system would likely cause these games to become even tighter.
There are several people who post frequently, who's opinions I respect alot. So here's a very important question about game selection, that I hope I'll get some good posts on. When given a choice to play a tougher game at say 10-20 and an easier game at 5-10, how much harder does the 10-20 game have to be to make the 5-10 a better choice?
D
It depends what your goal is. Are you looking to "move up the ranks" and establish yourself as a solid player at any level, or are you playing recreationally "for the love of the game"? The higher limit games are generally tougher, but usually easier to read because most of the players know what they should play at what time and how to bet it. In a 5-10 game, many players will over-value a hand and call you even though in the long run they will lose. But in the mean time they will cost you money. Therefore, it makes it hard to run a semi-bluff or to bet a four-flush or 4-straight on the end against one player without being called. You will usually have to show the best or next-best hand to win. Also, if your bankroll cannot tolerate a big loss in the 10-20, then you're better off in the 5-10 until you can build it up to 3x the maximum bet of the game. In your case $6,000. Lou Krieger thinks it should be $8,000. Hope this helps. Slim
I seem to have to make more calls than a really want. Risking alot with very little of a hand. Ex. A guy who raises quite often, more than anyone really should, and once I got to see a made hand that he had raised with 98off. This wasn't in a steal position either. Several people had already limped in. Thats the only read I have on this guy. I'm dealt AQ off two off the button. two limpers, that guy raises, I reraise, buttons fold, one limper folds, the other calls, he caps. flop comes Kc10d4d. The guy bets after being checked to, I raise, other guy calls, he reraises, I call. a Ks comes. He bets. I call. Other guy folds. I forget what came on the river, but I call. he turns over Q7 hearts. So I won this one, but still.
-D
Your raise before the flop was correct, leveraging off of the maniac's loose action to thin the field. I also can't fault your raise on the flop, though a call would also have been reasonable (since you had sufficient odds for your draw and were unlikely to force out anyone with a flush draw). You can reduce your fluctuations by playing more passively against maniacs (except when you can isolate them with a strong hand); let them bluff their money away by checking and calling.
Against a maniac, you're going to have to make more calls than you "really want." You did fine, reraising with A-Q in an attempt to isolate him. You need to be careful with a 3rd player involved. You played this one with guts and brains. Just make sure when you're putting in more than you really want that you actually are against a maniac, and not a sophisticated player.
Good point, I didn't mention it, but I was pretty sure the third player was going to fold on the turn. Had I not had this tell, I probably would have mucked. D
Game is 10/20 short handed. Just 5 players at the moment. I'm in the small blind with AsAh. A guy who will play any two cards raises from the button after all others folded. I raise. B Button only has 41 in chips in front of him caps it. flop comes 2h 8s ks. I check to let BB put his 1 in. He does. I then get raised. I raise back, he raises back. Next card is a 3s. I bet. He calls. River is blank. I bet and he calls. I turn over my aces. He turns over 8 2 off for two pair. BB who is all in turn over Q5s for the flush. Well I know any two cards can win, so I guess I should be happy I'm playing against people who will play 82 off, still I hate swings to my bankroll. So here's a question. How bad are the swings suppose to be? I try to play tight and aggressive as in HPFAP, although sometimes I make questionable plays, my swings are fairly big. I should also let you know, I've been playing holdem for under a year, so I still consider myself I novice in many ways. After absorbing some substantial losses early, when still learning the game, I've made that back plus some. So I'm not doing bad, I'd just like to know how much better I should be or could be doing.
Thanks, D
How bad can swings get? Answer: Pretty bad. Sometimes- the easier/looser the game, the bigger the swings. Although at the same time, the easier that game should be to beat. If that makes any sense.
I suggest "Gambling Theory and other Topics" to get a thorough explanation and understanding of variance.
Fuhget ahbout it!
It's as simple as:
pocket aces and the such do best heads up
any two cards can win and do
a flop can help a loose player a dozen ways a flop can help two loose players a hundred ways a flop can help three players a thousand ways
a high pair against more than one player after the flop, and/or with one player raising, needs help to win
Why did you bet the aces on the river? There were a thousand ways to lose. Yes, you would have called a bet anyway but you faced a possible raise.
Every second, pocket aces lose; that's what keeps the poker world going around.
The reason I bet it till the river, was I knew that this guy was a caller, and would call with anything, as little as a pair, he'd also would raise with about anything. I have to make him pay for his poor play when I have a premium hand, even though he'll sometimes get lucky. I figured there was at least a 55% chance I had the best.
D
The swings can be bad, but they should lessen considerably as you gain experience and improve in reading hands.
John is indicating here , I believe, that one has to read, and then lay down aces sometimes.
You do have to lay down aces sometimes, but I wasn't suggesting Big D should have done so in this instance. I was just responding to his general question about swings.
Very good point. I have layed aces down a couple of times. In a short handed situation its tough to do. Some players will put you on AK and try to run you through with a pair of 3's in the hole. With many people in a pot it its alot easier when somebody made an obvious draw, etc... D
Big D,
As Grinder pointed out, Mason's essay "How Much Do You Need" in Gambling Theory and Other Topics is must reading.
A while back during a similar discussion about fluctuations, I ran some random numbers using my 4-8 game standard deviation - the article is on my poker page at Fluctuations Article. You should figure on the fluctuations being about 2.5 times as much for your 10-20 game.
I oriented my page to low-limit poker, but hooo-eeey, you seem to have the same type of players in your 10-20 that I do in my 3-6 and 4-8 games.
Reminder! Everyone should send in their picture to my gallery of 2+2 posters, which is at Dick's Poker Page. E-mail to me or send a regular photo to my snail mail address found at my contacts page. ... Dick ... PS - Rick Nebiolo and Bill Love are recent additions. And John, Paul, & skp, I have your pictures but am struggling to get my scanner to produce good results. Coming soon!
I am a rather inexperienced player ( 6oo hours) and my game is a very loose 5-10 HE where the average player raises with Ax or JQ o regardless of position. I use to play my starting cards according to HDFAP. I have read quite a lot about poker, but I have not found any anything about which type of cards to play when raised in the BB in a multiway pot. Up to now I have been playing hands that I would have played on the button in an unraised pot. Some people keep telling me that i ought to see the flop with any trash. Is there any rule of thumb? I would be really thankful for suggestions. P.S. English is not my native language.
Playing only hands that you would have played on the button in an unraised pot is not a bad policy. Playing any trash is a bad policy.
Your English is fine.
The implied odds of flopping a strong hand or strong draw are king here. The more players there are, the more important it is to fold dominated offsuit trash such as Q5 and A2. For your situation of loose raises and multiway pots, play all pocket pairs, suited cards, and offsuit zero-gappers other than 32 and 43. You can play offsuit 1-gappers about 86 and up, but 2-gappers so rarely flop good straight draws that even KT will be shaky.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I suppose that you would not play ANY suited cards on the button in an unraised pot with a ton of loose limpers (84s, T6s, or worse), so why would you play them from the BB versus a raise? You have worse position and perhaps slightly better pot odds.
Or are you saying that in a 10 handed game with 7 limpers before it gets to you on the button, you would play 72 suited?
Puggy
P.S. I posted something a little ways down about defending the BB vs. as well (vs. a steal raise) - maybe you could answer that question in your post as well. Thanks for your comments
I suppose that you would not play ANY suited cards on the button in an unraised pot with a ton of loose limpers (84s, T6s, or worse), so why would you play them from the BB versus a raise?
Because I don't agree with the advice the others gave.
You have worse position and perhaps slightly better pot odds.
You have way better implied odds to flop a draw.
I posted something a little ways down about defending the BB vs. as well (vs. a steal raise) - maybe you could answer that question in your post as well.
Versus a steal raise, you should defend the big blind with almost any two cards. (Maybe top 80% or so.) Again I harp on implied odds and domination. Avoid weak likely dominated hands that will play poorly out of position, like certainly Q2. Play hands that are likely not dominated and have straight or flush potential, like even 42 and any two suited. Of course, you have to be able to play well after the flop to get away with playing cheese.
The basic idea is that you've got implied odds to flop a pair (so long as you don't get outkicked), since your steal-raising opponent is so unlikely to have a big pair. If your opponent has an ace or big king he's pretty much trapped to the showdown heads up. You're getting 3.5+ to 1 immediately from the pot, plus if you flop a pair, then you'll likely extract a few more bets from your opponent, though you won't always win.
A rake will have a moderate to large effect (depending on its severity) on the number of hands with which you're willing to defend the big blind. Likewise, the degree to which you can outplay your opponent (or vice versa) after the flop will also have a moderate to large effect on the number of hands with which you can defend.
-Abdul
I'm not criticizing, I just don't understand. Why do you say you have better implied odds from the big blind than on the button?
I suppose that you would not play ANY suited cards on the button in an unraised pot with a ton of loose limpers (84s, T6s, or worse), so why would you play them from the BB versus a raise?
Because I don't agree with the advice the others gave.
I don't understand - you would play any suited cards on the button in an unraised pot? (suppose everyone limped in)
Puggy
A couple of people suggested that when in a multiway pot, you should call in the big blind with the same hands you'd play on the button. I disagreed, since with many players in the pot I'd call a raise with any two suited in the big blind but I would not limp with any two suited on the button.
Suppose there are 5 limpers and you assume the small blind will call. You're then getting 7:1 in immediate odds from the pot to call on the button. If on the other hand you are in the big blind and the pot has been raised with 6 cold callers including the small blind, then you're getting 15:1 in immediate odds. Similarly if you add in the expected subsequent action to turn it into implied odds, the implied odds are better in the big blind in a raised pot than on the button in an unraised pot versus the same number of opponents.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Point well taken. About how many callers do you need to play these "any 2" suited from the BB? Is a raise and a single caller enough? I would think you'd want at least 2 or 3 callers.
Puggy
With a raise and a single caller and no rake, you can defend with almost any two suited, but not the very worst, namely disconnected cards like 73s and Q3s. Getting a second caller is probably enough to add in the rest of the suited hands. However, a rake will bump up the number of opponents you need.
-Abdul
You certainly should NOT see the flop with any trash. And you can't go wrong taking Abdul's advice.
What I will call a raise with in the BB depends a great deal on 1). The odds I am getting for my hand. 2). Who did the raising 3). From what position 4). How good of a player is he? ie- does he know how to make good use of his position, etc.?
I think you still should play fairly tight out of the BB if you are not getting proper odds. This is because you can find yourself in tricky/dominated situations out of position. However, against a bad player who will raise with garbage in late position after everyone else has folded, you should be willing to see more flops. Interestingly, I have found that against a GOOD player who will do the same thing, you should fold more times than not.
Question re; BB defense, I am not sure what the minimun requirement hand I should be calling with in a raised pot w/ 4-5 callers. I know what I am getting when I make the call assuming no raise from behind but would like to hear from someone w/ more playing exp. as to what you would do?
One thing I haven't heard in other responses, but should be pointed out, is that even when you aren't in the big blind, extremely loose-aggressive games greatly change the cards you should be playing. The standards in HEFAP are for a very different kind of game than yours. While it does tell you to do things based on how many people are in the pot, and suggest changes for loose games, it mostly concentrates on tighter games. Other people have written things in more detail on your type of games, but here is some basic advice. medium/big pocket pairs and big suited cards are the best hands. Don't be raising with AJo or KQo if 5 people are going to call. Play these hands weakly. Play hands like AKs/AQs/AJs/ATs/KQs and big pairs very strongly (understanding that they will often get cracked, but will win huge pots when they hold up). Smaller suited connectors should only be played when it looks like the flop is going to be cheap. If 6 people are seeing every flop for 3 bets, and several of them go to the river, play any pair, regardless of position. You may need to play creatively (lots of check-raises) to get people out of the pot when you have a vulnerable hand. Do a lot of raising for value with nut draws.
Patri
Is there pos ev to either of the following sitautions:
1) You have the nut straight draw with a two flush on board, checked to you on the button. Do you bet to make the flush draws pay or take the free card, assuming you have the correct odds to raise?
2) You have flopped the second or third nut flush draw. Do you raise to make the Stiff Ace of your suit pay to draw?
Playing in a 3-6 game the other day and a funny thing happened.
Table conditions: Loose...50% of pots were raised pre-flop with rare raises post flop, about 5 people on average paying to see the turn.
I'm one seat left of the BB and have 45 clubs. I know that this hand isn't great, but I think for a second because this is the best looking hand I've had in an hour. I decide I don't want to play this hand in a raised pot and pitch it. Sure enough, the pot is capped before it gets back to the BB and 6 people see the flop. I'm happy I pitched my hand.
Flop: 236 of clubs!!! AUUUGGHHHH! Oh well. I feel better now that I told the story.
Just think how many times the flop misses that hand and you can let it go. The problem with hold-em is you can see what could have been. When running bad this is very annoying.
I'd like to get some expert opinions/advice on this subject. I've just reviewed my last 291 hrs of play. While I'm happy with the bottom line results, there are some numbers that concern me.
I am up a little over $34/hr. in 10-20. So I have seemingly running over this game for the last 291 hrs. I say seemingly, because even though I believe I've had an off run for 50+ hrs, I realize that 291 hrs. is not a long time and variance can be huge.
Specifically what concerns me, is that my hourly standard deviation over these 291 hrs. is $241. Although these games can get quite loose, I think this is a little high. I've heard that a good player should be at $200.
So my cumulative standad deviation is $4113, which means if I AM just running good, I may actually be beating this game for only slightly better than $10/hr. Am I figuring this correctly? Also, is $241 far too high of a hourly standard deviation for a good player? Lastly, how many hours do you need before you can take comfort in the fact that you are in fact where your numbers say you are? Thanks in advance.
Assuming you used the Malmuth/Weitzman or Mel3Brown technique of determining standard deviation, then the rest of your calculations are also correct. However, you really need to use 2 standard deviations (or 1.96 for 95% confidence), so your expected value could plausibly be just $5.73 per hour. Congratulations! Knowing that you have an edge is actually a major accomplishment. It typically takes longer to be fairly sure of this, especially in blackjack, and of course a lot of players don't play with a positive expected value.
In your question about how long it takes to be sure, well, you're there already given your good results, but with more mediocre results it would take 800 hours or more to be sure you're playing with an edge at all. To nail your edge down to +- half a small bet, you'll need to get in about 2000 hours, possibly more considering the varying set from which you are sampling.
As I recall, Mason Malmuth has posted that his standard deviation runs at 14 small bets per hour, which would be $140 for 10-20. Mine is at 15 or $150, except it's higher for games that are typically loose-aggressive, namely LA 15-30 and 20-40. It's conceivable that your high standard deviation is due to the game rather than excessive looseness on your part, but unless you can fairly call your game crazy, it might pay to find some more hands to muck preflop, especially in raised pots, as well as on the flop/turn.
-Abdul
How sure do you have to be to throw away 2 pairs on the turn if you know there is a very high probablity that you are against a made flush or straight (assuming that you don't have the proper pot odds to call for a full house). If the answer is 100%, is therefore an automatic call with 2 pairs to the river trying to get a full house or analize if you really against a flush or straight?
I have been in loose games where people drawing to flushes or straights make the top pair or 2 pairs pay maximum amount in the turn.
thank you
Sme
This is a complicated question. It has to do with your pot odds. You know that if you have slightly less than 11:1 odds, you can call with your 4 outs, this is if you are sure that you are beat. Lets say that instead there is a 50% chance that this guy has a straight, or if he doesn't there is a 50% chance he's drawing to it. So 50% of the time, you are beat, but 9% of the time this happens, you'll outdraw him. Now 50% of the time he's on a draw, with 8 outs, he'll win about 17% of the time. So in this case, you'll win about 46 percent of the time. But lets be more realistic instead say its about an 80 percent chance he's made his hand. Now in this case you'll win 23% of the time. So it would appear that you would only need 3.2:1 pot odds, but if this player will bluff on the end when he misses, you'll have to pay twice to keep him honest, so those odds almost double. So the more certain you are he's on a draw, the closer to your drawing pot odds you need.
Now I'm still somewhat of a novice player, so I don't claim to know it all, but I do know that your judgement is very important, because if you are wrong, you'll cost yourself lots and lots of money. Like for these examples, if you are wrong in your judgement of a player in this situation, you'll cost yourself lots of money. Lets say there is just enough money in the pot to warrant a call, just based on making your full house alone, about 11:1. So you call, and the river is a blank. You check, he bets. So now you are getting 13:1 odds, on you having the best hand. Now you start to think to yourself that you don't have to be right very often to show a profit. Just more then 8 percent of the time. Lets say you call, but you were wrong, and you are only right 5% of the time. This turns out to be a negative .3 big bet expectation, every time this situation comes up, which can be quite often.
I still have alot more to learn, making good folds is high on my list.
Big D
Early position player raises. This player raises with many weaker hands, even KQo. I reraise with AQo and get two more callers, including the blinds. The flop comes Q74 rainbow. Checked to me I bet, raised by small blind, cold called by weak raiser. I reraise all call. Turn is J. Check to me I bet, small blind calls, weak raiser folds. River is 2. Check to me, I bet, small blind calls. He turns over KK. The small blind isn't a great player and could have called the three bet pre-flop with lots of hands. I put him on Q with a weaker kicker, probably KQ. How was my play?
I generally don't like to play AQo against a good early position raiser. I will play it (usually for 3 bets) if I feel it is a poorer player who can easily be raising with worse, AND I can isolate with position.
You say 2 more callers including the blinds. Does this mean the flop was 6-way for 3 bets? If so, the game doesn't sound like you ever had much chance to isolate, so you may want to re-think your pre-flop play. It sounds like you played it Ok from the flop on. You're lucky the LB was weak. He should have at the very least, popped you on the turn.
It was 5 way. The original raiser was a weakish player so I reraised pre-flop. Against good players I normally fold AQo in this situation.
Yeah I think that you over played your hand because you didn't give the small blind nearly enough respect. Even if he was a weak enough player to call 3 bets from the SB with KQ it is unlikely that he would checkraise a tight aggressive player such as your self who made it three bets before the flop because you could easily have him beat. I would expect him to bet into that flop instead. I would have probably played the flop and the turn the same as you did but I would likely check the river. This player doesn't seem like the overly aggressive type, since he didn't play back at you with KK.
From your description of the original player his raising standards don't really seem very loose, raising with KQo isn't really bad, especially in a tight 10-20 game (which this game probably wasn't btw) so I might have just called him with AQo although I would three bet him if I was in late position.
If the initial raiser will raise with his best hands down to KQo, then you're raising as an underdog. Unless you had a lot of control over him (such as knowing that if you 3-bet he won't check-raise you on the turn and will only bet out with top pairs, overpairs and AK), I think that even calling here would be a mistake. My guess is that his raising requirements are even lower or you caught him with something like TT.
A bit more information on the small blind would have saved you one or 2 big bets. If you had noted his apparent passivity, you would be hard pressed to put him on KQ, which after the turn is the only hand that he reasonably could have that you can beat. On the other hand, if he was just as likely to bet Q-anything on the flop, you played it perfectly after the flop and just got unlucky.
I don't agree with your 3-bet on the flop, unless SB is a maniac. You say he "isn't a great player", but you still have to give some respect to his c-r of the flop, even if not his cold-call of 2.5 bets preflop! Even if *he* is a weak player, if his perception of *you* is as a strong player, he will know that you have a good hand here, and so his c-r means something, right? His *calling* might not mean anything (weak players love to call), but *raises* are only meaningless from maniacs. Some people love to raise with draws (and its often correct), but you say the board was rainbow, so the only draw here is 56, and he's out of position, so its unlikely to be a free-card raise (which even weak players know).
There are lots of hands that beat you - slowplayed AA/KK/QQ, plus 77, 44, Q7, Q4, and 74. Why did you put him on "a Q with a weaker kicker", rather than one of the hands I listed? It sounds to me like you were putting him on a hand you could beat (unless he raises like a maniac, which you didn't say in your message). Calling might indicate a weak queen, but raising? Is your image *that* aggressive that he would think a weak queen is good? Is he that stupid? Against normal weak opponents, I think its a bad 3-bet.
Given the size of the pot (15 bets preflop, 6 more on the flop if you just call) I think its worth going to the river to see if you can suck out on KK/Q7/Q4/74/AA - you are drawing reasonably well against KK and two pair, although you will have to play passively because you won't know when your hand is good. You have 2 outs against AA and are drawing basically dead to sets. At the river I would fold unless I had two pair or better (not only catching an ace, but if there is a running pair or the board pairs, since it might have counterfeited the SB). I wouldn't raise the river unless i ended up with quads or a big boat. I might bet if I improved my hand and the SB checked and I felt he was checking a worse two pair.
Patri
First, I would like to say I thoroughly enjoy all the posts of the many experienced players and am learning much. I've only played low limit Hold'em (3-6, 5-10) and thought from my reading a few poker books that my starting hand selection was better than the players I was playing against, but since purchasing Wilson's TTH Version 3 the advisor has been telling me to fold some hands I thought were worth a call and raise with some hands that I thought should only be called with...Is the advice that good??..I guess I have to really learn what the phrase selective and aggressive means...
I wanted TTH to hopefully teach me how to play in 20-40 mid limit games. Of the 50 game players which ones do you posters think are the best players? Best lineup? Do any of you recognize yourself in the styles of the games players? I know I can make adjustments to existing players to create new players? Any ideas on what adjustments to make? I've read Abdul sometimes refer to TTH. Did you do any adjustments to any particular players to make them play better against you? Can you possibly share any of these? Is it possible to really copy your play Abdul by doing this? I can't really afford right now to come to Bellagio's 30-60 tables and lose to you to learn any lessons :)
I know Mason Malmuth doesn't give the computer high grades of being able to play poker. I am an avid reader of poker books and Card Player magazine, but I'm also hoping TTH can be worth many times the $90 investment for the software. I would enjoy reading any posters experiences with this new version of Wilson's TTH and ideas...Thanks...
The "advise" you get is just from the "best" profile in the class. Since the profiles are pretty limited and anyway programed by non-great players, you cannot expect their advise to be stearling.
TTH doesn't play all that well. You should be able to comfortably beat the best TTH line up BEFORE you can comfortably beat a real 5/10 game.
"I wanted TTH to hopefully teach me how to play in 20-40 mid limit games." Time for a serious reality check.
Sure, its worth many times $90 for beginners since they can practive and get over the basic mechanics stuff which will cost them hundreds of $ in real life.
- Louie
Hey Louie, I bet you were expecting me. I have to disagree about Comfortably beating the Toughest TTH line-up before beating a real 5/10 game. I think that some players who beat 5/10 and below would have trouble with TTH line-up 4 and tougher.
This is just because 5/10 games are just so good. If you had said 10/20 and above I would have agreed. I guess I'm just nit picking.
Now that there is on-line poker. I rarely play TTH.
CV
OK. So its better/they're worse than I remember.
I also think the TTH software is well worth the money but it won't get you to the mid-limits.
It is still very useful to "warm-up" and practice different plays quickly. I always use it as a kind of screeen saver a and when I am waiting for something else ( this forum to load at times :) ) I play a few hands. Set to calling hands only with the harder lineups.
D.
The best turbo players are Advisor_T, Conan, Tricky Dicky, Lance, and some of the other tight players. Gypsy Rose is not very good, but she will help keep you on your toes and think twice about raising or calling after limpers.
The problem with customizing Turbo to play in a particular style is that Turbo plays much worse without the "adjust play" option and other toughness options, and with these options on Turbo partially overrides the profiles. For example, Crusty Jack, who is supposed to fold everything, plays a pretty decent game when the options are on. And even with the options off, the profile "language" is not expressive enough to allow everything that you would want to specify in a strategy.
The biggest benefit of Turbo is simply in getting in your first few hundred hours of experience where you make stupid mistakes that would be costly in a casino.
-Abdul
************ The biggest benefit of Turbo is simply in getting in your first few hundred hours of experience where you make stupid mistakes that would be costly in a casino. -Abdul **************
Amen.
-but since purchasing Wilson's TTH Version 3 the advisor has been telling me to fold some hands I thought were worth a call and raise with some hands that I thought should only be called with...Is the advice that good??.-
It can be VERY dangerous to base your play soley on the advisor in TTH. You need to understand that it does not and cannot take into account many factors that occur in real game conditions.
-Is it possible to really copy your play Abdul by doing this?-
They have yet to invent the chip capable of copying Abdul's mind for probablities and 3rd level thinking :)
-but I'm also hoping TTH can be worth many times the $90 investment for the software. -
If all you get from this software is a feel for what can really happen in a game, thereby developing patience and discipline, then this software will be worth it's weight in gold to you! I find it's also good for staying sharp on keeping track of bets, reading and becoming familiar with different flop textures and so on. But again, be careful not to put too much emphasis on what the advisors' tell you to do or on the play evaluation for that matter. I can beat up most 20-40 games pretty good and often my play evaluation will be less than 90% correct on the 'how to play' evaluation. Good luck!
"Assume the game is neither particularly loose or tight, but fairly passive (say 20-25% of the time the pre-flop gets raised). Say 3-5 people fold..., then it's up to you in mid position holding 99-66. Limp or raise, and why?"
It depends on the remaining players. Generally I would raise here. If there was no chance of stealing (e.g. all the calling stations are to my left and the rocks to my right), then I limp.
"Let's say now there's been one limper. Does that change things?"
Entirely, since (1) you aren't ever going to get the blinds, which makes up a lot of your EV from raising, (2) after two limps (as opposed to one) players with drawing hands are significantly more likely to call (which you want), and (3) if there is a raising hand behind you (which in many games will include pot-size manipulation raises) you would much prefer to put in two bets rather than three preflop, and to face more opponents rather than fewer.
Weaker pocket pairs aren't even necessarily a call in this spot (tight game, middle position, one limper, players behind you frequently raise).
"I'd like to raise it up and get heads-up with the limper, but except in very tight games, there will usually be more than one person caling two bets cold, and if they do, it's probably with two overcards to your pair. With"
If the limper is a good bluffer, it isn't always good to isolate him. With a hand like 77, on most boards you'll have a hard time knowing whether he really hit. Against a totally passive player, the isolation play makes more sense, although you have to be sure the raise will keep later players out.
"two people each holding two overcards to your pair, I think that's trouble unless the flop is very stinky."
The worst situation for you is two opponents, especially in a raised pot.
"Normally I'll just limp, hoping for a couple more callers and my 7.5:1 set odds to dial in."
In general, yes.
Hey All,
All Fold to Button, who Raises. Button is obstensibly solid, maybe a touch loose aggressive, which comes of as tight at H2 IRC. I pick up TT in small blind, suspect a steel, and reraise, planning on betting any scare cards. BB calls, and Button Caps.
3 see a flop of Jxx rainbow. I'm not happy; I'm afraid to bet into a J, who might just call, and not happy about checking, which will demand a bet from hands like AK or KQ. Me and BB checks, and Button Bets.
Should I fold? Calling gets me nowhere, I'm in the same bind next hand. I raise. Call, Call.
Turn is miracle T. I bet, BB calls, Button Raises. Reraise, fold, reraise, reraise, reraise, I call.
River is blank. I check and call.
Comments? I like my play except for last turn raise, but I also wonder about folding the flop.
Zooey
Of course it was set over set, he had JJ. Like I said, I'm mostly interested on peoples opinions on the preflop reraise and the flop check-raise.
Thanks,
Zooey
3-betting with TT in the small blind vs a button open-raise is automatic.
On the flop, when just one overcard falls a check-fold versus a preflop 4-betting blind stealer is woosy. Your check-raise to put pressure on the big blind to fold may be the best play here, though just betting out will also put a ton of pressure on him. Once the big blind cold calls two on a board of Jxx rainbow, go into check-fold mode, as at least one of your two opponents has you beat or will have you beat by the river.
Given that the button 4-bet preflop, you do have to consider that he could have JJ for jacks full. On the turn, once you doubt he would go so many raises with just AA, you have to back off. You bet, he raises, you reraise, he rereraises, you call; then on river you bet, he raises, you call, or perhaps you even just check-call... that's how it should go.
-Abdul
x
I read once that pocket rockets win 85% of the time HU and 33% of the time nine handed.
And I once saw a great post that had the win stats for starting hands, nine handed to the river. It is great for all-in assesments.
Does anyone know if there are reliable charts/stats on starting hands for 2,3,4,5,6,7 & 8 handed games?
I'm confident that K3 goes from junk 9 handed to great HU. I'd like to know what happens to other starting hands based on the number of players.
I have a powermac and consequently can't find good poker analysis software.
Thanks.
Does anyone know if Texas Hold'em is played anywhere in Ontario Canada; the closer to the general Toronto area the better.
Dexman,
Although your topic is tailored to Hold'em, it still doesn't relate to the overall Theory and Strategy motif that has been designated for this forum. In the future, such logistical questions should be posted on the Other Topics forum. And I can't help you. I've only been to Toronto on a band trip in high school.
WFM
10-20, I have A-Ko in middle position. Fold to me, I raise, loose caller ("LC") calls, Button (reasonably solid) re-raises, blinds fold, I call, LC calls.
Flop: K-Q-2 rainbow. I bet, LC calls, button raises. I call, LC calls.
Turn is another 2, fourth suit. I check, LC checks, Button bets. I fold, LC calls. LC also calls river and Button shows QQ (LC mucks).
My read after the flop was that the button had no worse than AK. That being the case, should I have folded to the raise on the flop? I think I should either fold if I am sold that he has the goods or re-raise if I have doubts. I don't like the call here.
Also, if you were the button, would you wait to pop on the turn? Most of the time I would, since LC already called and I am not going to get him out anyway on the flop.
To Scott: yrejiozsgfm si9 dasfdji Ouch, I just hit my head on my keyboard.
To others: Lo, see how most opponents play; come hither ye tough players and semi-bluff bet and raise them into oblivion!
-Abdul
This is really an uncalled for response. It takes a some courage to post a question on this forum, and no question should be seen as a bad question. Otherwise, open, inquiring discussion will not happen. I have occasionally seen other put-down posts of this sort here. The posters are like little children. But your arrogance here and at other times is really too much. The best players will know to take many of your ideas with more than a grain of salt anyway, but some of these learning players accept even your more obviously wrong ideas with little question. At least deliver them without being obnoxious.
Lurker:
I have to disagree with your comments to Abdul on two levels.
Level 1: Abdul obviously feels this was a terrible laydown (and unless Scott has an amazing read on this player, I think many would agree with him, even I think so, and I don't know much). If I'm trying to improve my game by posting hands on this forum I WANT HONEST ANSWERS from the experts - and Abdul more than qualifies. If I received this response I know that I need to take a serious look at this aspect of my game. I don't need to be coddled. No other response will stick with Scott and the rest of us like Abdul's will. If I make a bonehead move AND ask for help on this forum I would hope someone would assess it firmly like Abdul did.
Level 2: It was really funny - lighten up. :)
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Abdul response suited Abdul's purpose. IMO his response was pointedly sarcastic. He did manage to point out that semi-bluffing is a valuable tool. He did not answer Scott's questions. Good response? Maybe for Abdul, not for Scott.
"My read after the flop was that the button had no worse than AK. That being the case, should I have folded to the raise on the flop? "
Pretty good read given the results. No, you should not fold to the raise. You have top pair with top kicker. The hands the raiser could have that beat you are A,A, K,K or Q,Q. There 3 ways to make A,A, 1 way for K,K and 3 ways for Q,Q = 7. A,K = 9 ways. Most players will not raise with a set on the flop so you are really worried about A,A. The K,Q pose a problem because the raiser may be trying to make LC fold a J,T and might raise with a set to get rid of him. You are in a tough situation. The LC poses another problem he may have a hand like K,Q althought that is unlikely since he never raised. A flop reraise is a viable option against a weak player but if you read that the button needed a big hand to make this play then the best play you have may be to call.
"I think I should either fold if I am sold that he has the goods or re-raise if I have doubts. I don't like the call here."
The only way you can be "sold" that he has the goods here is if he shows you his hand. Well if you know for certain he wouldn't 3 bet preflop without A,A or K,K then you could be certain but there are not that many players around like that but there are a few.
"Also, if you were the button, would you wait to pop on the turn? Most of the time I would, since LC already called and I am not going to get him out anyway on the flop. "
I would normally wait and raise the turn.
Vince.
Vince:
An excellent analysis, as always. You make a valid point regarding Abdul's post. It didn't really add his insight into Scott's question, yours did.
As I ponder this hand in my newbie mind I guess it wasn't a "terrible" laydown if Scott has a good read on the button. But it's definitely not one that I would/could make.
My point regarding Abdul's post is that Scott asked for opinions and got one. And although sarcastic, frankly it is one that will be remembered by me and others when we're at the table trying not to make the same "mistakes". In that way - it is a good post, too.
Michael
PS- I still thought it was pretty funny too. :)
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
I didn't really think it was all that funny, but you are correct in that it made an impact. Quantifying the likelihood of AK vs. the other big hands and breaking down the hand is much more helpful and appreciated, however.
Look, I'm a big boy and don't mind getting skewered. No problem there. (Obviously I felt there was a good chance of skewering or I would not have posted this hand). But I post and read here for the analysis, not for the witty banter of the Abduls of the world. I think most of us minor leaguers feel that way....
Vince,
You wrote, "A,K = 9 ways."
Since there was a king on the flop, AK = 6 ways.
Pardon,
Vince
You definitely should have called his raise on the flop and should have called his bets on the turn and river as well.
If he had no worse than AK, you'll get half the pot about half the time. With 10+ bets preflop and the middle guy likely to hang on to the end, that's more than what you need.
Specifically, on the turn, he can have 6 possibilities of AK vs. 7 of AA, KK or QQ. As the hand eventually played out, and ignoring your drawing chances, your call on the turn would have given you a net positive expectation of 3 small bets, which should more than compensate for the chance that the third player had a live draw.
Thanks for the response -- good analysis. What about the strategy of raising on the flop vs. waiting? One possibility is that by raising on the flop like that, it makes it look more like AK because most guys will wait for the turn with a set. I doubt he thought it through that much, but it's a thought.
I take it you mean his strategy of raising on the flop. I'd do the same thing with a set. Heads-up I'll often wait for the turn to raise but with 10 bets in the pot and a bet and raise to me, I'll normally jam as soon as I can.
I agree with Chris, here. Lots of people, especially in the lower limits love to wait to bet. Sometimes the best deception in situations like a set on the button is to just keep betting, especially if there was a preflop raiser and one or two others. I want to get those wild card hands out as soon as possible and get heads up with a more knowable quantity like the raiser. Bet out and raise with a set on the button, they'll never put you on it.
"Bet out and raise with a set on the button, they'll never put you on it. "
Not true! Once you show a set you raised with on the flop your opponents will adjust against you.
Vince.
oh come on.
Hey Abdul, I'm still learning. But I hold my own -- I don't consider myself one of the "most opponents" you allude to, though I may not be one of the "tough ones", either. Still working on it. If you don't want to be helpful, that's cool. But you shouldn't post a supercilious, insulting response, either. I would much prefer you criticize with substance -- i.e. how would you play that hand?
Are you saying you would never lay down A-K there? What kind of "semi-bluff" would you be looking for? A-J? J-J? Realistically, the guy could have JJ, QQ, KQs, KK, AK, AKs, or AA. MAYBE AJs or AQs, but I doubt it. Most solid players will not reraise with less against minimum 2 opponents, and many require at least JJ or QQ. I felt strongly that I was beaten and possibly drawing dead. Was that really such a bad laydown?
yes..it was very bad
No Scott you really can't lay the hand down there because he could easily have AK. However it might be correct to check call him the whole way instead of betting the flop. This would only be true if he was a tight 3 better (JJ-AA and AK) because then either he he liked the flop a lot or he is drawing to 2 outs.
The only reason that you can check call here is because you don't need to protect your hand from overcards, there is a situation similiar to this in HPFAP.
Shawn Keller
Abdul, instead of criticizing someone's play, why don't you bomb the World Trade Center or something...
Arafat
This lurker is not Abdul. This board seems to have a clickish nature to it like high school. Some individuals attack without fear of chastisement, others are harshly criticized for it. Abdul has offerred some of the most inciteful, well thought out, documented advice in this forum. If a poster's ego is bruised by scarcasm then perhaps he should look for a softer past time.
My sarcastic tone was rude, and I apologize. My intention was to slap some sense into the vocal group here that advocate weak-tight play. If I may be brisk one last time, I believe I make most of my money from otherwise good players playing with this flaw, not from the maniacs or true fish. As I pointed out, since many opponents play this way, it's doubly important to semibluff and play aggressively.
Now, as others pointed out, here there is a reasonable chance that your hand is tied for best. You are getting 8:1 in immediate odds from the pot, or 4:1 in effective odds given that you'll have to call one more bet by the river. If the only hands your opponent could have are AA (3 ways), KK (1 way), QQ (3 ways), or AK/AKs (6 ways), and he would always play the hands that way, then you're a dog to win the hand, so you should fold, right? Wrong. 6/13ths of the time you'll win half the pot, at least 4 big bets, and 7/13ths of the time you'll lose 2 big bets calling your opponent down. Therefore, folding relative to checking and calling to the river costs you (6/13)(4)+(7/13)(-2)=0.77 big bets, or a huge chunk of your hourly potential.
Now I've ignored the loose caller, who may fold on the turn, or may call and be drawing dead, or may call with a strong draw like JT. I've also ignored the fact that the preflop 3-bettor could have AQ, JTs, or other hands, which is actually a big consideration for more borderline cases.
This may be your flaw. You may be folding when you think you do not have greater than a 50% chance of having the best hand. Instead, you should fold when you are more sure you're beat than the breakeven pot odds for calling.
Hope this helps. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with such a coherent analysis of the flaw in your play before, but I was in shock.
-Abdul
I will contemplate this on the Tree of Woe. Thanks.
Now that was a good response!
Vince.
I think this is right on the money. There are almost as many ways the button can have AK as a big pocket pair such as AA, KK, or QQ. You bet out on the flop, you are asking for a raise. A 3-bettor looking at such a flop will either raise or fold in the face of a bet. If he is any good, he will raise with a great deal of hands, a lot of which you can beat. Furthermore, when you call his raise, he is pretty much committed to betting out on the turn, unless a really scary card hits. Your course of action is forcing this player to play his hand in a very aggressive manner.
I think check calling is the way to go with this hand. Most bettors won't bluff all the way (including the river) if they think they will be called by a hand that may be weak but is superior to theirs. If he has the goods, so be it. I think a lot of people who post on here seem to think that making big laydowns is a critical component to their game. Big laydowns are very important parts of pot limit or no limit poker, as well as big money limit games. You should be able to lay down a hand here or there in mid limit poker (ie, the reverse implied odds situations and such described in HEFAP)but overall, I call with a lot of my big hands (top pair with strong kicker) even if I have a suspicion they may be second best very often because a. i look like a straightforward unbluffable calling station in these situations and b. I often give too much credit to my opponent and he/she is in fact holding an inferior hand.
Thanks for the copy of your spreadsheet. It looks great. I've played 216 hours and am up $8. using the spreadsheet you provided I have a variance of $85 and an expected win rate of $0.04/hour. I need over $4,000,000 bankroll and to ensure a win I need to play over 43,000,000 hours.
I guess that makes sense mathematically since my win rate is .04 and my variance is 85.
Needless to say, my game needs work! At least my trend line has positive slope.
I have a question though. How would you factor in the differences between the various ways casinos have you pay. Currently I play the worst way - collection. I pay about $13/hour in collections. I, of course, include that when I compute an outcome from a playing session (i.e. I buy in for $100 and walk away with $150 -- that's a win of $50 even though I may have payed $100 in collecitons). I ask this because I believe my stats would look MUCH BETTER if the casinos I frequent took a rake instead of colleciton - I'd probably be up at least $1000.
Thanks,
-Michael
I would keep different worksheets for different games. Even same limit Stud games with a different ante structures should be put into seperate work sheets. Just copy my sheet and start over with the different game. I currently have 10 or so sheets for all the different games, limits, and structures I play. I even keep my on-line games seperate from my live games.
CV
Could I get a copy?
If your sending them out I would like 1 also
m7h1j5@aol.com
Thanks,
MJ
If anyone else would like one just send me an E-Mail.
CV
.
Actually what I'm asking is everyone's thoughts on how method and amount of payment impacts results. All casinos force you to pay to play. That makes sense. But there are various ways they collect payment. I pay collection which I believe is the worst way for the player. I'm currently up $8 after playing 216 hours of poker with colleciton. If these games had been raked instead, I think I'd be over $1000 ahead.
I think the method by which the casino gets paid skews the results. And in my case, they're skewed in the worst possible way (colleciton at a 3-6 table).
Any thoughts on how to better gauge my play?
Or even another question: If I can break even in 3-6 with a $3 colleciton after 216 hours of play, can I hold my own in a 10-20 game? I realize there are significant adjustments to make from one game to the other.
Thanks,
-Michael
All I can say is you should stop playing 3-6 with collection. Thats not Rake, its Rape! If you study 2+2 books, and play tight you should be able to move up to at least 6/12 IMO.
CV
If possible could you send me a copy of your spreadsheet at the above e-mail, Thankyou.
I was 3-6 Hold'em BB position, no pre-flop raises with kc-8c, the flop comes 8-8-A, there are four people involved and i am first to act. I checkraise the button after the flop. Turn is a 5, I bet, everyone calls, River is Q, I bet, everyone calls. I lose to the button with pocket 5's for a Full House. Did I play this wrong?
You did fine. The pocket fives is really the one making a mistake here with only two outs. Your checkraising shows lots of strength, if he (or she) wants to stick around when it is obvious that you have an eight or better, then no amount of betting is going to make them fold. Run this hand on a computer and I assure you that you are going to win more times than not, they got lucky on you.
Depending upon your image and the style of the opponents, this is definitely a hand with which you should consider a slow-play on the flop. How suspicious will they be if you call the flop? How will they react if you bet out?
I really don't like the check-raise when it is the button who bet out. You are usually shutting out the rest of the field by doing this, and since many or most of the field will be drawing dead or almost dead to your hand, you don't mind letting them stay in.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The 55 played perfectly before the flop. Now he needs to read chapter two.
If you check-raise its practically a cynch (?synch?) they'll put you on an 8 and won't raise unless they fill up. If you BetTheFlop its practically a sinch (?cinch?) they'll put you on a weak Ace and you may get a couple extra bets in before they figure you for an 8 (you call the raise from AQ, check-raise the turn). If you chase them all out they weren't drawing to a hand they would call on the turn anyway; well, few hands you WANT them to call. This is a good non-compelling argument; worthy of consideration but NOT to be applied mindlessly (except against hyper aggressive always-slow-play croud).
My priorities would be (1) bet and reraise now (2) bet and check-raise the turn whether or not its raised (2.5) bet, call and checkraise if raised otherwise bet the turn (3) check-and-call then check-raise (4) check-raise now.
Your check-raise is not wrong.
- Louie
But that has no affect on you losing the hand. Don't worry, be happy; you ARE GOING to lose pots you play perfectly.
One factor that may affect your willingness to check-raise vs. check-call in such a situation on the flop in a typical low limit game is if the flop is rainbow or if there are two of a suit. I may be more inclined to check-call if the flop is three different suits. If the flop brings with it the possibility of a flush draw, with the button betting, you have a good opportunity to try and shut out flush draws. On the other hand, you may be better off check-calling and check-raising the turn, as a flush draw will (rightly) cold call the flop, and would then be right to also call your turn bet, but would probably not cold call on the turn.
Just a thought,
Carlos
Tough player raises in middle position, Big Blind called. Head up pot. Big Blind has 76s. Flop K72 rainbow, one of blind's suits. Blind checks and calls. Next card is six. Blind checks and calls. Last card is ten. Blind check raises. What mistakes, if any, did blind make in this hand?
Should have check raised on flop to figure out where he was. If reraised, call and take the turn. If only called by tough player, tough player on AQ, maybe 99, TT, AJ. Bet out on turn, likely win it right there.
-If only called by tough player, tough player on AQ, maybe 99, TT, AJ.-
What about KK?
I don't like the check-and-call on the flop. If the raiser missed, I'd rather bet out or check-raise so he doesn't hit one of his probably 2 overcards on the turn. Which play I pick depends upon the opponent, i.e., which play is more likely to get him to fold now, or fold on the turn when I bet out.
If I only check-and-called on the flop, and then catch this card for 2-pair, I am again going to bet out or check-raise, not check-and-call again. If I think my opponent will bet often, I will go for the check-raise. If he is likely to check if he has missed the board, I bet out and hope he calls, rather than give him a free card (in case he has a small pocket pair like 44, and may call me down in case I'm bluffing or semi-bluffing).
Again on the river, there is no hand my opponent is likely to hold that I can't beat. However, there are lots of hands that he may check with that he will also call my bet with, such as AT, JTs, QQ, 99, etc. Now that I've called twice with no apparent draws available, he has to give me credit for something. As such, he will fear a K, unless he can beat a K. Overall, unless I've seen some tell that makes me think he will bet, or unless he's a player that almost always follows through and bets the river, I'll bet out rather than go for the check-raise. If I am confident he will bet, then I will go for the check-raise.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
-i.e., which play is more likely to get him to fold now,-
Playing Devil's advocate here...
Why do you want him to fold now? You are either already beat, or he is drawing to 6 outs in which case you are the favorite to win the hand.
Big Blind called. Heads up pot. Big Blind has 76s.
Defending the BB with this suited connector is fine. What this hand needs is some luck and that's just what he got. The split two pair heads ups is a strong hand. The "tough" player may just have Ax Kx check/call the flop is OK. I would bet out on the turn and the river. if reraised on the river call. Can this player put you on 76s? It sure is possiable but he could be just betting his weak King or over pair.
Best of it !!
MJ
Please explain why "defending the BB with this suited connector is fine." Assume the blinds are 15-30 (??) then he is sending $60 after an existing pot of $165 (2.75 to 1). Is the reasoning that no unseen hand is that much of a favorite over 6-7s? How much should the bad position modify this?
The biggest mistake seems to me to be the check/call on the turn, giving hands like AK a chance to draw out.
If your going to defend this BB then connected and suited is a plus. It gives you other ways to win than just over cards.
-It sure is possiable but he could be just betting his weak King or over pair. -
How many tough players do you know that play a weak King from middle position?
I thought you were referring to KXs. Of course by weak King you could have meant KQ,KJ. Sorry.
A lot of the answer greatly depends on the adjective "tough." Does that mean tough as in aggressive, tough as in hard to read, or tough as in semi-maniacal? Can he have KK? JJ? QJs? How much respect can you give his raise in general, and specifically in middle position?
The answer is: not very much respect. The reason is that if the BB respected TP's raise he would have folded his 76s rather than defend the 60.
With that in mind, when the flop comes down Kxx rainbow, he needs to come out betting. For all he knows, he now has the best hand with second best pair. But by checking and calling, he'll never find out.
When the 6 comes down he has two options: come out betting again, still representing the king when the 6 "obviously" didn't help anyone. Or check, with the intention of a check raise. Again, what does tough mean? Does tough mean aggressive? If so, go for the check, and hope your opponent bets. If tough means "expert" then you have to keep betting because he's not going to fall for the check raise routine and you've then lost a bet.
On the river, I suppose it's nice that the BB got a check raise in...finally. But given that the 7-6 "rags" helped the BB, and that the BB didn't respect TP's raise to begin with, there's no guarantee that the 10 didn't help TP's hand. TT? KTs? Heck, he can still have KK. BB will never know because he called the whole way through.
Dan
Failing to check-raise on the turn and going for the check-raise on the river because the opponent is much more likely to call a turn raise than he is to bet the river, much less call a check-raise on the river, with a hand that will lose to 76.
Specifically, if the bettor has something like AQ, he might fold to a raise on the turn but probably won't bet or payoff on the river anyway, so waiting for the river gives the two pair no advantage.
If the bettor has something like AK or 99, the two pair will get another bet out of him a bit more often by check-raising on the turn than by calling on the turn and betting on the river.
The check-raise on the river seems dangerous because nearly all the hands that can play for 2 bets on the river (hands better than AK, I presume) can beat 7's and 6's.
$60-$120 is so far over my head as to be in a different universe, but in the interest of furthering my education, I’ll give it a shot. On the flop I would have bet. If I were raised, I would fold if I thought he would have raised only with a king in his hand or a pair or aces, otherwise, I would take one off. Pairing my six, I would check raise if he had raised my bet on the flop. If he had only called, I would bet again. (I would also have bet again had I picked up a flush draw.) If I had checked raised on the turn and he only called, I’d bet the river. If he had re-raised my raise on the turn. I’d check and call. If he had simply called my turn bet, I’m not sure what I’d do. At the levels I play at, I’d probably bet again. Against a tough player, though, I might try for a check raise.
Calling with 76s has got to be a bad play here since the Raiser is Tough and came in from Middle Position. He still may be on the steal, but he has to have narrowed his hands down to the point that calling with a 76s is not profitable.
I think a Check Raise on the Flop is the Best play. The tough player is not a favorite to have a Pair of Kings or Better (since he has to have loosened up a bit to possibly steal), will bet anything, and may laydown a pocket pair of QQ or lower when checkraised.
CV
Chris,
If you are not going to defend your blinds with 76 suited in a game were most blinds are going to be raised, just what will you defend with?
Regards,
Rick
Thats true. After I posted I had to think about it. The closer the Raiser is to UTG, the more likely he has a quality hand. The lower my cards are the more likely overcards will fall and I may have to muck the best hand. The Tougher the opponent is the harder it will be to play the hand.
76s is just on the line. I'd play it if the tough opponent came in from late position with a raise. Since it is now more likely that he has a less than quality hand.
CV
I think calling with this hand in the big blind is marginal, but acceptable. I would put tough player on either a big pair or AK or AKs. On the flop I like the call with six possible outs. On the turn one of those possible outs makes it, but a check raise is in order to try and define the hand at this point. Does tough player have KK's or not? A tough aggresive player will go over the top and re-raise with top set and then folding is probably the best option since now you know you are drawing dead. Also a tough player will likely lay down AKo or AKs or even TT's at this point.
with the structure of 60-120, you are getting 3.7-1. i definitely call preflop.
on the flop i might check call and i might check raise. if AQ or an equivalent 2 overcards to my pair would fold to my check raise then i would check raise. (and if he would fold TT or KJs it would be sin not to check raise.) most players would take a card off to my check raise. so i would usually check call.
once i check called. when i hit my 2 pair, i like the check raise here. a K will probably call me down. you'd rather he fold but when you win you get an extra bet. which is profitable. a wired pair smaller than K's will probably fold to my raise. which is good.
if i am called, i bet the river and call a raise. if i am raised on the turn i call. and check call the river.
but the hand is trickier if you don't catch your 2 pair on the turn. one advantage of the check raise is hands like QJs, which may very well check behind you, will fold to a bet. and they are drawing dead. check raising allows you to make some money from them when they check down the turn and catch. but without 2 pair, free cards are bad.
if a card less than T comes on the turn that does not pair the board or help my hand, i bet out. usually fold to a raise. depends on the player.
if the board pairs, i check raise. he might lay down a K here. and he will bet without the K.
if a big card comes. i am not sure if i bet-fold, check-fold, or check-call. i think that it is very player dependent.
scott
What if you check and he also checks then u lose a bet on the turn. With the two pair I think just bet out.
i lose a bet when he would have called. most hands he would call with, he would bet with.
if he folds his weak K or wired pair less than K's to the turn raise that is also very good for you. i think he will call a turn bet with these hands more often than he calls a turn check raise. and i think he almost always bets them.
and, the no pair hands are drawing dead. give them a free card.
if this particular guy is big on inducing bluffs, say rick for example, i might bet the turn. but in this hand against the bb i think he bets those hands.
scott
scott,
I tend to agree with much of your top post and got a kick out of this one. Anyway, I've never played bigger than 20/40 so keep that in mind.
Anyway, you wrote: "if this particular guy is big on inducing bluffs, say rick for example, i might bet the turn. but in this hand against the bb i think he bets those hands."
My weakest mid position raise (let us say three players are left to act other than the blinds) with a king would be about a KJ. I would tend to raise with most pairs better than sixes and maybe QJ suited. I would also raise with AT on up.
I would tend to bet the turn with all pairs weaker than QQ which I might check. I would tend to check most ace high hands that missed against tricky opponents. I would tend to check my weakest king (KJ). I would bet my total busts (QJ).
If you bet, I would call down my weak kings, maybe slowplay my AK, have a real tough decision with my medium pairs, and throw away my ace high hands (unless my opponent was a frequent bluffer).
In view of this, how would you play me on the turn?
Regards,
Rick
well, i've never played bigger than 6-12. so, here goes nothing.
i think you checking your A high hands doesn't really affect anything, because i get 1 bb out of them no matter what. i mean, if your strategy was to bet them, you would fold them to a check raise.
unless you hit on the river, which you will sometimes. i might get 2 bets out of an AQ if i bet the river A after the turn checks out.
checking gets i bb more out of your busts.
the thing is i really hate giving your decent hands (KJ QQ) a free card.
if you might fold the medium pairs to a bet, then i believe you would fold them to a check raise.
checking gets an extra bet out of KQ AK AA.
see, if you wouldn't induce bluffs with your weakest decent hands, everything points towards checking.
even in this case, i think i check raise the turn. but when the turn gets checked out, i am nowhere near happy as i would be against players who would bet the QQ and the KJ.
scott
The parameters are set against what DS calls a "tough" player. Well, the toughest players are the ones hardest to put on a hand, so let's play it as a heads up match from the getgo. I play my 76s, if I had feel for the table I might even reraise. With the flop I bet out and get a gauge on this guy. Might win it right there but I don't think so. If raised I'll take off card. Catching two pair I don't want to get too fancy, I'd hate to get checked out and a deuce hit the river. So, I bet. If raised I'll throw in one reraise and see where we are. I'll still bet out on the river.
Are the blinds 30-60? Then the BB has to put in 60, there is already his first 60 plus the raiser's 120. He's only getting 3:1. (If I'm not missing something.)
I thought a non-blind needs 4 or 5 other callers (total) to call with 76s in an UNraised pot. So why should the blind, out of position, call a raise with only 3:1 odds? Maybe because this is 60-120 and not 3-6? Please explain, someone.
Kate
well, you forgot the sb. it would be 3.5-1 in your structure. also, 60-120 is played with a 40 sb. i am not actually 100% sure about this, but i think so. i am sure 15-30 has 10 for the sb and 30-60 has 20 for the sb. so it is really 3.7-1.
also, this is heads up. that means 1 pair might be good. and that you can manuever with draws etc. you want to play 76s against 1 opp or at least 4. 2 opp is very bad.
scott
Scott, Thanks - that helps. Kate
scott,
You wrote: "also, this is heads up. that means 1 pair might be good. and that you can manuever with draws etc. you want to play 76s against 1 opp or at least 4. 2 opp is very bad."
You have this concept nailed although I would say that three opponents is the worst and four is almost as bad. Figure to get called by the $40 small blind so you won't ever have two opponents (I assume someone limped).
I'd like to expand upon your thoughts a bit since it has been a while since I have had time to post. You can't call with 76 suited on the button getting close to the same odds because you would have about three or four opponents (one or two limpers plus the blinds). With three or four opponents, your high card strength is insignificant, and at the same time, you do not quite have enough good flops to make it worthwhile.
In other words, when you flop a good draw (about 25% of the time), you will have to make it and you will hardly get your price. When you flop a pair, you have too many opponents to outplay. And the big hands are too rare to matter much.
Regards,
Rick
scott and Kate (and perhaps my lurking Student),
I was just showing this to my friend Greg (a tough yellow chip player) so I'll add our collective thoughts. In simple terms, even though a hand like 76 suited wants many opponents, it also plays well against one opponent for half price, especially when you have the dead money of the 2/3 size small blind.
Other hands that fall in this catagory are small pairs and Ax suited. A lot of opponents or just one are great while two to four are very bad.
Regards,
Rick
you're right about not having 2 opp in this structure. but is 4 opp really that bad? if you had 76s on the button, you wouldnt limp after 2 limpers?
i think i would. is this a leak?
scott
scott,
We both agree that two or three opponents is bad (BTW, you will often get two in a 3/6 structure with a tight small $1 blind).
Perhaps I overstated with four opponents but I would say it is at least slightly negative in expectation (especially in a rake game). That being said, I would call in a time or dead drop game against passive predictable opponents who don't put much pressure on after the flop yet pay you off on the river.
The thing you want to avoid is catching a draw with two aggressive post flop opponents who make you pay to get there. As I'm sure you have figured your overlay on making your hand is miniscule based on the post flop money and the pre flop money is just not there with only four opponents.
Anyway, if it is a leak it is a small one as a player of your ability should be able to find other ways to win with this hand. As a rule of thumb to an aspiring player I would recommend that they have three limpers in front of them with middle suited connectors and single gappers (I like single gap hands almost as much). I would give the same advice as to the play of Ax suited. Small pairs can be played with fewer opponents since they tend to hit the flop hard when they hit.
BTW, was it you that wrote somewhere recently: "the worst case for small pairs is to be against two tough opponents, one of who has raised"? That is correct IMHO.
Regards,
Rick
i agree with everything here.
not only can small pairs take fewer players (ok down to even 3 opp), they can also take more preflop raises (i'd cold call if i'd have 5 opp, assuming one blind will call.) small pairs are just more robust than suited connectors.
i don't think i said that quote, but i definitely agree with it.
scott
I think most of you are missing a key point.
There is nothing wrong with checking and calling on the flop, PROVIDED.... that your opponent also views YOU as a tough player.
Certainly, a case can be made for mucking 76s heads-up, out of position, against a tough player. Then again, under certain circumstances, a case can be made for playing it.
Once the flop was seen however, the BB either has the best hand or is behind (possibly severely so). Those of you reccomending betting out here, are not taking into account that in a tough game AQ is as likely to raise you, as a hand that you are severely behind to. So what have you gained by betting out? You are either putting in more money with the worst hand, or winning a smaller pot when you are the favorite. Again, if the tough player also views you as a tough player, your play on the flop (checking and calling) has to concern him.
On the turn, the BB may have reasoned that it was difficult for the tough player to put him on any kind of a draw, so with KK he might not have bet the turn in order to gain an extra bet on the river. When he did not do this, the BB could have figured his 2-pair were good, waited for a safe card on the river and then check/raised. Note if he check/raises the turn, a tough player might 3 bet with AK and then check behind on the river. Of course the BB cannot know this, and has to figure it could cost him 4 bets total. So he waits until the river to check/raise. (David never did mention who won the hand)....
He played it right if (1) he believed it likely he was beat on the flop but then lightning struck and he figured the other guy had no pair on the turn (2) HE KNEW the guy would bet the turn no-matter what and he planned to raise except then he made a slow-payable hand; sort of. (3) He KNEW the guy would call a turn raise and pay it off if paired OR would automatically bet the river and pay it off if paired. Waiting for the river saves a bet if the board pairs unfavorably on the end and he GAINs a bet if the player will fold no-pair on the turn. (4) He needs to be "tricky" and THIS hand is is "once in a while". (5) He's encouraging free cards in future hands since he plans to often speculate from the blinds or early position. (6) what did I miss?
So he played it perfectly so long as it was (#3), except he should have raised either on the flop or the turn against this tough and not so predictable opponent.
- Louie
I like his call before the flop.
He should bet the flop.
He should bet the turn or check raise the turn.
Bet the River.
Of course if he knows his opponent to be very aggressive he may have played the turn and river correctly but I believe he got "lucky".
Vince.
...of course depending on how you define tough player and how the tough player thinks of your play and how he thinks you think he plays... etc.
This would me probably my main betting order against many "tough" opponents who are relatively tight but aggressive.
It maximizes bluff inducement plus protects agains conterfeiting of my two pair.
I don't want to lose him on the turn if he is drawing dead. I also get to see the river in case my two pair gets conterfeited or an ace show.
Many "tough" players will value bet the river with AK.
What the hell... I may be protected against his pocket KK on the river with the possible straight.
76s BTW is a great BB defense hand.
Great Play DS... I mean BB!!
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
I think you're right. I've looked it over a couple times, and I can't see what he (the BB) should have done differently.
Since the pot is heads up it is correct for the BB to call on the flop with middle pair. The BB can assume that the bettor has a pair. When the BB makes two pair on the turn he is likely to have the best hand in a head up pot. Since the BB figures his opponent to continue betting he checks on the river with the intention of check-raising. Typical head up play for the BB against an aggressive opponent.
David,
I will answer this problem before looking at anyone else's reply. I'm very tired so forgive me if my logic fails here or there and don't expect a lot of math. Flames from all are welcome, as I really would like to know where my game is right now.
You asked: "What mistakes, if any, did the blind make in this hand?"
You wrote: " Tough player raises in middle position, Big Blind called. Head up pot. Big Blind has 76s."
The call is correct. This is too good a hand to throw away against even the toughest mid position raiser, especially since there is no other player to worry about. A much worse call would be with a hand such as KT or Q9, which can easily make a hand that will tend to win a little or lose a lot.
"Flop K72 rainbow, one of blind's suits. Blind checks and calls."
This is a reasonably good flop for the blind (our hero) head up. Our hero can check and be virtually certain his tough opponent will bet almost any hand he has (except the KK, AK and AA, which the tough player may want to slowplay). I would guess that half of the tough player's hands are worse than a middle pair at this point in the hand. When they are worse, they will usually be overcards to the pair of sevens. Would a flop check raise drive these hands out? At this level, I don't think so. The tough player should be capable of calling or re-raising with AQ, AJ, AT, A9, and perhaps even QJ or QT. I like keeping the pot small against a tough opponent here.
Now when the tough opponent has a better hand, it will usually be some sort of an overpair or a hand with a king in it. A check raise by our hero would face an almost automatic reraise from the king and would often be raised by hands such as a pair of jacks. Higher limit players just don't give up easily on the flop.
What about leading into the raiser with middle pair? This may be the play at 10/20, but a 60/120 player would raise with too many hands in order to keep the pressure on. Now he has enough to call a single bet; yet he is costing himself money when he is behind.
I think the check and call is quite reasonable under the circumstances. BTW, the three flush adds quite a bit to this hand and favors the check and call approach.
"Next card is six. Blind checks and calls."
Now the blind has a strong hand unless he is against a set of kings, which is unlikely. I think it is safe to assume that the tough pre flop raiser will bet just about anything, except perhaps those hands that are drawing dead anyway but may call the river if the turn is checked down (e.g., AQ, AJ, AT).
The hands that are not drawing dead mostly have eight outs. One class of hands is overpairs, for which the eight outs include the three deuces, the three kings, and the two pair cards. Aces of course call or even raise. But QQ, JJ, TT, 99, and 88 may fold. So for this class, a check raise seems to be the better play, but not by much, since the decision to call or fold is somewhat close (from the pre flop raiser's perspective).
The king-kicker also has eight outs (two kings, three kickers, and three deuces). What about check-raising these hands? Well, I believe they will all call, and you wish they didn't. Now at best you are going to get a simple call on the river or be facing paying off a bet when they improve. So for these hands the check and call appears much better with the intention of betting on the river if the board does not pair the king or the deuce.
So, what do we have here? When the opponent has a hand that is drawing dead, we are happy to check and call. When the opponent has an overpair, it is close between betting, check raising and check calling. When the opponent has a king kicker, check calling is a lot better. So I like the check and call on the turn.
"Last card is ten. Blind check raises."
The ten is usually a safe card for our hero. I believe the tough opponent will at least call down almost every hand he could have when our hero bets. He will raise with the monsters and maybe the AK (because of the possible AK raise, our hero has a crying call). But he will only bet the monsters and king decent kicker type hands. He will probably check down all ace high hands along with all middle pairs. I believe you will loose a bet often enough on the river to want to simply come out betting.
I know this type of problem could use some more math, bayesian analysis, and a little less convoluted writing but I'm just too tired these days. Anyway, that is my opinion. Flame away.
Regards,
Rick
For the turn you wrote:
"What about check-raising these hands? Well, I believe they will all call, and you wish they didn't. Now at best you are going to get a simple call on the river or be facing paying off a bet when they improve. So for these hands the check and call appears much better ..."
I don't get this. You may wish they fold but isn't still better for them to pay two bets? You would be happy to raise a straight draw on the turn that had 8 outs.
D.
David,
Let me rethink that one and maybe tonight I will repost if the thread is still fresh.
Regards,
Rick
He should have bet the flop.
Too many responses here, so I did not read any. Here are my thoughts:
BB should bet or check raise the flop.
As BB check called the flop, he should check raise the turn for value. BB cannot count on getting another bet on the river and should not go for a check raise there, as the opponent might not want to bet his 77/QQ.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Read that as 88/QQ.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Why lead bet or check raise the flop? By checking (with the intention of calling), you learn a lot about the pre-flop raisers hand; namely, that he probably likes the K if he checks, but doesn't like it if he bets (I'm assuming that the pre-flop raiser would slow play an AK, KK or AA on this flop, given that the flop is so ragged and the pot's heads up). If he bets he probably doesn't like the K, which allows you to either a) lead bet, or b) check raise the turn (whichever gives you the better chance of 'representing' the K and therefore getting your opponent to fold). When you improve on the turn you can be fairly sure that you've got the best hand, so you don't want the other guy to fold (which he might do if you check raise, since he probably doesn't like the K). On the river it's fairly close between lead betting and check raising, but I'd probably go for a check raise, figuring that if your opponent is at all aware he'll know that you had to call with SOMETHING on the flop and turn (given that the flop was so ragged) and therefore would be reluctant to try and push through overcards. However, since you've shown no signs of 'liking' the K, he will probably value bet QQ-99.
Why lead bet or check raise the flop?
You're testing me, right?
You bet or check-raise your pair of sevens on the flop for value as you beat the opener's A8s-AQo, you terrorize his pocket 99-QQ and plan to suckout on his KJ-AK and the backdoor draw helps here a lot, thankyouverymuch.
By checking (with the intention of calling), you learn a lot about the pre-flop raisers hand;
You need no stinkin' information about his hand here, as you have no position to use it anyway. I don't care if the opponent likes the king or not, I can tell you he doesn't like to get raised.
You can check-raise the turn (for value) as there are few free cards to beat your two pair. Hell, you can bet into him as well to cover for weaker hands you'll be betting here next time.
You can't check-raise the river, as he'll be too terrified to bet if checked into and will barely call with a worse hand. Bet, throw your girlfriend's phone number into the pot to lure a call out of him. If raised, stuff the number into your mouth and call. Chew rapidly and thoroughly.
Somewhere along the way, he might fold, preferably on the flop. That's ok, he could have the best hand by the river. Bet the eyeballs out of his sockets. Kick while he's down. Make him bite the dust. Play hard headsup!
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
If he likes the K (or doesn't mind it, in the case of pocket A's) then he loves your raise on the flop. If you check the flop, and he bets, you can be fairly sure that he doesn't like the K, which lets YOU represent the K on the turn (either by betting out or check-raising, whichever is best). Of course, I'm assuming he'd slowplay AK or better here, but I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. Anyway, once the flop action has ended, our hero can be fairly sure that his opponent isn't thrilled with the K. My guess is that he planned on getting aggressive on the turn, but decided not to when he improved, as a check raise will almost surely make his opponent fold (which he doesn't want to have happen). Now when his opponent bets he can probably put him on an underpair (which he's betting for value), since he has to give our hero credit for something after he calls on this raggedy flop. In otherwords, the pre-flop raisers bet on the turn suggests that he has at least a pair, although his action on the flop suggests that his pair doesn't involve the K. ON the river our hero checks (with the intention of check raising) because our hero knows that his opponent knows that the right play for our hero to make here with a K would be to bet out. Since our hero checks, however, the pre-flop raiser figures he doesn't have a K, and therefore bets his QQ, 99 or whatever for value. Note that if our hero had lead bet the river, thereby representing a slowplayed K, his opponent probably would have mucked. However, by checking, his opponent is now inclined to value bet. It's nice if he pays off the check raise, but if he doesn't our hero still got one more big bet out of deal than he would have by lead betting the river.
1) Against tough player and with poor position. Fold this preflop.
2) Bet the river. There was a good chance raiser has AK or AQ. If raised just call. You may have lost 1 bet if raiser has AA QQ.
If you are reraised on river then better has 3 Ks, KT or is making a play. You'll have to call with odds against you to find out.
Now to find out the real answer
I read the posts and agree that heads up you can play 67s for half a bet sometimes. Other times just let the big cards (he may have AA, KK QQ or even worse 77 or 66) have the small pot. For sure, you are not a favorite and a big pair against your hand will hold up something like 80% unimproved.
I do not like the check-raise or the bet on the turn. Even if he's doesn't have you drawing dead he still has re-draws with any K in his hand. Wait for the total blank on the river and bet out when it hits.
A raise by the better on the turn can mean a couple of things. The raise on the river means you are beat.
Regards
I read the posts and agree that heads up you can play 67s for half a bet sometimes. Other times just let the big cards (he may have AA, KK QQ or even worse 77 or 66) have the small pot. For sure, you are not a favorite and a big pair against your hand will hold up something like 80% unimproved.
I do not like the check-raise or the bet on the turn. Even if he's doesn't have you drawing dead he still has re-draws with any K in his hand. Wait for the total blank on the river and bet out when it hits.
A raise by the better on the turn can mean a couple of things. The raise on the river means you are beat.
Regards
Pre-Flop: Good Call
The check call on the flop is appropriate because the raiser will almost always show aggression at this point, in part because he's mad that you didn't fold pre-flop, but mostly because he wants you to believe you're beat. I feel safe to say that if Hero bets Raiser must raise. Check raising isn't that great, IMO, because you don't have much at this point and putting extra money in with a low middle pair just doesn't seem right. Besides what if Raiser does have a K and reraises you thinking that you are trying to make a play on him, will Hero fold to a re-raise? Flop - check call - GOOD.
The turn is tricky, but check raising seems like the right decision,IMO, because there is a chance that Raiser might fold to Hero's raise and he wins the pot right there. Which has to be a good thing. Mid two-pairs is too vulnerable IMO. If reraised call -- check/call or fold the river. This way you still collect three big bets after the turn if you're hand is good (which it probably is), and you might prevent Raiser from drawing out if he folds to Hero's check-raise. If Raiser does draw out you're screwed. The only draw back seems to be that Raiser will fold if he can't beat KK on the river, but the good news is that he will probably call with a pair and a decent kicker.
Turn: Check-raise
River:
a)if called on the turn --Bet and probably fold if raised.
b)check and call if re-raised
40 2+2 sycophants want to know. What does The Great And Powerful Oz have to say about the hand?
First of all,the big blind was Mori Eskand, a top pro. His call on the flop was close but mandatory (except that it is OK to very occasionally reraise.) On the flop It is very close between the three options of betting, check calling, and check raising. Against typical players who will always bet into this flop, the best play is probably to check raise most of the time. However against top notch opponents, check calling may be better, as Rick N pointed out. Given you have played this way so far, it is absolutely right to check on fourth st. The main reason is due merely to the fact that he might be drawing dead. If he checks behind you so what. He would almost definitely not have called your bet with any hand that he checked, and now you give him a chance to pair up on the end. Once he does bet, it is almost definitely wrong to raise as long as he will occasionally still bet some hands that are drawing dead and would fold these hands if raised. Again you want to give him a chance to pair up, or to induce a bluff on the end if he doesn't. If your opponent will never bet hands that are drawing dead, it is close whether to raise or not. But a good reason not to, is that you usually save money if a king or deuce comes on the end. If this is a guy who you can almost always get to call a check raise on the end if you just call on fourth street, there is little reason not to wait and see if a bad card comes. (You do often lose a bet if specifically a seven comes on the end, as this is one card you should come out betting if it hits on the river, for obvious reasons.)Anyway, it is important to simply check and call on fourth st against aggressive players and is close otherwise. On the river all three decisions are again close. Betting is certainly right against players who will check down hands like JJ or K5 suited and who wouldn't have bet no pair on the round before. However against more aggressive types, a check is better if only because it might induce a bluff from someone who couldn't call if you bet. Once you check and he bets, you are still fairly sure you have the best hand. The only good reason not to raise is if you feel that your opponent will now fold most of the hands that you beat. (If so you can steal from him later.) A lesser reason not to raise is that your opponnent will occasionally reraise without having you beaten. However against most players you will merely get paid off by one pair a lot and thus the check raise is right. Given the situation, I believe that Mori played the hand well. But only given the situation.
Do you mean his call before the flop was close but mandatory?
Yes, speaking on behalf of David Sklansky, he meant that preflop calling with 76s was close but mandatory. As I've pointed out many times, 76s is on par with KQ for blind defense versus a middle position raise. Implied odds, domination, yada yada. It's not hugely profitable, but it's definitely profitable, even when there's a modest rake.
I agree with Sklansky's reasoning in general, though I think he gets too bogged down in possible exceptions. Check-raise the turn and then bet the river... that is going to be the best play against an optimal opponent and also the best play against 99+% of opponents and also near optimal against the remaining 1-% of opponents. On the flop I agree there is some leeway.
The tricky part would be if the turn were a 2 or T or some other card that did not improve your hand. Betting and folding to a raise would be correct against many opponents, but a 60-120 player could be capable of a move there with AQ or similar.
-Abdul
"First of all,the big blind was Mori Eskand, a top pro"
What do you think his expectation is in this game?
I am strictly a lurker here on 2+2. I am learning much on this forum.
I enjoy/learn from many of the posters. One of my favorites is DS. Thank you all.
But,would you please put some white space in your longer posts. Sometimes they are very difficult to read. At times it is just too hard to follow and I just say "forget it" and move on. So I lose the information by not reading it, and your efforts to inform go wasted. Am I the only one?
The carriage return is your friend, please use it.
I feel guilty about complaining, but I have nothing original to contribute on the game of poker, yet.
Bob,
Those are my thoughts exactly; however...
From what I have seen, "Oz" has either just learned to type (based on past posts) using one of those learn to type programs or he has "someone special" hanging around to do it for him.
If it is the former, maybe he hasn't found the carriage return key yet in his lessons. After all, it can be in different places on various keyboards. If it is the latter, maybe there is a failure to communicate.
Regards,
Rick
Oz,
You sure used a lotta words this time. I guess that in itself makes your response worth while. But Oz Puhleses. You had me at Hello and then you go and do what you do sometimes. You shudda left well enough alone. You had me saying to myself, Vince, you are weak. Be humble in the shadow of the almighty. He has shown you the light, the way. Bow down and be thankful.
"Given the situation, I believe that Mori played the hand well. But only given the situation. "
Read that again please oh mighty one. BTW - Oz, How's Harriet and Ricky. I bet you guys got your own show again. Hope the folks you entertain where ever you are like you as much as we here in the LIVE world did.
Anyway have you digested the "situation" thing yet. Well I agree given the situation. So why not tell us the situation you are referring to.
In the origianal post Sklansky says a "tough" opponent. In your rather long explantion you say and I quote:
"against top notch opponents, "
then
"to simply check and call on fourth st against aggressive players " (is that top notch aggressive or tough aggressive?)
then
" If this is a guy who you can almost always get to call a check raise on the end if you just call on fourth street" (sounds like a semi tough middle notch player to me)
then
"However against more aggressive types, a check is better" (again, is that top notch aggressive or tough aggressive?)
then
"against most players you will merely get paid off by one pair"
Now Oz baby I'm going back and read my Guru's original post to ensure I read it right. Please next time o mighty Oz confer with Dorothy or Harriet and ricky if you are that Oz or better yet ask Mason Malmuth. Yeah, Mason knows the real Almighty, David Sklansky, and I'm sure he would be kind enough to help you out. For $200 an hour that is.
vince
The opponent was pointed out to me by David last night. In my opinion he is a "one percenter", neither top notch nor tough, just hyperloose and hyperaggressive, like just shy of a maniac. And the opponent isn't too good either, ba-da-bump.
-Abdul
"In my opinion he is a "one percenter", "
Well, just what shall we think of the mighty Oz now. Maybe I was right maybe it was Ozzie Nelson answering and not the Wizard.
Vince.
My first post. I am not nearly the equal of any of you at the game of Holdum, but in this case it seems clear that the correct responce would be to fold right off the bat. Head up pot with a solid player. Your odds are all wrong and chances are he has a superior hand going in to the flop. I thought you needed multi acton to play pure drawing hands such as this due to the limited number of times that they make.
Here's a 5-10 hand from Paradise Poker that shows the difficulties I have playing underpairs. Any advice is appreciated. No read on the players yet. I had just entered the game.
UTG I limp with 99. 3 others limp, SB calls, BB checks.
Flop is T62 rainbow. SB and BB check, I check (mistake? ), one more check, then a bet, a raise and a cold call. Blinds fold. I figure I am already beat and fold (second mistake?), player on my left folds, bettor calls.
Turn is another T
Checked around!
River is Queen
Checked around!!
Results in another post.
How do others play these types of hands? Was I thinking unclearly when I thought I was beat on the flop? Would people play the same without a wired pair. Say 76s and a rainbow Q73? I feel like I lose with second best pair a lot but hate laying down winners. (Come on, you knew that!)
KJS
With an underpair, I would follow the rule "no set, no bet" here, with or without the flop raise, so I think you were right to fold. I'll be interested to hear what others say. Kate
You missed the flop, you were correct to fold where you did. There were too many people involved in the hand for you to get tricky with an underpair anyway.
I infer from your post that you would have won had you stayed but I think you're better off in the log run if you get used to folding in situations like this.
With 2nd pair in your last example (76s given the flop of Q73 rainbow) I would prefer on in my suit for the backdoor flush *and* of course the pot odds to call, for me to even think about continuing past the flop.
The key here is: you have only 2 outs. If YOU have the best hand opponents will routinely have 5 or more outs against you. That means if you are probably beat you are in serious serious trouble.
The chances neither the better or raiser having a T is clearly low; let say at best 20%. Easy fold considering the small pot and slim improvement chances. That means when you fold one time in 5 it was a "mistake". So when it IS a "mistake" don't sweat it.
I'll butcher a quote from Goren the bridge legend: "It is understood that sometimes a wrong decision will do better than the right decision." To which I add: "...but its still the right decision. Deal with it". Best way to do that is accept it; se-la-vie (or whatever). Let the suckers play outcome oriented hind site decision calling. Bless 'em.
- Louie
Not saying the lawdown was wrong, it probably wasn't. But you would have had more information had you bet the flop.
chris
Louie,
Certainly, checking and calling even a single bet is horrible. And who could like betting less than top pair good kicker into five opponents with a ten-high flop, even if it is a rainbow. You will be called by the ten and all sorts of overcards which makes it so dicey.
But let us say the flop was any of the following and you still had a pair of nines in the situation described in the lead post. Are any worth a bet?
Flop a) J 6 2
Flop b) Q 6 2
Flop c) K 6 2
Flop d) A 6 2
I strongly favor a bet with flop c), may bet flop b) or d) depending on the game, and would not bet flop a).
Regards,
Rick
Rick, I alway read your posts since they are well thought out.
Can you tell me the criteria you are using to determine whether you play a, b, c or d.
Thanks
Pyramid,
I explained it to Louie under his 11:18 a.m. post since he screwed up the order of my preferences for betting *$@#$%. Anyway, Jim Brier started a thread about a month ago called "Nebiolo Problem #1" where he took me to task on certain aspects of my reasoning. I did re-evaluate and posted a long reply there.
Regards,
Rick
nt
"Certainly, checking and calling even a single bet is horrible." This is a LONG WAY from certainly horrible. Lots or players bet hands worse than top pair. Lots of others don't but should. I can think of reasonable situations I would check-and-call; such as if a questionable better was on my left and got two callers who WOULD have raised with top pair or better; unless I felt sporty and raised.
"And who could like betting less than top pair good kicker into five opponents with a ten-high flop, even if it is a rainbow." Wouldn't hesitate if in last position.
Anyway, right or wrong, it appears I bet more often than you; suspect others of the same; and so would USUALLY put money in with 1st under-pair.
But if you are in that sort of passive bet-only-top-pair kind of game, checking and folding if bet or betting the turn if checked is a VERY reasonable option and should be done often.
- Louie
Louie,
I'll let you know what I'm really thinking so you know what I'm thinking and you think you know what I really mean you think I mean. I think this is called "level - 3 posting".
You wrote quoting me: "Certainly, checking and calling even a single bet is horrible." This is a LONG WAY from certainly horrible. Lots or players bet hands worse than top pair. Lots of others don't but should. I can think of reasonable situations I would check-and-call; such as if a questionable better was on my left and got two callers who WOULD have raised with top pair or better; unless I felt sporty and raised."
I was thinking of someone who would bet into several opponents and you already had callers, which I still believe is horrible (I have no excuses as I finished my first coffee of the day). Since I am not that big a wimp, I would call (or maybe even check raise) a late position better with no one in between. But I rarely feel that "sporty" these days ;-).
I do have a problem with overcalling a bettor and two callers. First, I'm not usually able to peg my opponents that well regarding whether they would raise with a good ten. Next, I figure that if I am not already beat by the ten or a better hand, then almost every overcard destroys me. The pot is not big enough to try to spike a set when I am already beat. BTW, smooth calls of rainbow flops with players yet to act scare me - I figure it almost screams "set" if it is made by a decent player.
"And who could like betting less than top pair good kicker into five opponents with a ten-high flop, even if it is a rainbow." Wouldn't hesitate if in last position.
Neither would I. Even better is a bet from next to last position, which adds some credibility to the bet (I want overcards to fold!).
"Anyway, right or wrong, it appears I bet more often than you; suspect others of the same; and so would USUALLY put money in with 1st under-pair.
From reading your posts over the last two years, I would say you probably are a bit stronger with your bets but I believe you play quite a bit higher. You will value bet the river with much less then me, but I believe I need to work on things there.
"But if you are in that sort of passive bet-only-top-pair kind of game, checking and folding if bet or betting the turn if checked is a VERY reasonable option and should be done often."
When KJS mentioned "on line poker", I put it in that category based on my experience at Planet Poker.
Regards,
Rick
A problem with betting A or K and checking Q or J is that it looks suspisious given your flat call before the flop. There are more such early calling hands featuring a Q or J than an A or K (since raising hands feature more As and Ks). But since other reasonable people do the same there is a higher chance someone ELSE has a Q or J. Not so for unreasonable callers.
This post is more interesting (if at all) than relevant since few opponents consider these things.
- Louie
Louie,
I wasn't thinking that deeply. I wrote this in my usual "need more sleep" haze -;). The point on this little side exercise primarily concerns the likelihood of an opponent holding top pair on the flop. I also had the order of betting preference in a different order than what you stated in your reply.
On this one I would "strongly favor" a bet with the king high flop (figuring most kings come in with a raise when they play). Then I may bet the ace or queen high flop, depending on the flavor of the game (Jim Brier changed my mind on the ace, which I originally said I would bet as often as the king would. In these games, too many limp with Ax). I would rarely bet the jack (or ten) high flop since so many jacks (and tens) come in for a limp.
Regards,
Rick
The one part of this equation that everyone seems to be overlooking is the play before the flop. Unless you are in an extremely loose and passive game, where is your motivation for limping before the flop with 9,9 thereby making it extremely difficult to play after the flop? The flipside way to play this hand is similar to the way that you would play A,A, K,K, etc. Raise under the gun. Now the later fear that you had of someone flopping top pair, top kicker is a moot issue (no good players and a surprisingly small number of fish will cold call a tight player UTG raise with A,10). After the flop, I would continue to play this hand as though I had an overpair until another player convinces me that I am beat. Bet or raise the flop; lay it down to a raise or reraise. What you usually find in these situations is that you raise, everyone folds to the blinds, one or both blinds defend. They will let you know on the flop if you are beat. Also keep in mind that they should be reluctant to push you around here as a fair amount of the time that you make this play you will have a bigger hand than two 9's.
Regards-
The advice of raising preflop UTG with 99 is a little tricky because it seems to be predicated on your opponents not realizing that you do this. Once they pick up on it, and especially if you tend to limp with AA and KK, they'll be there with any manner of overcards and properly beat on you anytime a face card makes the board by 4th street.
Bettor had A2 for pair twos, raiser AK (overcards), cold caller 46 for pair sixes. My nines were best then and no one else improved. Sixes and Tens took it down.
I thought I did right but am always trying to find that balance between playing aggressively when you have the best of it and not being a pushover when people are betting and raising to get you out of the pot. I hate folding the best hand, but I agree that I had not many outs and many ways to be beat or get beat. Thanks again.
KJS
Notice the difficulty playing non-premium hands in early position against aggressive opponents.
Folding is correct in this situation. As for betting I would never bet out in this situation with so many players yet to act, I'd play this hand similar to top pair no kicker from early pos. I'd check, if a late position player bets and I feel he may be trying to pick up the pot I might raise him, but this play depends on the player, the other players and the texture of the flop.
I have only been playing for a little under a year and the only casino poker I have played is at the Taj and Trop in AC. Both rooms have the same rake structure. 2-4, 3-6 and 5-10 all have a 10% rake capped at $4. Relative to other rakes (Las Vegas, California, etc.) is this a high rake?
Obviously it is better to play 5-10 then 2-4. However, I am still building my bankroll and do not yet feel comfortable risking the $400+ hit that my bankroll could easily take with a bad run at 5-10. I feel confident in my abilities, but not my bankroll. First, is the rake in the 3-6 game to large to prevent me from consistently winning? Second, does the added benefit of the rake justify my moving to 5-10 even on a more limited bankroll?
Many thanks,
Carlos
High for Las Vegas, depends on the game in California (where they take antes) (low for a tight game), lower than many other areas which take $5.
It doesn't take a super-hero to overcome the rake at 3/6. If you get an average of 1/2 a bad call per pot you won you've covered the additional rake. 3/6 features players regularly drawing slim.
How's this: NEVER risk your last $400 in a 5/10 or 300 in a 3/6. So you play 5/10 when your bankroll is over $500; 2/5 if less than $300; and 3/6 the rest of the time.
Expect to find 5/10 players who know what you've got and can do something about it.
- Louie
Since you have a job losing your bankroll is not a disaster so you can take more chances with it than a "pro".
The rake in AC is high, but I have found that it is not impossible to overcome (I played many, many hours there). Far from it, the games are often so easy that any skilled player can expect to make $$ over the long run. Without the rake however, the 2-4 and 3-6 games would be a goldmine! The rake is definitely significant....
Some advice on AC, I think the taj 3-6 is on the whole much easier than trop 3-6, but this is somewhat dependent on what day of the week, time of day, etc.... The 2-4 games at both are often so easy that you can win regardless of the rake at either place. the 5-10 games are hit or miss and should be well scouted first. Sometimes 5-10 is pretty easy and sometimes it is filled with the best low limit players and some of the more aggressive 10-20 players who are waiting for a game. Be more selective with 5-10. You almost can't go wrong with 2-4 since they are almost invariably easy, easy, easy!!!
Dave in Cali
Fairly tight game with some decent players. I'm in the 8 seat out of 9. 3 and 4 seats fold. 5 Calls, 6 and 7 fold. I raise with A5 of clubs hoping to end it right there. Button raises me. BB folds and 5 seat calls 2 bets cold. I call and we take the flop.
Flop: 8 clubs, 9 clubs, J diamonds.
5 seat checks, I check, button bets. 5 seat raises. What the right play here? There are now 13 small bets in the pot and it's 2 bets to me.
Mandatory call, even if you knew you were sandwiched between a set and a straight. The preflop money makes it all worthwhile.
You can't fold the nut flush draw - cap it and hope for a § to fall.
WHY did you check the flush anyway?
An obvious call after you've put in all those bets. Maybe a fold pre-flop after button raises you if he's solid and most definitely a fold instead of the raise in the 1st place unless you have a super tight image and everyone will drop. I hope you don't have a problem folding if an ace falls and your met with resistance which why I wouldn't want to raise with your hand pre-flop unless there was 8 or 9 people in the pot and you were varying your play, but A5 suited is not something I want to play against a 2 bet pot with 4 players involved!
RAZOR
I agree with Rounder. I would have come out betting with my 4 flush hoping to get some extra bets in if I hit. On 4th St. call if you don't make it, and fold on the River if you don't make it. You want to get some bets in when it's cheap.
Cold call. A raise might be even better.
2 bets and a potential raise behind. Draw to the nuts.
Possible options
1) Fold - don't fold the nut draw with these odds.
2) Call - OK choice. You want as many players as possible.
3) Raise - Disguises you hand but may make overall pot size smaller. That may make some running 2 pair or a ignorant straight good (runner runner).
I suggest Call and in this situation raise maybe 1/5 times something like this occurs.
You simply can't lay this down! You've got one of the best draws in the game. It is roughly 2 to 1 for the flush to get there on the turn and river, and you've got two active players who will obviously pay off even if the flush hits, good implied odds and pot odds. Calling - good, raising - good, folding - bad.
What you hope does not happen is for the board to pair with the flush. Then you either make the crying call, or not.
Good luck!
I called and the button re-raised. 5 seat just called as did I. I figured if the flush did hit, the button was going to bet and I could check raise.
Turn: Club.
5 seat checks, I check, and sure enough, the button bets. 5 seat calls, I raise and both call.
River: Blank.
5 seat checks, I bet, button calls and 5 seat mucks. I rake a nice pot and button shows a straight.
I think I got the most out of the pot that I could have. Comments welcome.
I think you need to take another look at what constitutes a tight game if the button will make it 3 bets with Queen Ten and then call you down when you check raise two early round raisers when the flush card hits. Tight players do not play like this. You played well once in but I think your assesment of your opponents needs work.
Actually I think you did a good job with this hand. I am glad your result was favorable, but it is really only whether or not you played the hand correctly that matters in the end.
It is rare that you would EVER have reason to fold a nut flush draw, unless perhaps the board was paired and the action was real heavy in a small pot, so keep that in mind.
Dave in Cali
"I raise with A5 of clubs hoping to end it right there."
Do you smoke crack?
Do you?
OK GUYS, sometimes we all suspect that one (or more) of our opponents may be smoking something... but there's no need to get vicous with our fellow poker players here on 2+2....
Some people on this forum think that I smoke it too, but I have assured them I am trying to quit! :)
call.
You will make your flush better than 1/3 of the time. That with two other players in justifies calling your flush draw. Factor that against someone already having trips (drawing to fullhouse) or drawing to the straight flush. I might re-raise at this point. You may get a free card if you need it as they will fear another check-raise. Then regardless of whether you make your flush on the turn or not, check. If they also check, you bet the river and you might get one of them to bite or more (by you showing weakness by checking the turn). If you don't get your flush on the turn and they bet it after you check, I would call one bet if you're last to act, otherwise I'd consider folding.
If you can realistically predict folding occasionally on the turn then you are NOT in fact going to make this hand 1 time in 3 (which is the never-fold rate). It may be you will ACTUALLY win only 1 time in 4; in which case that's the number you use to consider your actions on the flop.
- Louie
On the flop you have the nut flush draw. You are getting 13:2 or 6.5:1 odds. The chance of you getting a club by the river is 1.86:1 and the chance of getting a club on the NEXT CARD is 4.2:1.
Lets review, you are getting 6.5:1 pot odds.....
If you fold this draw, your opponents are getting the best of it from you, and you lose $$ in the long run.
(You are actually in a situation where you can raise with a draw, but I will pull a Sklansky and let others elaborate on that!)
The entire idea of poker is to stay in when you are getting better pot odds than your chances of having or making the best hand (as in this case), and to fold when your chances of winning are worse than your pot odds.
You must pay attention to pot odds PERIOD. Otherwise give up poker and move on to "go fish".
Dave in Cali
A mid position player limps, player one off the button limps, I toss in an extra 5 from the SB w/ 44. BB knuckles. Flop: Ks 9h 2c. I check, all behind me check. Turn: 6c. I check, BB checks, mid position player checks, late position player bets. I check raise, all fold to the bettor who calls. River: 7c. I check, he checks.
Comments/ scathing criticisms welcome.
Seems like you had a beautiful AK in the sb bluff going. What made you stop at the river? Pretty sure opp must have had a weak king or A9 or something like that. You couldn't win a showdown, it's your money so I would have bet the river. Unless the check worked and he was so surprised he folded. :-)
It sounds to me like the other player thought you picked up a club draw on the turn and hit it on the river--you were in the small blind, and it got checked around on the flop, club came on the turn and you checkraised him. Either that or what Todd said, Ace-King. I would have bet the river, and I bet he would have folded.
What did you each have?
Max
I'm just curious why you checked on the river. Couldn't have been to try a check raise a second time; and you are most likely beaten here. Hmm....
C.P.
GD,
I like betting the flop with a king high unconnected rainbow and a small pair. I would prefer one less opponent though. So it is close. I might check raise a late bettor on the flop. But a lot depends on the players.
I can't find much fault with the rest of your play but I do say that I need rest so take that with a grain of salt.
Regards,
Rick
The check-raise is a mistake when he has a club draw with two cards above a 4. His chance of improving is about 1/3. If you call in that situation, the pot is laying you 3-1, giving you an overlay. When you check-raise, the pot is now laying him 5-1, giving him an overlay.
I think the play works best when you think there's a better than 40% chance that the fours are good on the turn, which would justify a 2 for 3 or 2 for 4 bet that will probably freeze the action for the rest of the hand (he'll fear any club, any big card, any board pair and check it down). In other words, when your opponent will bet any two cards in this situation and either fold to your raise or at least stop betting.
On the other hand, if this guy were more aggressive, I think the check-raise followed by a check is a mistake. When you check on the river, he should sense that your hand is barely worth a call and should bet all of his pairs and occasionally bluff, which makes your decision on the end all the more difficult.
What was I thinking? Obviously if you think he's on a draw and you have the best hand you want to get all your money in.
The check-raise here has to be the right play whenever you think he'll bet any two cards. And after two rounds of checking, who won't bet any two cards?
That's pretty much what I was thinking. The reason I check raised was because I didn't want to lead bet and get semi bluff raised by a club draw (or an open ender), since I couldn't call. However, by check raising I a) probably wipe out all gutshots, etc. behind me, b) perhaps get the original bettor to lay down two overcards to my 4, and most importantly I c) get twice as much money in the middle with what I'm fairly sure is the best hand. A lot of this ties back in with a theory (?) I've been fooling around with which has to do with check-raising with what you're 'fairly' sure is the best hand, but which you're more than willing to lay down for either a re-raise or any sign of aggressiveness from the original bettor on subsequent betting rounds. Similar considerations apply to flopping, say, a pair of A's with a weak kicker in the BB against a solid early position raiser. In otherwords, I think a check raise 'may' (can't stress that enough) be the best play when you're fairly sure you're good, but you're hand can't stand a raise.
Yo Yo! Take the risk and bet like a man! (Joke) Of course it depends on the player, one who knows how to play position might realize the 6c was no help, therefore, he might be on a steal, and too ashamed to lay his hand down, however, your idea he might have made running clubs might also be true...Is he a player who would bet a draw on the turn? The problem with betting out on the river is he will only call if he has you beat...sound familiar?
Rounder's favorite Aurora 10-20 hold 'em.
Decent player (later my opinion downgrades) limps first in in middle position. All fold to me in BB. I hold AJo.
Flop is A75 3 suits. I check and call. Turn is J. I check -raise. River is 3. I bet he folds.
My guess was that he held a weak ace or a medium pair.
Any thoughts appreciated.
I would have played it exactly the same way, even if the J didn't hit on the turn.
If he held a weak A he would almost certainly call the river... if he holds a weak A the river gives him two pair with a J kicker... beating the two underpair you may be holding. Your check raise out of an unraised BB on the turn would leave me thinking it was very likely you had A-7,A-5,J-7,J-5,7-5 or even Ax. His weak A would win 3 of these pots, Split another, and lose two so it is pretty much an autocall w\ six big bets in the pot.
Sean
Weak ace probably calls. Medium pair is likely though not probable. I put him either with a 7 (7-8,6-7,7-9) or a straight draw of some sort.
See why I love Aurora, home of Wayne's World and a great poker house.
I want to mention up front that I'm trying to improve when it comes to betting the end for value(tend to give opponents too much credit)and am trying to increase the use of the check raise.4-8,looses passive game.I'm in late pos.with KK,3 limpers,I raise button and BB call along with limpers.Six of us see flop of K,J,7 rainbow.Ckd to me I bet,button raises,all fold back to me,I decide to smooth call and set up ck raise.I don't know opponent only he is daily Omaha player waiting for table.Turn is blank I ck,so does he(I'm thinking now that he raised earlier to get free card,draw probable).River is A.How do you proceed,give him credit for straight or bet out which is what I did.Result later.
You probably ought to just bet out here on the river. He could have A QT, but could also have some kind of J (or maybe a 7) and was just seeing if he could get you off something like a pair of 8's. If you're raised here you have a tough call, but you don't lose much (in the long run) if you suck it up and call, since he could have AJ (or A7). Also, you should probably three bet the flop here. As a rule you want to keep bettin' when there's two paints on board in order to punish any gutshot broadway draws that might be out there (or two pair hands). Keep banging away on the flop, and lead bet the turn.
You figure he called your raise preflop. Good hands he could be raising with: set of jacks, set of sevens, KJs for top two pair. Notice he'd raise with all of those hands and you can beat all of them and, since the pot is head's up, you could get a lot of action before he slows down. If he is on a draw most players wont reraise your reraise when its heads up. No matter what you have the nuts on the flop so you shouldn't mind getting unlimited action from a made hand or a draw (although you'd prefer all this action from a made hand since all made hands are either drawing dead or drawing to a one outer.)
I don't remember which (or maybe it should be stated as how many) poker authorities said it but it goes something like: "You don't make money in poker by slowplaying or checkraising, you make money by running into good second best hands." And your opponent either has it or he doesn't. So I much prefer raising until he stops. If he's unaware enough to raise a preflop raiser with a draw and shut out callers behind him then he will lose plenty of money. If he's not on a draw then you are way ahead and will get plenty of action if he has a decent hand. Even if he has a mediocre hand he'll likely call til the river.
All that being said, the river play depends a lot on your opponent. If he'll only raise with the nuts then checking and calling is probably your best option. If he'll bet many more hands than he'll call with then a checkraise might be better. If he'll only bet with the nuts but call with top pair then betting is better. I don't know, it sounds like he was either on a straight draw or had a weak king and raised on the flop to find out where he was or possibly buy himself a free card from what he probably thought was AK or KQ.
chris chris
In the given situation against good players, almost no hands he would call with if he can not bet himself on the river (except inducing a bluff), so check and call is an option. However, I would bet against most weak opponents who would call with weaker hands.
regards,
jikun
I would bet the river, not too many players will call 2 bets with Q-10, and it seems much more likely he has a K and raised the flop mainly to get out the others rather then for the free card and risk losing everyone for his draw.
I would likely of reraised the flop and bet the turn here for the same reasons, he is probably not folding.
D.
Thanks for the feedback.He raised my bet on the river,confirming what my feeling was after he raised the flop and ackd the turn,he had Q 10 suited.Chris makes a good point about his raise shutting out the field on a draw.I called his river raise and uttered the famous words 'knew what you had and paid anyway'
I had a sick feeling while reading your post that he was on QTs and raising for a free card. I am strictly with Chris on this hand, raise and re-raise. Punish the draws! Make em' pay to draw out, you'll feel better even if they get there. You will know you did the right thing.
Good luck!
This just happens sometimes. Still, I think you made the right move by betting the river. Calling the raise isn't easy, but since he could have AJ (or A7) you probably had to pay it off.
I don't like the river bet. I think check call is the way to go. Especially after the turn was checked. Giving him a free draw on the turn was a mistake, paying him off double on the river is a bigger mistake. You certainly shouldn't check-fold but check-calling is fine. I think you probably bet the river out of frustration. On the river there's plenty of hands he can raise with but none you can reraise with; ie. He can hold AK, AJ and so on, he's also liable to have that QT and raise with that. So since you know you're going to call a raise yet you can't reraise I think check-calling is your best option. Just cause you missed bets earlier in the hand you tried to make up for it on the river and that didn't work out too well. chris
I would agree, except that three K's is a pretty strong hand, and to check-call you would have to put the other guy on 'precisely' QT. Which doesn't quite stand up, since if he raised the flop (and blew out all the action behind him) you can't really put him on a draw. What surprises me is that he didn't bet the turn when our hero flat called the flop. I doubt I'd play this hand the way the QT did, but if I was possessed to play it this way I'd at least follow up with a bet on the turn and hope to take it there. In otherwords, the QT butchered his hand. Which isn't unusual, but it does make it difficult to put him on a broadway, since he played the hand so poorly. I'd be more inclined to put him on something like AJ (although I wouldn't three bet the river).
My guess is your opponent was holding a Q-10, or possibly some sort of J, and you're right, he was looking for the freebie. I have found lead betting the turn into a late position raiser a good indicator of their hand. Most times they will call and then muck the river if the obvious draws don't come in. The best times for a check-raise is when you hit the flop and you know your opponent will continue to bet an unimproved AK, and most times, if they hold AA or KK, the will three bet you, totally giving their hand away.
My friend and I disagree about the following hand.
Loose passive game. 6 limpers and my friend holds red QQ in the small blind. He calls and the BB checks.
The flop is A K 3 all spades. Checked around. The turn is 3c. My friend bets out and all fold except the player one off the button, who calls. The river is 5d. He bets and the other player calls.
He says that just calling pre-flop is correct because it allows him to get out cheaply if an A or K flops, and so thin draws won't have the correct odds to call. I maintain that since QQ will win more than its fair share of pots, you should get more money in now.
What's the consensus?
Betting out on the turn is another issue for discussion or derision.
All commentary welcome.
Thanks, Maxwell
I don't know if there is a consensus here, but I generally raise with QQ for the reasons you stated.
He says that just calling pre-flop is correct because it allows him to get out cheaply if an A or K flops, and so thin draws won't have the correct odds to call. I maintain that since QQ will win more than its fair share of pots, you should get more money in now.
The argument about "getting out cheaply" doesn't make sense. If there are 6 other people in the pot, then by not raising he is avoiding losing one bet when he folds but failing to get 6 more bets into the pot when he has the best hand. Since QQ is an overpair 2/3 of the time on the flop, his "getting out cheaply" is rather expensive in terms of EV! It sounds like your friend has some serious flaws in his understanding of poker theory.
The real issue in question, I believe, is that of deception vs. getting money in with the best hand. You gain EV by getting those preflop bets in from weaker hands, and you lose EV if your raise gives away your hand and allows your opponents to play correctly according to the FTOP during the rest of the hand. The balance of these factors depends on the situation. If you raise with a lot of hands in these situations out of the blinds (I seem to remember Abdul advocating this), then deception isn't a problem and you should clearly raise here. If your opponents are so fishy that they won't even think to put you on a hand, let alone a big one, or they like to chase so much they'll do it even if they know they are beaten, you should raise here. On the other hand, if you are playing decent opponents who you need to manipulate into making errors, you may win more bets by the end by just calling. The more people that are in the pot, the less deception matters and the more raising gains.
The flop is A K 3 all spades. Checked around. The turn is 3c. My friend bets out and all fold except the player one off the button, who calls. The river is 5d. He bets and the other player calls.
You said derision was ok, so:
huh? he has garbage. I can think of lots of excuses and self-delusions for this play, but into a field of 6 players, it is pretty indefensible. No hand, no draw. With less players and one overcard, you could maybe argue for an aggressive bet, and if his queens were black (giving him the nut flush draw), there are lots of situations where betting is alright, but this is not much of a play. 6 limpers and he thinks no one has an ace or a king? Or that they'll fold it?
Patri
Well, hers's what Sklansky says in his book POKER, GAMING, & LIFE:
"Eight players have called before the flop and you are in the blind. You should raise with two nines or two aces in the pocket but probably not with two jacks or two queens. This seems very strange but it can be demonstrated mathematically as well as logically. Basically, you raise with aces because of the strength of your hand and with nines because you are getting 8-to-1 odds on your raise and you might flop a set. Of course, jacks and queens could flop a set also but they can win frequently without it. The problem is that it is much harder for these pairs to win by themselves if you give your hand away and double the pot size, especially in early position."
By the way, in HPFAP-21 we point out that if your opponents really play terrible and are frequently in there with total junk, then you are giving up too much by just calling.
Mason,
I remember David's advice but I guess I just play against terrible opponents most of the time. So I usually raise.
Regards,
Rick
Is this one of the 0.1% of cases where Sklansky is wrong? If not, "demonstrate it mathematically."
Big pairs tend to be capable of beating many opponents when they flop an overpair. A lot of this strength stems on the board being able to pair somewhere to allow your big pair to suck out on a two pair. I see where Sklansky is coming from: if the pot remains 8-way to the turn, then every card on the board may be covered. On the flop, you're fairly likely to see a raise from a draw in late position after so many call, however, so then you just make it 3 bets and drive some players out and make the rest pay through the nose to suck out on your QQ.
My philosophy is to raise preflop when you have the best of it, especially with a hand like QQ with which you know you're normally going to want to bet out on the flop and cannot risk a check-raise. I'm not "giving away my hand," because I also raise there with hands like JTs, which are profitable in themselves but also enhance the profitability of hands like QQ-AA.
-Abdul
You are in a small blind with QQ. Four or five decent to good players limp in. The flop comes something like K T 6. You bet (you did not raise before the flop). Everybody folds to me. I'm one or two of the button I got T8s. I got a pair of T's with about 7 or 8 to 1 odds but you might easily have me in deep trouble. I probably muck, you win. Same situation but you raised before the flop. You bet the guy in front of me calls and I know he's got an inside straight or some other junk I've got the same pair of tens but the pot is laying me double the price I raise you fold. I go on to win the pot with a pair of tens. Had you not raised the guy with an inside straight would not call neither would I raise. How do you calculate if your loss here is less than what you had gotten in before the flop?
The math will prove to me the right play here. I don't know about philosophy.
x
From a calling station with a King.
If so, how are you planning to win the pot with your pair of tens?
Were you not debating the merits of raising with QQ preflop? Why are you dragging a calling station into this who will call regardless?
vghui90
Ouch! I slapped my dick on the keyboard! Looks like it's crooked...
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet,
We were just checking "vghui90" out. It looks like you have quite the member there.
Regards,
Rick and Student
Actually, I hit the "backspace" key also, so I lost a few characters there...
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
"Were you not debating the merits of raising with QQ preflop? Why are you dragging a calling station into this who will call regardless?"
I was debating the merits of raising with QQ!
I was not trying to drag a calling station into this!
I was simply replying to the 3 bet you go home post by Abdul. Obviously he did not like when I said something like "I'm sitting there with T8 and raise". I was simply trying to point out that when the pot is bigger because you raised it is more possible to make a costly mistake later on because your apponents might/will play differently because the pot is bigger. So in case1 where the pot is small (7 bets maybe) and the small blind bets most decent players will have a hard time calling with something like T8 because they won't know where they are at. But in case2 they will have an easy call, and even a raise, because the pot will be much bigger and most of them will almost be sure that if they make 2 pair they will win the hand. Also notice that any inside straight will be correct in calling with 14 bets in a pot if you had raised coming in.
Q,Q in the BB against 8 opponets. Fold and stop playing 3-6 Holdem!
vince.
Vince,
Hero is in the small blind . . . and is facing seven opponents.
O.K - fold and stop playing 6-12 Holdem
Vince.
Maxwell,
I'll throw in my two cents without looking up the other answers yet (Parti Friedman on 2+2 and GD is posting again - YES!).
With this many opponents (seven if the big blind calls), I like raising for the simple reason that you win a bigger monster when you flop a set of queens (7.5 to I against).
Raising does have some drawbacks. If you raise and your queen is an overpair, you may have tied on some hands (e.g., bottom or middle pair) that would have otherwise folded to a flop bet (they will put you on an overpair and play accordingly). But even if you reduce your chances of winning, you will win bigger pots so this probably evens out.
If you raise and an overcard comes (especially the ace), you probably should check the flop. Any ace will call and it will usually be out there. But your check may slow down an ace that worries about you having flopped trip aces, giving you a chance to spike a queen on the turn.
I may bet at a king overcard (as long as there are not any draws out). This should get an ace to fold and it is within reason that perhaps no king is out as kings tend to come in with a raise (i.e., bad players will play Ax for a call but not Kx unless they are terrible).
BTW, I expect quite a bit of disagreement on this one.
I'll pass on part two given the hour.
Regards,
Rick
Well, Rick, I'm with you on this one. I just re-read your post, and I think you've summed it up. One other thing (and you may have mentioned this, I can't remember) is that by raising you're giving yourself pot odds to try and spike a set on the turn if an overcard flops. And, if a K or A does flop, there's a 20% chance (at least it's around there) that nobody has one of those, so a fifth of the time your hand's probably good anyway. It's been a looooonnnnggg time since I saw anything other than 93o in the blind, but as memory serves I usually bang it up with this one. One other thing... If you're playing in the kind of games that I play in, there are no shortage of cutesy bastards who like nothing more than slowplaying top pair (if it's a K or an A) in small or medium size pots. Hence, you may end up in a situation where the flop comes something like Ac Tc 7h, and you're betting someone's A for them all the way. However, if the pot's big (and 16 sb's pre flop definitely qualifies as such) most players are more inclined to play straighforwardly. So, you find out earlier if your underpair is good and can adjust accordingly.
"Loose passive game. 6 limpers and my friend holds red QQ in the small blind. He calls and the BB checks."
I would have raised. I might consider calling in a tough game to keep the pot small so I can drop almost everyone with a bet or two. In loose passive game this strategy is garbage and you loose so much if you don't raise.
I am firmly entrenched in the betting/checking vis-a-vis your "fair share" approach. Do that unless you have a specific good reason to do otherwise (such as if your action will increase/decrease your chances of winning). QQ is definately going to actually win this pot more than one time in 8.
I am firmly resistant to the "manipulate size of pot" stuff when you presume the opponents will not make a mistake anyway. There are times when it makes sense if it will cause the opponents to make mistakes. I'd be delighted to hear contrary objective arguments.
- Louie
I'm 3 off the BB. Wild player to my right has been straddling all night. (Raising blind) UTG and Wild player both call and I raise to $40 with AQc. I haven't won a pot in 2 1/2 hrs. and have only played 4 hands in which I wasn't the blind. AQs is looking really good to me and I only have $145 to start the hand. 3 other players call.(1 solid and 2 weak) The flop is AA7 (yum,yum) Checked to me and I check(Rainbow flop BTW) Guy (Weak) behind me bets and 2 callers before it gets to me and I just call.(Correct?) The turn is the 5s making a 4 flush. I check and the guy behind me bets, 1 caller and I call(correct?)I put the guy behind me on a pocket pair or a weak ace and I thought I could get a bet in on the river. River is the 8s making a flush possible. I bet 40 and he makes it 80. Wild man folds and I put in my last 45. What does he have and what mistakes did I make.
RAZOR
-What does he have and what mistakes did I make. -
It's hard to tell what he/anyone has, because you slowed played this so badly. He could have anythying from just an Ace to a full house, to a flush to a straight! You let everyone draw out on you cheap.
IMHO- You played this WAY too slow, especially for 20-40, with a weak player and a maniac in the game.
I've learned that slow playing trips leads to getting beat more often than not. I would have made them pay up front. The other problem you have though, is that many sub-premium hands will not fold if they feel that you are going all in. Nevertheless, Raising at every opportunity before the river was correct here.
12 small bets in preflop and you flop what is probably best hand. Your hand is far from invulnerable and I would like to win the pot right now. I would bet the flop hoping to get money from the other ace who will definitely wait around to fill. You have to be scared if a jack or ten hit on the turn and no queen comes, plus the possibilty that the other ace is suited with one of the flop cards. Also, some might stay in with JJ, TT, 99 and you want to make them pay to see another card as well. I think this hand needs protection so I would have bet the flop, the turen and checked and called the river.
I think the biggest mistake you made was not having enough money in front of you... If you did you could have made it much more expensive on the flop and the turn.
I really think you should have bet on the flop and again on the turn!
Your hand is strong enough that it is hard for anyone to make a second best hand that they will like as the two aces will scare most players.
If you give folks time to catch up they either won't get there (and won't pay you off) or they will make a hand that beats your trips and you will pay them off!
If you bet you can charge your opponents to draw mighty thin and some of them will call along but if you just check and call you let them catch up inexpensively.
I constantly see players playing hands like this where they have trips using a PAIRED board as if they had flopped a set with a pocket pair. Tripping up using a pair on the board is not NEARLY as strong! It loses deception value and it is never the nuts!
When I get these hands I bet, bet, and bet!
As far as your what does he have question he could have just about anything... you have no idea because you never tested him.
A flush that he backed into on a bluff, he could have the case A and think it is enough... he could easily have a full house. You don't mention the suits of the A's on the board so he could have the As suited making a flush (and possibly a full house for that matter).
I just have 2 comments:
Why you did not raise when it came back to you on the turn is beyond me.
Playing with a short stack is not my style especially when maniacs are in a game.
I thought I crippled the deck. I knew I had the nuts on the flop and the turn but I was going to slowplay it and get 80 on the end from the maniac or the weak guy...They will pay you off. Unfortunately, he caught an 8 and had pocket 8's for 8's full of aces. I deserve what I got...The whole night was brutal. Playing 4 hands in 2 1/2 hrs. I must have been rusty...Who knows? Thanks for your input.
RAZOR
I would have given some serious consideration to lead betting the flop, since the only hands that CAN come with you are pocket pairs (or maybe some yahoo with a seven), and they're all going to come for a bet. Further, you may find someone out there with something like pocket 8's who wants to raise on the flop. If someone does pump it on on the flop you can 'fairly' sure they dont' have an A since most players will slowplay trips here. At this point you have a decision to make, but you may want to check raise the turn here (if someone raises on the flop) if a baby turns. However, given how you played it, I would have checkraised the turn, therefore charging everyone 80 bucks to try and make whatever exotic draw they're on. There's not much sense in waiting for the river, since most players will at this point figure that you slowplayed a monster and will only call you (or raise you) if you're beat. I'm guessing he had pocket 5's or 8's.
You had a chance to raise on the flop, but didn't. You had another chance to raise on the turn, but didn't. You flopped trip aces with a queen kicker and never raised, even though you had two chances to do so!
Don't slow play flopped trips!
Who knows what they might have had. They could have gone to the river with just about anything since you let them in so cheap! It is a catastrophy if someone won this hand with cheese (because they got in cheap) when they would have folded for a raise.
There may be some debate as to which strategy is the best (since I haven't read the other posts yet)... but... you probably should have raised the flop when given the chance, capped it if you got reraised, then bet the turn (and/or raised again if given the chance).
NEVER let them draw for cheap.
Dave in Cali
p.s. I have been out of the poker world for a couple weeks and I am having withdrawl symptoms! Somebody raise me PLEASE!
Okay Abdul, more insight into the world of the struggling amateur. Fire away.
(1) 10-20. UTG (solid) limps, fold to me in middle position, I limp with 9-9, all fold to BB who checks. BB I don't know well but seems aggressive.
Flop is J-8-3 rainbow. BB bets, UTG folds, I raise. BB calls. Turn is a 4, fourth suit. BB bets and I fold. Any better ideas for on the flop and turn play here? Any sense in raising preflop in a normal-to-loose game in that situation?
(2) Also 10-20. In late position I have AQo. Fold to loose-aggressive player (capable of raising with a VERY wide range of hands in this situation) to my immediate right who raises. I three bet and all fold to raiser who calls.
Flop is 3-5-9 rainbow. Raiser bets and I raise.
Turn is a queen. I get check raised and just call. River is a total rag and I call a bet. Raiser turns over Q9s.
Comments welcome -- especially on the flop. As I said, this player was quite loose and could have held anything, but I do not think he would have bet the flop with absolutely nothing.
SW
Your fold on the turn with the 99 was probably a mistake. BB could have anyting I like your raise on the flop if he is aggressive and has a J he would probably reraise you so He most likley had less than your 99 on the turn a call to the river is in order IMHO.
I don't like your check raise on the flop with 2 over cards or the 3 bet pre flop with AQ. Turn and river your stuck and have to see the hand out.
In my experience, about 90% of the time the BB's bet on the flop means no worse than KJ and most commonly means J4. I think it's a commendable laydown.
BB got in for free so he could be on anything + he was described as aggressive so I like the 99 here. BB could have Q8 or something along those lines.
The problem here is that BB bets into on the flop a solid UTG limper as well as our hero who limped in from middle position preflop. He calls our guys raise on the flop and then bets into the raiser on the turn when a harmless looking 4 drops.
I think the play here depends on the read of the BB. Scott described him as agressive, so I think that you have to stay with him and call the turn.
Jon (just dropping in).
"Turn is a 4, fourth suit. BB bets and I fold. "
"To Scott: yrejiozsgfm si9 dasfdji Ouch, I just hit my head on my keyboard"
I like your fold. I like how you played hand1. I like how you played hand2 (maybe a better option was to plan to call him down when he came out betting on the flop)
On #2, say a jack hits the turn and he checks. What do you do there -- take the free card or fire?
This is tough and you must know your apponent. If you bet how likely is it that he will fold, checkraise or just call. Of course with 1 or 3 you want to bet.
I think since he called you raise on the flop he must have a piece of it and the best option maybe to check. I would have most likely checked and decided what to do on the river if he came out betting.
Scott:
"To Scott: yrejiozsgfm si9 dasfdji Ouch, I just hit my head on my keyboard"
Sorry, I still think that's funny...
I'd fold right along with you, here. The BB betting out on an apparent rag card after simply calling your raise screams to me that he just made two pair with his J4 or more likely 84 since he didn't check raise the flop.
Either that or he thinks you're weak-tight and succeeded in using your own knowledge against you.
Michael
Be the flop, See the flop, You're not being the flop, Danny.
Come on over to my house and we can discuss it. I have a pool and a pond -- pond would be good for you.
The "hit my head on the keyboard" part was pretty funny.
"Be the flop, See the flop, You're not being the flop, Danny."
..well it's kind of hard with you talking like that!!
""..well it's kind of hard with you talking like that!! "'
Ok, I've stopped talking...I'm not talking now...
Just remember, A wise man once said that a flute without a hole is a stick, and a donut without a hole, is a danish. Weird guy... nananananana.
What do you expect a yearling to contribute? Poker wisdom? I think not.
Michael
I'd easily put the BB on something like a 9T straight draw, K8, hell maybe a pair of 7's he could have anything - I'd raise him right here to see what I was up against.
Don't like that play...the pot is still relatively small (3.5 BB after flop). If he was on a draw he would more likely check to you on the turn. I think you are up against a J at least.
Investing 2 more BBs to find out where I was at does not seem worth it in this situation.
So putting in two big bets on the turn "to see what you're up against" is the solid play here?! Where do you play and what times are you there?
Putting in two big bets on the turn "to see what you're up against" is you're idea of the solid play here?! Where do you play and when are you there?
Rounder- I agree with you that the BB may have been on a straight draw etc. But that's the whole point. He's a BB and it's hard to put him on anything. Our hero defined his hand on the flop. When the BB bets the turn he could have anything. I'd rather give him credit than chips in this spot.
I like the raise on the flop with 99. When you are now bet into on the turn, I think your fold was also correct. Rounder is right when he says you may still be ahead, but I don't like to fight a BB in this spot. As for what else you could have done, a raise pre-flop with only 1 limper would have been appropiate IMHO. Even with an UTG limper you very likely have the best hand. Notice that when you show that much strength pre-flop and the flop, and are still bet into on the turn, I think your fold on the turn becomes a little easier also.
As far as the 2nd hand, I like your 3-bet pre-flop with AQo against the maniac to isolate. It's the strong way to play this hand and shows you are thinking the game through well for a beginner. You played it fine and just got unlucky, that's all. When you got check raised on the turn, if you decide you're going to call the raise and river, you can also 3-bet here as long as you're willing to fold for a re-raise or bet on the turn.
Thanks. BTW, I may be an idiot, but I don't think I'm a beginner. I have had decent results for almost two years. I realize I still have a lot to learn, but I don't post my magic moments. I usually post the ones I think I screwed up. I'm probably a little better than you think and a little worse than I think I am....
It has been asserted by the authors that they subjectively believe its a little better to CHECK QQ in the BB vrs 8 semi-reasonable callers, yet raise with AA and medium and small pairs. They argue that raising with the pairs makes sense just from the "fair share" and "manipulate" approaches; but QQ and JJ do much better with less callers so keep the pot small to discourage additional calls on the flop. (Kx is more likely to call the flop if there is a raise before the flop (pot is big); and QQ doesn't want Kx to call, but 44 flopping a set does) The increased times QQ and JJ hold up make up for the lost pre-flop revenue.
If the authors are right then there is a large field of untapped strategic considerations waiting to be exploited.
I would like to initiate a thread on HOW CAN WE GO ABOUT PROVING IT? WHAT SORTS OF THINGS SHOULD SUCH A PROOF CONSIDER? Later, when a reasonable approach surfaces we can go about actually proving it.
Even Posts with just a single possible angle would be beneficial.
- Louie
Don't even think of using simulation. It has zero credibility here even though it's probably better than 'seat of the pants' intuitive guess work. No attack of the gospel will be taken lightly, contrary evidence be damned.
Alternativly, you could attemt to nail Jello to the wall.
It would be very tough to program the similator to fold reasonably in the smaller pots AND reasonably call more often in the larger pots.
Let the jello get hard, then nailing it is a piece of cake. Without the flour.
- Louie
Although I agree that the simulators don't work well enough to "prove" this, the TTH program can consider the pot odds in the decision.
D.
i am interested in this too. but these kind of arguments are very hard to make. i'll be thinking about it. and i am curious about other's ideas.
i know i am not saying anything in this post. i am only writing it because this is an important issue and it had not yet recieved a serious response.
scott
Ok, I'm not much of poker theorist, but I do simulations for a living, so I'll take a stab.
1st: lets define Reasonable Players. My WAG:
Early Pos needs Catagory 2-3 Hands. (Cat 1 would raise).
Mid Pos needs catagory 2-6.
Late Position needs 3-8.
We of course can debate the boundaries, and re-evaluate membership catagories because some hands play better/worse with a large field, but is the principle valid that each seat's cards are bounded in quality?
Now we just need to take two Q's out, fire up a random number generator, and filter the deals with eight "if" tests and a hash table.
That was the easy part.
The problem with the logic part is, we'll never be "done". There will always be special case after special case.
Therefore I propose adding logic incrementally, and hopefully sneak up on the significant digits of the ultimately unknowable expectations of raising or folding.
Level 0: All stay to river. (ASTR)
Level 1: Play Flop ok, then ASTR 1.a if BB raise, fold if:
i) no top pair or over pair
ii) not str8 or flush draw
iii) no mid pair with runner runner draw in later pos
b) if no BB raise, fold if:
i) no top pair, over pair,
ii) ...
Level 2: More Flop finesse, add simple turn rules.
Again, my rules here probably need help, but I think the point here is to just get one order of magnitude better than level 0, not conclusively solve the problem. Then we can examine the hands, and see which wackiness is most prevalent, and go for level 2.
My hunch is that level 1 can get most of the answer.
My thoughts, anyway.
Zooey
Huh?
Maybe ... With the small pot players do not call with any two over cards nor non-nut gut shots. With the larger pot they do.
.. see the widely-ignored "Events" page for details.
I played my first online 2-4 last night. Here is a hand that a player gave me alot of grief about. Comments please? Late position 3 callers I call w/A8h. BB raises 2 call I call. Flop As7h8s. BB bets, #2 raises, I reraise and BB caps. All call. Turn and river both blanks. BB is betting all the way and I called to the river and take it down w/ two pair. After hand BB starts ragging that I wasn't supposed to be there. Comments?
jas
You played it perfectly. The BB's nonsensical comment is just the way a bad player blows off steam after screwing up badly. Remember George S. Scott's line from The Hustler: "Stay with this kid. He's a loser."
One of the greatest movies ever!
But I believe it's George "C" Scott; not to take anything away from the greatness of George "S" Scott, whoever he is.
About the hand; of course you played it perfectly after the flop. Did BB expect you to fold pre-flop to his cap after you had already re-raised. IMO your only questionable move was the re-raise w/ a suited ace after an early position raise. But in a 2/4 game you will generally get a lot of calling pre-flop even with 2 raises. I think you want many callers at that point so that you will be paid handsomely when you flop your flush or draw.
I agree.
friday nite i'm up 300 med position pocket jacks, i raised, it was capped - the flop j(s),7(c),5(d) 3 players remain, it was bet i raised and it was capped,the turn 2(d) bet i raised it was capped same 3 players the river 4(s) capped again player 1 had A(d)3(d), me trips player 3 mucked. is that something i just overcome or did i play it wrong
There are only 5 hands he can beat you with (AA, 88, 3-77s) and is likely to slow play all of them (bet, but not 4-bet). There just has GOT to be a bunch more that he'll be willing to overplay such as big flush draws or A7. You missed an easy raise on the turn especially considering all those other players in there. It costs two bets when you are wrong but earns most of 4 or 5 bets when right.
Are you asking about the character of the BB ragging? Are you suddenly doubting your play because someone rags? A8s would be a very marginal raising hand against weak callers; but a routine call and then call the raise.
They often rag because they feel bad; and if they feel bad it MUST be your fault (feel right is right, yaddy yaddy); if its your fault you must have played the hand poorly or they'd have nothing to feel bad about except themselves.
I didn't know you could "talk" online.
- Louie
I didn't know you could "talk" online.
- Louie
Louie, they weren't really talking as in the making sounds with the mouth kind of talking. They were communicating their thoughts using a "chat box", can you say that ? In a "chat box" people type their words and it shows on the screen of people sitting at the same table. Now, they're really not sitting at the same table because the table is somewhere in cyberspace. Using their individual computers they are connected vis a vis an interface program that allows them to simultaneously interact.
So, getting back to the talking. Players sometimes utilize these "chat boxes" to make derogatory comments about an opps play. Such as, "How do you play that cheese?" and "Louis Landale doesn't recommend raising with Axs UTG with very agressive players behind you except for deceptive purposes." That one always hurts.
As an analogy, on this forum when commenting on another's post mnay people will copy and paste the pertinent phrase or paragraph and then preceed it by "Rounder said," when actually unless Rounder talks aloud when he types he probably never said it. He wrote it.
So, in a manner of speaking or writing or communicating people do talk online. I hope this is clear.
I understand "talk". I have no scruples against direct attacks and insults and don't bother with subtle sarcasm like "TALK online?". Let me rephrase more correctly: "I didn't know you could communicate across the cyberspace poker tables." Stupid? Ignorant? Mindless? Ok. Aggressive? No.
Todd "said" <<"Louis Landale doesn't recommend raising with Axs UTG with very agressive players behind you except for deceptive purposes." That one always hurts.>> Your hidden compliment that others actually CARE about what I say is appreciated but not very accurate; unless you play a lot with my Mom.
- Louie :)
Louie,
I personally love your posts and appreciate your comments and analysis.
You can chat at the poker tables online.
Your mom did not tell me to say these nice things.:-)
SammyB
There's a lot of things about online poker that the uninitiated probably don't know. For example, it's possible to play 87 1/2 hrs. without ever completing a flopped four flush or flopping a set. Trust me.
"it's possible to play 87 1/2 hrs. without ever completing a flopped four flush or flopping a set"
GD,
Sometimes you have to take a flop to make those hands. Stop playing so tight.
Vince.
After floping Aces up, how did you play badly? I think this player was upset he missed the flush. You played this fine.... :)
I think he was pissed since AK no good after flop! Forget him. You played fine.
I'm afraid he is correct. You shouldn't be there. Wagering money online is a horrible idea and very risky. Maybe that's what he meant.
vince.
Which Ace-King combination would you prefer(or if they are equal in value)for the following Flop.
Flop: Ac-Xc-Xs (Ace of clubs, X of clubs, X of spades)
Choice of Ace-King combo's:
(1)Ad-Kc (King of clubs gives you runner-runner backdoor nut flush opportunity)
(2)As-Ks (Ace & King-[both spades], gives you runner-runner backdoor flush opportunity)
I assume they're the same, but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks for any help, Don
I would much rather have the AKspades in your example.
Reason #1 You'd have four clubs on board if you did make your flush, which means you'd be less likely to get paid off if you hit.
Reason #2 If a club comes on fourth street and there is a lot of action you're very probably behind but you've got a redraw. If there's a single bet that's fine. But if you're sandwiched between two agressive players and there's betting and raising you're getting bad odds on your calls and your implied odds are crap.
Reason #3 If a spade comes off on fourth(that doesn't pair the board) you've got the nut draw and you're likely still ahead. So you can drive the action and still have a reasonable chance of winning unimproved.
Reason #4 You're more likely to get paid off or even raised if something like middle flop card pairing on the river that also gives you your flush because you're probably not read for runner-runner flush as you've been betting and raising throughout the hand.
chris
Doc Martin,
I'm hoping I make it back to sleep after some late night insomnia and read your post, figuring a "Beginner's Question" would help. Then I checked chris's answer which was great, well written and what I wish I had said. Then I checked GD's answer which essentially agreed and then I checked Gary Sweet's and it was a totally opposite opinion but it made a lot of sense. Now I can't sleep and my mind is too dulled to add anything or figure out who is right.
Thank's a lot ;-),
Rick
You'd prefer the second one, since you a)won't have to worry about putting in a ton of bets on the turn if the third club hits, and b) if you do hit the runnner runner you'll probably get more action since there's only three of a suit on the board instead of four. However, if you're opponent is weak, you may prefer the Kc, since if the third club hits the turn you can lead bet/ check raise and maybe take it all right there.
I would prefer the first one.(Ad-Kc) While the king of clubs does give you a redraw if a club hits on the turn, that is not the reason I favor it. Another reason is that having the king of clubs in your hand prevents anyone from making the absolute nuts in this case which may save you a few bets in some situations. But the main reason I would choose "big slick A" is that by having a club in your hand you take away one of the outs that the flush draws have against you. Let's break it down. 13 clubs total. Take away two on the flop which leaves 11. For someone drawing against you, they must have two clubs, for they are virtually drawn dead if the only have one; which leaves 9. Now, if you have one you interfere by making the flush show up 11% less than it normally would. That number is far more than a backdoor flushdraw is worth, at least to me.
...Ditto...
It also allows you to bet more aggressively throughout the hand when a club hits on the turn.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I prefer The first combo here. As nobody is drawing to the Nut Flush. You probably have the best hand now (although this question could use more detail what are the what EXACTLY is my kicker and what EXACTLY are the two cards with the A on the flop).
You KNOW that nobody is drawing to the nut flush (but they don't know what you know), and also you hold one of the outs for the club flush. Also if the club hits on the turn you have the BEST redraw. and will get paid off by a smaller flush if you hit.
I play better when I have maximum information about my opponents hand in relation to the board so I want to KNOW that nobody is drawing to the nuts.
The one thing that hurts your deception value is that it is hard for someone with two strong clubs (say Qc,Jc) to believe that you have them beat when the third club comes because they would have to believe that you were playing Kx suited which is a stretch (about the only Kx suited I routinely play are AK, KQ, KJ and KT and the KT only in passive games or unraised in decent position). But holding the king is probably enough to keep rasing wars to a minimum of the club does hit so you might get to see the river at a lower cost!
Sean
This post is mostly my response to a thread that I've been following in the theory forum. I think it brings up an important concept and a key difference between maniac games and regular or tough games. Any comments, additions, corrections, would be appreciated.
It's no wonder that so many players have "tough times" in maniac games. If you're expectation on a hand or draw is positive does that mean you should play. In and of itself, no, that's right, I said no. Positive expectations are not all created equal. A play that has an expectation of 50 cents is not equal to a play that has an expectation of, say, 20 bucks.
Positive expectation? Just because you have the odds to call is that a reason to play. Let's say you're getting 10-1 on an 8-1 shot. Probably all right to proceed. Let's say you're getting 6-1 on a 2-1 shot, probably a grave error not to raise, as long as the initial bettor is not on your immediate right.
Let's say you're getting immediate odds of 20-1 from the pot on your 11-1 gutshot draw (forget about the possibility that a flush draw could hit or that you could make your hand on the turn and the river could pair the board and a full house makes your straight the hard way look like shit). O.K.pot's offering 20-1 you're in middle position and you're facing a bet and two callers with the possibility of a raise coming behind you, esp. the guy on the button that's been flopping two pair with Q7?
Are your odds really 20-1, a single raise and it's cut your odds in half, a reraise from the initial bettor and your odds are worse, they're putting heat on the legitimate draws, why would I choose to compete with a piece of chit like 78 with a flop of 5-9-Q? TJ doesn't make it often enough(for my taste), let alone 78(although with TJ and more than 3 callers sandwiched between me and the original bettor I gotta raise any and all bets on the flop, and ,if the party's still going, on the turn too)
Remember Mark we're talking about a game filled with maniacs. There are very few instances where 11-1 shots (gut shot straights) are playable in these games. I've never seen a game where it's capped preflop and checked or single bet on the flop. Where do you play that this happens? For gut shots to be a good call you gotta have multiway, capped preflop action and a single bet on the flop. I've never seen, or even heard of a game where that would happen with any kind of regularity.
Finally, let's forget about effective odds (or real world odds as I refer to them). Let's assume you do have the odds to continue and you don't fear any raising or reraising. Let's say you, and six others, put $12 in preflop with your connectors and you flop your gut shot. Also it's only a single bet on the flop. Let's also assume you're on the button and the bet came from the SB, so there's no need to worry about a checkraise. There's $102 dollars in the pot. The pot is offering you 34-1 on your $3 dollar call. Well if you knowthe SB will just call and every one will just check to you on the turn, then you do better by raising the flop and the pot will be laying you 21-1 if there is a bet on the turn or you'll get to see the river for free if no one bets. But, shit, if the pot's laying you 21-1 on an 11-1 shot why not bet you got the odds? All of this is tongue in cheek of course. No game such as the above exists. No one would bet against 6 opponents with a gut shot on the turn in last position just because there wasn't a bet on the turn. A typical hand in a maniacal 3-6 game will cost you 30 bucks to see the river (12 preflop, 12 on the flop, 6 on turn).
I choose not to be a calling station. I choose not to delude myself into thinking that I can call a flop bettor and there will be no raise behind me. Maybe I'm old fashioned (unusual for a 27 year old to be old fashioned) but I like to be on top and when I am on top I bet and raise and reraise. That's not a problem though because I don't blow a lot chips chasing long shot draws so I can play my hands strongly when I got the goods. In maniacal, crazy games every pot is big, so I wait until I'm only a 2-1 shot to make a flush or I flop trips, something along those lines. They don't care what you have, they barely care what they have, so why would you align your ship with the star VARIANCE when you can fall in line with star DOMINANCE, though it is a little farther away.
I think you like to play Mark. I do too. I love playing cards, I love playing poker, I routinely put in 14 hour sessions, although I tend to break it up and moved around games. For any player, flopping gut shot draws will be common. The times you should continue with a gut shot are far fewer than the times you have a gut shot. Most of the time, gut shot draws do not have a positive expectation, when they do, it can't be much. I'd be very surprised if a gut shot draw had an expectation in excess of a dollar in a sixway pot, capped preflop and on the flop with action on the turn. I don't think I need to comment on the variance that automatically comes with making these kind of plays. Keep in mind calling is a play just as much as betting, raising, reraising, or folding. The crux of this entire situation is this: SOON, as a beginner, asked for some input on playing in crazy, maniacal games. I gave him some advice but it sounds like you could use it as well. There are some situations that come up where, such as gut shot draws, the pot is laying you the proper immediate odds but the game as a whole is not offering you the proper effective odds to play out the hand. Knowing the difference is key. In crazy games keep your powder dry, do not join the party and chase. Be the one in front and let them try to catch, which they will do often enough.
chris
Weakish middle position limper, all fold to a friend of mine (very good player) on the button who also limps, I call in LB with QJo and BB checks.
Flop=QT3o
I bet, BB folds, Middle calls, button raises, I call, Middle calls. Turn is 4. I bet, middle calls, button raises, I fold (There is little chance my friend is playing worse than QJ), Middle calls. River is a blank and middle checks and calls. My friend turns over AQo.
I later questioned why he didn't raise pre-flop. His reasoning was that with weak players you have to hit the flop more times than not to win. He knew he would have the best A or Q if one came and could play it very strong. If not, he loses less money by not being committed or tied to the hand. He noted that middle position would call down with any pair, and if an A or Q did not flop, there was no way for my friend to win.
I'm not sure I agree with this logic. Any comments?
Well, is he he saying that you and BB are weak players too. IMO It seems if he had a good chance of knocking you and BB out of the hand then he should have raised. But if he knows that at least one if not both of you will defend then limping was probably the right thing to do.
In this situation with A-Qo I would have raised. I would feel very confident that I had the best hand here. With the best hand I like to get as many bets in as possible while I still think I'm ahead. He defends his decision very well but I still disagree with almost all weak plays, especially pre-flop.
This is a 5-10 hand I played on Paradise Poker the other night. I am wondering if I missed a bet on the end or if it was a good check. The game is loose passive, with 4-5 plumbers seeing the flop often unraised.. I am in middle position with QhKs. 2 weak limpers to me and I also limp... next to act raises... folded to the BB who calls both limpers call and I call. We take the flop 5 handed.
*** FLOP *** [4d] [Kh] [3c] Checked to me and I bet out. I actually expected to get raised as the preflop raiser has only limped in the two hours I have been in the game. When he raised I thought he must have a monster, so I expect to be re-raised. I bet for several reasons, I have top pair decent kicker, I don't want to make it easy for underpairs, and to see where I stand... Everyone calls except UTG who folds, no raises.
*** TURN *** [7s] Checked to me I bet, Preflop raiser folds, BB calls, Early position limper calls.
*** RIVER *** [As] BB checks, Limper checks I check I figured one of them to be hanging around with Ax hoping to catch. BB had pocket 6's and the Limper had <no lie> Jc,6,c . My theory was that the only hands that would have called on the end would have beat me... Looking at their cards I could be right, but the pocket sixes might very well have "kept me honest" by calling on the end...
Like most answers that appear on this forum, the answer is probably: it depends on your opponents.
Given that one called the whole way through with a bad hand to start and ended up with no pair, it is very possible that he, or someone else, could have been waiting around with Ax. But if that's true, then their only out is an ace, so when it does hit why would they check? Are they sneaky enough to try for a check raise on the river? If the answer is no, then you missed a bet.
Dan
Your opps were waiting for a 5 or a 6. they didn't get it, you weren't getting called. You didn't miss anything. As to the "sneaky enough to checkraise the river" that dan Osman points out, in online poker this type of sneaky is prevalent. People will cost theselves mega bets just to get in a checkraise. Fancy Play Syndome abounds on the net and some feel they aren't really playing poker unless they humiliate you by trapping you.
I'm in the small blind ($1) with pocket fives. It is folded to the button, who calls. Should I raise here, hoping to get heads up with the button, even though I'm in the worst possible position, or should I see the flop as cheaply as possible? The big blind is tight enough that he would fold to a raise, as long as his hand warrants it. I'm pretty sure the button would have called a raise, regardless of his hand, since he was already in for $3. Thanks for any advice/comments.
Liquid Swords
That's not such a bad idea considering that you probably have the best hand. One problem is that just about every other card is a scare card to you from this point on. You'll pretty much have to come out betting against one opponent and hope he folds, unless you get your set then you might think about slowplaying a little. But what if he raises it back to you after you bet on the flop, then what do you have? Basically, 55 is tough to throw away heads up and yet it is so vulnerable, so why not play for cheap out of position and move on to the button.
I agree with Grinder. You play a small pair like this with the hopes of flopping a set. See the flop as cheaply as possible and the implied odds come when and if your set flops.
Is the button the type of player who is tricky enough to deceptively smooth call on the button with a big hand as 1st player in, or is he a weak limper trying to see the flop cheaply with a fairly random hand? Did you give any thought as to why he didn't raise to attack the blinds? You say the BB will fold to a raise if he has a weak holding, but what happens if he calls your raise, or if you just call, what do you do if the BB now raises? You will be first to act after the flop, and unless you hit your set, you will in all liklihood looking at a flop that contains overcards, all of which could be problems. I would prefer not to put myself into these sort of guessing games in small pots.
I am sure that I will be in the minority here, but with a small pocket pair out of the SB and with a maximum of 2 callers and only $1 invested, I would strongly consider just dumping the pair, let the BB and the button fight it out for my buck, and save my money for the upcoming hands when I will be in premiere position.
Dunc Mills raises the issue of the 'cleaver limper'. If I limp first in on the button, be very afraid. Many are just fish though and have a POS hand that most of us could easily muck, JT, 97s, Q8, crap like that.
With 55 vs. a fish I like raising just slightly more than folding. I rate calling as clearly inferior since you'll be fighting it 3 way instead of heads up.
Against a steal raise from the button I'd be 3 betting most of the time but that's a different story.
Thanks everyone for your input. You guys raised some questions that I did not even consider, but will try to in the future.
I ended up just calling, the big blind checked, and we saw the flop 3-handed, which I folded once the button bet and I did not make my set. No showdown, so I don't know what he had.
Thanks again.
Liquid Swords
I would like to know if my reasoning on this hand was sound poker or I just got lucky.
Limit 8/16. Game fairly tight with only 2-3 player usually taking the flop. One UTG limper, a caller in the 6 seat, and me in the cutoff seat with KQo. I raise. Button and blinds both fold.
My rationale for the raise was that both limpers were good, but straightforward players. If either of them had a hand which would dominate me (premium pair or AK or AQ), they would have raised. I also felt that the button and both blinds were tight enough to fold marginal hands such as Ax or 89 to a raise.
Things went pretty much as planed wtih a JQs paying me off when a Q flopped. However the button, whom I believe to be one of the stronger players in the game, indicated that my raise was not good poker because there were already multiple callers. Was he right?
I like your raise here despite limpers, how many were there? My feeling is you have to put pressure on the blinds here with what is most likely the best hand, don't let them see the flop cheap. Moreover, you got to buy the button and take control of the pot. Realize of course that if an A falls you may want to dump the hand to any big action against you, say if someone checkraises you when you try to semibluff. Of course KQs would be better, but I think your raise was fine none the less.
If the UTG limper is a solid player, beware of a possible re-raise with hands like AKs, AQs. Also some players like to get tricky with AA and KK UTG. But it depends on the player.
I'm limping here. Bob Ciaffone has put me str8 about KQ and it goes like this: Assume you miss the flop and then it's check to you. You'll bet and if you're called and again miss the turn you're almost forced to take another swing at the pot, heck it's getting big and your opponent is showing no strength. So now you miss the river and you can't even beat an ace high so you must bet once more with a stone bust. It's just so risky. With AT or AJ at least you can show down and pray on the river but not with KQ.
Scott,
I've read Ciaffone's thoughts on KQ and tend to agree with it when it fits the situation (maybe this would be worth another thread with all the new posters even though I think it has been done before). However, this hand and this situation cries out for a raise. If our hero was right that the limpers were "good but straightforward" players", then there is a good chance they don't have an ace. If they did have one (let us say they limped with AT suited), they would tend not to call down with an ace nothing hand against pressure. Finally, add in the fact that the blinds and button were tight.
My friend Greg just walked in (you met him briefly two weeks ago at the Commerce NL game when he walked by). He added that there are five players who probably don't want you to raise. They would be the blinds, the limpers, and the button. Why not disappoint them with a hand that is at least a marginal raising hand in a good situation?
Regards,
Rick
You're probably right about this specific situation. There are certainly times I'll pop it with KQ, it's just that I'm no a bit more cautious. I tend to give up the semi-bluff on the turn and then get robbed on the river.
Calvin,
This is another one I put up before checking what others say so I apologize if it repeats what others have said.
You wrote: "However the button, whom I believe to be one of the stronger players in the game, indicated that my raise was not good poker because there were already multiple callers. Was he right?"
He was "right" for him. Anytime a player can talk opponents out or raising and letting them in cheaply, they have done themselves a service.
Everything about your raise sounds right to me. You figured that your limping opponents would raise with hands that dominate yours. You figured that you could get dead blind money in the pot since they were tight. You were in the cutoff seat and figured a raise would "buy the button" against a solid player behind.
I don't give lessons or criticize my opponents at the table. But maybe if I can give bad lessons and they will listen to me, I might start doing it ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Many poker experts suggest just calling here.
Almost everything cries out for a raise. You've got the likely best hand, and if not you likely can scare out a limping (weak) ace or (small) pair. You've got a reverse implied odds hand that will likely be continuing on after the flop, while your opponents have implied odds hands that will often be mucked on the flop. You can buy the button. You can scare out weak aces after you. You can reduce the competition. You can set up a semibluff or a free card on the flop.
The arguments against it are that your opponents will go into check-call mode and that you'll make the pot so big that they'll chase. I'm not a big believer in this short of 8+ way pots, where KQ likely becomes an implied odds hand.
If this were 80-160 instead of 8-16, then you would have to seriously consider mucking the KQ after two tight limpers for fear that your cards are dominated and/or partially dead, especially versus those opponents capable of limping with a big hand.
Raise or fold.
-Abdul
10 players. I'm on the button in the eight seat and am dealt pocket 10s. All fold until a tight, obvious player in the 6 seat raises. 7 seat folds. I cold call 2 bets. SB folds. BB, not a good player, calls.
Flop: 10h 7h 7s
BB checks. 6 seat bets. I call. BB calls.
Turn: Qh
BB checks. 6 seat bets. I raise. BB cold calls. 6 seat calls.
River: 8h
BB bets. 6 seat calls. I raise. BB reraises(!). 6 seat folds disgustedly. I call.
BB turns over the Jh9h and takes the pot.
Criticisms and Comments are appreciated.
This is just one of many hands you can avoid by 3-betting the tens in the first place.
Chris, while I agree with you that three betting is probably correct here, it sounds to me that the BB was going to defend no matter what. As joe_qz mentions in his post, the player was not good, moreover a suited one gapper, while in trouble against AA's and TT's is not totally indefensible from the BB. Although I would probably not play it.
Sorry joe_qz, this was just a bad beat. No criticism on my part for the way you played the hand, except you could have three bet it pre-flop.
When he's going to call with any two cards above a six, on the button you should be more inclined to 3-bet pocket tens than 2 big unpaired cards. AT over J9 is okay, but TT over J9 is great and TT over 98 is fabulous.
and 2 twos 2 is a jackace on the turn....watch out for the milk......
However if the BB is not a good player, he will most likely call 3 bets with the Jh9h.
I recently 3 bet queens against a loose-aggresive player and the player to my immediate left cold-called with J8o and flopped the 2nd nuts when I flopped top set. Of course the board couldn't find the heart to pair. :)
You want them to call as many bets as you can make when you have TT vs. their J9s or QQ vs. their J8o.
I'd have lost more money, because I would have raised again at least one more time on the river.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
...and I would have lost even more with a likely reraise before the flop and a raise on the turn if I figured the BB for the flush draw and would not fold. The pot is small enough to want him to draw to a single card to win and eight cards for a distant second. Next time he calls, you will have the ten of hearts.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
I agree with Fossilman. I don't think 3 betting before the flop would chase J-9s.... a slow play seemed justified...you just got beat by a straight flush....it happens.
You just wanted to tell us a bad beat story didn't you. I thought so, you should be ashamed of yourself.:~(
joe_qz,
Before the flop, I would have reraised a "tight obvious" mid position raiser with tens. I also would have put in one more raise on the river.
As a general rule, when you flop a big full house and end up getting "ironed out" by a straight flush or quads, expect to lose a lot of bets. I wouldn't call it a major leak in your game though.
Regards,
Rick
I made my post immediately above without reading your stuff. I just couldn't help myself as I just went on to belabor the obvious that you already stated.
Anyway, Chris is right about the reraise. FossilMan, if the big blind did not fold for three bets then I lose one more bet than you.
Regards,
Rick
If you have pocket 10s and the flop is 10-7-7, how do you lose to a straight?
.
20-40 game, solid player raise before flop, a player that has about 80 bucks in front of him and hasn't played a hand in an hour three bets the raiser, four players muck to me and I see two black Queens. I muck 'em. Yes? No? maybe so? It ends up heads up with the two players mentioned.
No way!! For the simple reason that the guy only has $80 in front of him. Even if this isn't the case, I believe that is giving him just a little too much respect.
Consider what a reraise may mean....A big wired pair, maybe, but you can't play at the table with that kind of fear.
He could have big slick, in which case you are a slight favorite, especially if the solid player with the first raise has a legitimate raising hand.
Or consider the third possibility, the one that I think, is that he was short on cash and wanted to isolate on the raiser with a possibly marginal hand.
Either way, with any kind of favorable flop, with position, you get to play the hand and see a free card or two, not to mention if you RERAISE and scare the Dickens out of the preflop raiser.
Just a thought
Mike
Ditto. I 4-bet.
Even if it turned out your opps had KK and AA this is still terrible poker. You have a premium hand you have to see the flop.
SammyB wrote: >You have a premium hand you have to see the flop.
I disagree completely with this statement.
If you are confident enough that an opponent has AA or KK, and the pot odds for flopping a set aren't there, you should fold.
Now, maybe the facts of this case aren't strong enough to convince us that the other players are holding AA or KK. However, if paulie (who was there) is highly confident that one of them has an overpair to his QQ, then folding is the correct play.
It certainly may be true that the $80-man was isolating with a hand that he thinks beats the raiser, but which may not beat QQ. It is important to do a good job of guessing what hand he is likely to hold. A further consideration, if you think that there is only a modest chance the reraiser has AA or KK, is that you might play for the side pot with the guy who has chips. Losing $80 to the all-in player won't hurt so much if you win $160 from the other guy in the side pot.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Have you ever been in this situation, mucking QQ to a raise and reraise preflop?
Yes, at least once that I can recall.
Admittedly, it's a rare circumstance in limit poker, just because there are so few players who you can pin down to AA or KK preflop with high confidence. Additionally, there have been many times when I was confident someone had a bigger pocket pair, but there were so many other players in the hand that I had pot odds to flop a set, and called preflop anyway.
In NL or PL poker, I've thrown this hand away many times, including KK many times.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Premium hands are in the eye of the beholder, I no longer consider QQ a prem hand KK is marginal. Only true premium hand is AA so long as they are suited :-)
paulie,
I need a little more information on this one. If the raise and reraise were made up front, then a case can be made for folding QQ. In any event, the player with $80 could actually be weaker then normal in that he could very well be making an isolation play with a hand that does not want much action post flop (e.g. AJ offsuit).
Put these raises in later positions, and I would four bet it (cap it in California). Now the pot is "protected" if it is three-way and you can be reasonably sure the solid player betting a flop with an ace or king in it has it.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
The raise's came from UTG and next position. I felt like the guy with 80 bucks had KK or AA and in fact he did hold KK. Watching him play on his case money lead me to believe he was waiting for the nuts, and all night I had never seen him 3 bet AK.
Paul
paulie,
You have to know your player as you obviously did. At the somewhat lower limits, I find players loosen up when they only have about four or five small bets left. The money in front is rarely "case money". Good read and good play.
Regards,
Rick
AA, KK, and QQ all being dealt on the same deal happens very rarely. Therefore my thinking would be to find out who, if either, has the bigger overpair. By just calling three bets cold you send a message to the early raiser that you have a big hand. If he four bets it, he still may not have you beat but it becomes more likely. For the simple reason that you are only gonna lose $80 to the player who three bet it I would call and try to build a sidepot. A lot of action from the initial raiser here means you are usually in second place. The player going all-in can't give you enough information about his hand to require you to fold.
If either opponent has AK (suited or not), or if the two of them combined have at least one Ace and one King, then ... you are a very slim favorite. So you are in this position of being either a huge underdog (if you are against an overpair) or a very small favorite otherwise. This is right out of the book.
The pot odds, with the reraise, are not even close for staying and hoping to flop a set. Good fold.
Dick
Can someone please tell me what the odds are of making trips on the flop with a pocket pair?, and the turn also the river. Thanks.
8.5:1 on the flop
50*49*48/6 = 19,600 (possiable flops)
50-2 = 48(cards that do not contain one of your pair)
48*47*46/6 = 17,296 (flops that do not contain 1 of your pair)
19,600 - 17,296 = 2,304(flops that contain 1 of the pair) 19,600 / 2,304 = 8.5:1
After that you have 2 two outer
River 10.88:1
Turn 22.5:1
Best of it !!
MJ
The correct way to determine the probability of improving with two
(or more) cards to come is to first determine the probability of not improving, and then
subtract this result from 1 (or 100%) For example, in the case of a flush draw,
your chances of not improving are 38/47 * 37/46, or .65 (65%).
Your chances of making the flush with two to come is thus .35 (35%), and the odds against
hitting the flush are .65/.35, or 1.86 to 1.
Chances on the Turn, River & Both |
Outs | Turn % | Turn Odds | River % | River Odds | Turn/River % | Turn/River odds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 42.6 | 1.35 | 43.5 | 1.30 | 67.5 | 0.48 |
19 | 40.4 | 1.47 | 41.3 | 1.42 | 65.0 | 0.54 |
18 | 38.3 | 1.61 | 39.1 | 1.56 | 62.4 | 0.60 |
17 | 36.2 | 1.77 | 37.0 | 1.71 | 59.8 | 0.67 |
16 | 34.0 | 1.94 | 34.8 | 1.88 | 57.0 | 0.76 |
15 | 31.9 | 2.13 | 30.4 | 2.28 | 51.2 | 0.96 |
13 | 27.7 | 2.62 | 28.3 | 2.54 | 48.1 | 1.08 |
12 | 25.5 | 2.92 | 26.1 | 2.83 | 45.0 | 1.22 |
11 | 23.4 | 3.27 | 23.9 | 3.18 | 41.7 | 1.40 |
10 | 21.3 | 3.70 | 21.7 | 3.60 | 38.4 | 1.61 |
9 | 19.1 | 4.22 | 19.6 | 4.11 | 35.0 | 1.86 |
8 | 17.0 | 4.88 | 17.4 | 4.75 | 31.5 | 2.18 |
7 | 14.9 | 5.71 | 15.2 | 5.57 | 27.8 | 2.59 |
6 | 12.8 | 6.83 | 13.0 | 6.67 | 24.1 | 3.14 |
5 | 10.6 | 8.40 | 10.9 | 8.20 | 20.4 | 3.91 |
4 | 8.5 | 10.75 | 8.7 | 10.50 | 16.5 | 5.07 |
3 | 6.4 | 14.67 | 6.5 | 14.33 | 12.5 | 7.01 |
2 | 4.3 | 22.50 | 4.3 | 22.00 | 08.4 | 10.88 |
1 | 2.1 | 46.00 | 2.2 | 45.00 | 04.3 | 22.50 |
I took the 9 out line for this example from that chart.
9 | 19.1 | 4.22 | 19.6 | 4.11 | 35.0 | 1.86
Drawing 1 card (Turn)
9 outs
Percent chance to make your hand: 19.1 % is
9(outs)/47 * 100 = 19.14%
Odds against making the hand(Dog)
4.22:1 is 100 - 19.14 / 19.14 = 4.23:1
If you miss the turn and are drawing 1 card (river):
Percent Chance to make your hand. 19.6 is
9(outs)/46 * 100 = 19.56% (19.6 rounded)
Odds against making the hand(Dog)
4.11:1 100 - 19.56 / 19.56 = 4.11:1
Chance of making a flush with two cards to come
35.0%
Chance *against* making a flush with two to come is
38/47 = .808
37/46 = .804
.808 * .804 = .6496 , or .65
Chances of making the flush with two to come is .35
100% - 65% = 35%
Odds:1 against making a flush with two cards to come
1.86 = 100-35 /35 = 1.857 (1.86 Rounded)
Best of it !!
MJ
MJChicago, this is a great chart!
JOE
Thanks MJ, your chart and info will help me a lot. MJ, I have seen your name on Paradise Poker, do you play over there.
yes I do ..what is your handle(name)there?
MJ
MJChicago,
Thanks for taking the time to send the chart.
The best of it.
Mick
then subtract this result by 1
8.5 - 1 = 7.5
what if you have 10/9 off suit in the big blind w/ 5 players limping in. The flop comes 8/6/2 rainbow. You check the gut shot draw, next player bets and three players call the bet. Their are now 8.5 small bets in the pot. If I plan to only take one card off assuming a 9 or 10 doesen't hit on the turn am I getting the correct pot odds to make this play. From what I have read w/ a 4 outter my odds are 5-1 w/ two cards to come and 11-1 w/ one card to come. Am I calculating this correctly. If not your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Your odds for just the turn are 11:1 you are getting 8.5:1 but your "implied odds" are also very good if you hit your hand, (assuming it will not be raised behind you) if it's 1 bet to you then you can take the slightly lower odds knowing that if you hit it you will make up the difference when they pay you off if your hand is in fact good enough to win.
MJ
To make AT LEAST trips:
Flop: (2/50) + (48/50)*(2/49) + (48/50)*(47/49)*(2/48) ~ 11.755% ~ 7.5:1
Turn: 2/47 = 22.5:1
River: 2/46 = 22:1
10-20 HE. Two callers and I raise one off the button with KK. Flop is 10,9,7o. Checked to me, I bet and first player raises, second player re-raises. I fold. JT wins the pot. Both players were fairly tight. How bad was this fold?
First off, these guys don't sound very tight to me. To re-raise with an inside straight and top pair sounds pretty loose. Also, I think you gave them too much credit. Perhaps it is easier for me to say this online, but I think I would put them both on a draw of some sort and call them down.
There was no raise from an earlier position so it is not easy to put one of them on a set of T's. The board is pretty coordinated, but if they are tight do you think one of them would play 68s, J8s or unsuited? If so, then they are not tight so they must be drawing and you probably have the best hand.
True the nine possibile ways that one of them has T9s or unsuted, and you are dominated, but you would still have 4 outs with the sevens pairing and 2 K's, still call.
I hope you did not show or tell what you laid down or they table may try to run you over.
Maybe I am a loose player, but I would either pay off or win a big pot here. A tough lay down.
Forgot about trips here. You also can consider trip 7's or trip 9's, there are four ways one of them could have that, and then you could be drawing to 2 outs, but still I would call it down so as to show that I was not a folder.
A strategy I sometimes use here is to call and then raise the turn(assuming a blank hits the turn). If you are re-raised there, then muck, if not you can bet or check-down the river.
Here's a step by step description of my decision making process before the flop: Step 1)The first hole card hits my hand and automatically triggers me into the state of mind called "in the zone" (alert, focused, confident, physically energized, mentally calm); simultaneously I immediately look to my left and notice where I am in relation to the button (this gives me a sense of my position). Step 2)When I pick up the second hole card, I look immediately to my right and start to observe the action as it unfolds before me. While I'm doing this, I'm asking myself: Is there a raiser? If so, who? From what position? How many callers before the raiser? How many callers after the raiser? If there is no raiser I just observe who called and how many called. Once I have the answers to these questions I affirm to myself "This is a multiway pot" or "This is a shorthanded pot" whichever best describes the situation. Also while I'm doing the above thinking, I'm also looking at the players to my left using my peripheral vision in order to find hints of their intentions. Step 3)Before peeking at my hole cards I say "I need a multiway hand" if the pot is multiway and I say "I need a shorthanded/heads up hand" when the pot is shorthanded/heads up. Step 4)I take the appropriate action (raise or reraise or fold or call). Comments: The whole process occurs very quickly and intuitively (step 2, for example, takes me less than a second to run). Questions: Am I right in waiting until it's my turn to act before peeking at my hole cards? The reason I do this is because I want to maximize my ability to be aware of my environment (the other players' behaviors, actions,and demeanors, the size of the pot, position, etc.) so that I have more information to work with. Can any of you share in a step by step fashion, the specific steps that you use to make your preflop decisions? In your opinion, is my decision making process efficient? What weakness and gaps do you see? Can you tell me where it could use some improvement?
I am in the zone as soon as I get out of my car in the vallet parking area.
I am aware of all the players and watch their every movement, most don't give up much pre flop but I watch anyway I am watching the "players" button and blinds.
I am looking for loading up and disgusted looks.
Is my hand worth playing in this position with this much money in and this potential win. I usually say no and muck but watch everything.
The flop who hit it - I usually know - and if I don't hit it hard I am usually ready to muck, If I am on a draw will a reraise or check raise get me a free card on the turn and or river.
Are the players in the type who will give up a hand to a strong play or will they call down with a pair of 2's.
Usually I just let the "force" be with me.
Thanks for the flop and post flop advice Luke Sky-------. Obee Juan.
K.K., your step by step is very similar to how I approach each pre-flop decision. One difference I see is, I look at the first card in, then observe the other players, then look at the second card when I have to act. One detail I always make note of before I call or raise; Is any one behind me short-stacked and likely to be going all-in with an automatic raise or re-raise. If so, how many bets have they got in front of them, and how best to use their anticipated aggression to my advantage obviously comes into play. spitball
I have run into this exact scenario three times in the last month: I raise with AQ from middle position and someone with KK smooth calls me from later position or a blind. Twice the flop was queen high and raggedy and I ended up losing several bets.
Question: would you ever make this play? I could see maybe not always capping with KK if it's three bets to you, but I could not just call two bets pre-flop with KK.
Is this an interesting, tricky play or an invitation for disaster?
Its always important to vary your play somewhat and I think withholding a 3-bet preflop with KK may not be a bad play.
The raise you already put in will get rid of the Q-rag hands so the KK doesn't need to raise to get anyone out. You may think the KK has to raise for information, to find out what you have, but he can save that raise for later when there is more information to be gained.
The only real mistake is perhaps not getting more money into the pot when he has the best of it, but I think the deception can make up for that most of the time, keeping someone like you in to the river on a hand that was losing all the way.
It depends.
If the KK is going to have to play against you, AND several other players, most of whom will fold if he raises, then he MAY be better off 3-betting and playing this pot short-handed.
If KK is sure everyone else is going to fold anyway, then not reraising, in order to deceive you, can definitely be a good play.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Scott Wyler,
I may smooth call with AA once in a while but KK is a reraising hand almost all the time. I believe kings need to shut out the medium strong aces yet to act.
Everything went your opponents way on these occasions. First, the flop was queen high, not ace high, which was lucky for him. Then he led you to believe you were stronger than you were, and you didn't hit your five outer once the flop came. The fact is, you probably would have lost almost as much even if he reraised pre flop.
Any play can look good in the short run.
Regards,
Rick
As Rick pointed out you probably lost almost as many as you would have had he 3-bet it. (1) He 3-bets from the BB, he 3-bets the flop and you call him down (10sb total) (2) He just calls 2-bets hehehe; he check-raises and you just call 2bets hehehe; you 2-bet the turn and get the last bet in on the river (10sb total) (3) You 2-bet; he bets and you 2-bet; he check-raises and bets the river (Mmmmm, 10 bets again) (4) ... well, how DID it go down???
Strategically its sound so long as there are no OTHER hands he'd 3-bet with: If he'll flat call with AK or TT then flat calling with KK has a lot of merit. But if he IS 3-betting with some weaker hands then he should also with KK and AA.
- Louie
Sounds like you were up against a no-limit player, as this play works even better there. The key is the texture of the flop of course, when something non-threatening like Q-rag-rag falls. Slow play to the turn with K-K can be quite devastating.
Eight handed pot limit holdem hand...blinds 25 and 50 UTG raises with a large stack ($185,000 he had been running over everyone but me in the game) making it $175 to go. I know he is a aggressive player but with that position he can only be raising AA or KK maybe QQ if he is feeling it. I am a large stack ($180,000) and see 99 after everyone passes to me on the botton. I raise even though he has most likely has KK or AA. He comes over the top of me again so I put him on AA. I coffeehouse a little like I might re-raise and just decide to call. People may not like my raise on the flop since I put in about $1500 with what I know is the worst hand. My thinking was if he puts me on KK and has AA he may bet the pot the whole way and if I flop a set I may be able to raise him on the river and take down a huge pot since he won't put me on 99. Anyways flop comes A99!! My only fear now is that he has KK or that I was wrong and he only has AK. He bets the pot at me....naturally I don't want to blow him out of the pot if he has AK but I want to take his whole stack if he has AA. I take my chances and go over the top, he reraises, I reraise again, he raises, and I flat call. He bets the turn, I call after much consideration. Eventually we both get it all in on the river when I came over the top. By then I think he knew he was beat but couldn't lay that hand down. I really think my pre-flop play allowed me to take his whole stack. He "knew" I would never re-raise preflop with 99 against an early raise. He told me later he put me on AK or maybe A9 or 9T suited and would never have put all his money in if I had limped pre-flop with possibly 99. Obviously he grossly misread my hand. Comments on how I played the hand? DO you think if I had limped pre-flop (which I strongly considered) that I would have taken his whole stack anyways?
Is this hand from IRC?
"Eight handed pot limit holdem hand...blinds 25 and 50 UTG raises with a large stack ($185,000 he had been running over everyone but me in the game) making it $175 to go. I know he is a aggressive player but with that position he can only be raising AA or KK maybe QQ if he is feeling it."
With the money that deep, why would you necessarily assume that? At very least, many players will raise AK or AQ here, JJ and TT are always possible, and some will occasionally mix it up, even UTG.
I am a large stack ($180,000) and see 99 after everyone passes to me on the botton. I raise even though he has most likely has KK or AA. He comes over the top of me again so I put him on AA. I coffeehouse a little like I might re-raise and just decide to call."
Again, if he raised to 150, and you reraise to 500, the money is *so* deep that he might come over the top with a lot of hands, especially if he thinks it will help him steal on the flop.
"People may not like my raise on the flop since I put in about $1500 with what I know is the worst hand. My thinking was if he puts me on KK and has AA he may bet the pot the whole way and if I flop a set I may be able to raise him on the river and take down a huge pot since he won't put me on 99. Anyways flop comes A99!! My only fear now is that he has KK or that I was wrong and he only has AK. He bets the pot at me....naturally I don't want to blow him out of the pot if he has AK but I want to take his whole stack if he has AA. I take my chances and go over the top, he reraises, I reraise again, he raises, and I flat call."
How much are these raises? It makes a big difference how much money is left.
"He bets the turn, I call after much consideration. Eventually we both get it all in on the river when I came over the top. By then I think he knew he was beat but couldn't lay that hand down. I really think my pre-flop play allowed me to take his whole stack. He "knew" I would never re-raise preflop with 99 against an early raise."
Why not? The important thing is how deep the money is, and you can never be this sure. If even with 100:1 implied odds you never reraise without AA or KK you become too easy to read.
"He told me later he put me on AK or maybe A9 or 9T suited and would never have put all his money in if I had limped pre-flop with possibly 99. Obviously he grossly misread my hand. Comments on how I played the hand? DO you think if I had limped pre-flop (which I strongly considered) that I would have taken his whole stack anyways?"
You left out a *lot* of details. I would generally limp with 99 here. On this flop there are not many possibilities for reraising hands and unless he's brain-dead, the chance of 99 has to enter into his mind. After all, it has to be clear to you that *he* has aces, and you're playing back at him.
...yeah right.
The blinds don't make sense for stack sizes. Either you are missing 2 zeros after the blinds or added 2 zeros to the stack sizes.
hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
Sounds like you won something like $300,000 in the game. And then you posted it on the net. And then a monkey flew out of my butt....
Even if you are adding some zeros, sounds like a lot of fun. I got quads against aces full once -- I think I took down $150 or so.
I've never played pot limit, so the math is confusing me.
You say:
*** blinds 25 and 50 UTG raises * * * making it $175 to go.
[At this point what can you bet? The call plus a raise of equal amount? i.e., you can put $350 more in (including a raise of $175), making a pot total of $525? That means him coming over the top means he can put $1050 more in (including a raise of $875), making a pot total of $1575. You need to call $875 for a pot total of $2450, of which $75 are blinds. You thus have about $1,200 in].
I can't make the math work with the part where you say:
"People may not like my raise on the flop since I put in about $1500 with what I know is the worst hand."
Anybody help me on this and the mechanics of pot-limit?
You can raise the total pot amount. For blinds 25 and 50 meaning 75 in the pot with the live bet being 50 the first player 1) calls 50 making the total pot 125 2) raises the 125 pot limit for a total of 175 to go. There is now 250 in the pot. Next player now can raise by doing this 1) calling 175 making the pot 425 and 2) re-raising the 425 pot limit making it 600 total for the next player. Honestly, pot limit is a pain in the ass to work with math impaired players and/or dealers (my particular game was a home game). But with people who can't do math look out you'll have a high frustration factor.
Loose aggressive 4-8 game just got wilder with the addition of a 'hard-driven' 10-20 player waiting for a seat. 5 to 8 way action with most pots raised pre-flop and post-flop but settling down on the turn and ussually heads-up by the river. I'm two off the button with AJs, '10-20' raises UTG, called by another aggressive player, fold to me, I call, two more calls, the blinds call. Flop is 6s 10s Qd. Blinds check, '10-20' bets, one caller, I raise, all fold to '10-20' who calls, player between us folds. Turn is 3s, '10-20' bets, I call. River is 9s, '10-20' bets, I raise, he calls and flips over Qh Ks. When he saw that I'd made the nut on the turn and been drawing dead and made it, he very loudly mocked my flop-raise. I'd killed my own action was the jist of his outburst.
Perhaps I did but I think I made the most I could out of the hand given the table dynamics at the time. I think I played the hand well. Comments? spitball
spitball,
I don't see any problem with your play, especially with a caller between you and the flop bettor. Your raise won't drop him but may drive a hand like A6 or AT out behind you, which is what you want.
As a side note, I would play AJ suited pre flop in that game and spot but not AJ offsuit. Making the flushes may be rare but it is where the money is in this hand.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Critisism from a player you just beat is generally not the most constructive.
Generally no, especially when they are pissed at you.
I was mostly curious as to how other posters play this situation. In the past I would have called the flop, bet/raised the turn and of course still do play this hand in that way sometimes. However, I've lately begun to play my strongest draws very aggressivly (Izmet's Rammin n Jammin influence) on the flop and as a result I think all my bets have become more valuable. What has been your experience with r'n'j? spitball
spitball,
I lot depends on whether or not the original bettor is likely to make it three bets to me. The texture of the flop and the aggression level of the lead bettor matters. I do want to have at least one overcard when I make this play with players yet to act in order to give pairing this card a chance.
Regards,
Rick
In hind sight you could have clearly got more money into this pot, however at the time of the raise you only had a draw. How many times have you had a flush draw on the flop and you never hit it? Well I can remember several. The pot was pretty good sized considering the pre-flop raise and all the callers. Clearing the field can't be that bad a play with a big pot. Also, I've seen many people call two small bets with not much in their hands, someone will pay you off.
What were your thoughts on what affects your raise would have i.e. get more money in vs Knock people out.
But where would you be if the turn was a blank? and then it got raised to you?
I like your raise, you gave them a chance to make a mistake according to the FTOP, most of the table didn't make a mistake, but they often will.
My thinking was a) win the pot. A very slim chance but worth trying given the nuber of outs I had, b)drive out any weak A's to give mine a better chance if one showed up c) disguise my hand if a spade fell, which is the explanation I gave at the table in retort to the critic...which turned out to be the hand's biggest error, I should have either kept my mouth shut or just said 'yeah, you're probably right.' because he left the table a couple hands later when he realised no one was going to bend over for him, and d) get more money in the pot.
This, curiously, also backfired somewhat as I did not expect EVERYONE but the bettor to fold. It's not like I'm the rock. Perhaps the flop just hit everyone very awkwardly and they were all in a mucking mood anyway. In that sense, I did make the most from the hand as '10-20' was certain he'd sucked out on me when the 9s fell.
If a blank falls on the turn the worst I face is a bet from '10-20' and an easy call, or perhaps I raise again if say a nine falls. My raise got me heads up with position.
Actually, given that I was semi-bluffing, didn't most of the table make a mistake by folding? Depends on what kind of hands they called with pre-flop I guess... spitball
The raise on the flop is a good play because not only does it disguise your hand, but you probably have a decent chance at getting a free river card.
However, your flush hit on the turn and this guy bet into you, which was a big mistake on his part considering you had just raised. My opinion is that you should have raised this on the turn - you probably would've gotten the same amount of money and maybe one more big bet if he still bet out on the river.
You have the nuts and you have to make your opponent pay for his river card.
~DjTj
I didn't raise because I thought if he'd flopped a set he'd have three bet the flop, e.g. I just killed his action and he's going to make me pay. Therefore, the only way he could still draw me out would be with two pair. I don't think he's raising under the gun with 63, 10 3, or Q3 and if he'd flopped top two I think he three bets the flop. In short, I've got him and now I have to figure out how to extract the most bets. If I raise and he also has made a flush (QKs), I'll get a call and a call on the river. If I raise and he's still on a draw with a weaker spade, say JoQs he may just muck. If he's just got a big pair and a straight draw, he may muck as well. If I show weakness, just call when the spade hits, I'm much more likely to be bet into on the river no matter what hits. This is his nature...he bets too much. After I raise the river, I win either way; either he folds and no one really knows what I had, or he calls, I piss him off and he buys more chips and tries to run over the table.
I think he bet the turn after I raised to find out if the spade was a scare card for me. I think he put me on AQ, Q10 or pocket 10's after I called and now thinks his K is good when the 9s comes.
I may have picked up an extra bet by raising the turn but I don't think so. The long term result of the way I played played it, the action everyone got during his hissy-fit, was well worth it. spitball
I think 10-20 hold-em logic was correct, but he should never criticize someone at the table. You have four potential callers behind you. You are DRAWING at the nut flush and nut straight with an overcard. You have a huge DRAW. You should want all the callers you can get. What if 10-20 reraises and you miss? When fishing, never throw rocks in the water!! I personally feel you could have extracted more money out of this draw.
Thanks,
Trotline ;>)
I've played big draws passively on the flop for a long time. Recently I've adopted a more aggressive style. The main influence comes from Izmet's fine article called "Rammin' and Jammin' on a draw" which can be found at his website. I've found that in low-limit games flop raises tend to build pots rather than reduce players. With a big draw this is a money making situation. I also like the added deception this tactic gives to the rest of my game, ie., I feel less concerned about scaring people off when I raise the flop with huge flopped hands. It is rare that four players will fold to a flop raise in the game I sited. The flop raise may have moved them off their hands or they may have folded reguardless.
If I just call on the flop and a spade comes, any aggression will hilite my hand. I may have made less money.
I don't know why '10-20' didn't re-raise the flop to try and get heads-up with me. Perhaps he saw the player between us preparing to fold and figured he'd make a move on the turn.
If there are lots of callers to my raise and '10-20' re-raises, I can cap. If there are no callers and '10-20' re-raises and aggressive folds, there are 20 small bets in the pot. I have position heads up with a player who will bet and raise with A-high. This is still a good situation imo. spitball
In late position I would have raised on the draw, you might get 2 free cards, Don't you think that people on flush draws usually play it the same, way, they raise in late position , or call under the gun. Your hand had a lot of outs, would the 10-20 have bet out even when the 9d hit the turn, that would make a big difference on how I would have played the hand
Given that he bet out when a spade hit I think the answer would be yes, he likely would bet out.
Yeah, players often raise the flush draw from late position hoping for a free card...which rarely comes as the play has become almost cliche. I'm not trying for a free card with this raise, I'm trying to build the pot. I'll bring a copy of Izmet's article for you t'morrow night. spitball
With all of these deceptive plays that I'm reading about on this forum recently, I wonder what strategies you all employ to not get taken down by one of these sophisticated plays? It's intimidating reading about these plays that I believe I'm very suseptable to. Currently I'm playing at the 3-6 tables and am able to play with the tempo of the game to actually somewhat control the flow of money into my direction. I'll slow play the flop or turn and come in hard on the turn or river depending on the board and my read of the players. But these stories are so far over my head, I fear the day I encounter any of you.
Any advice would be GREAT!
Deception is only relevant within the context of how a player plays his other hands...
For an extreme example: It's not deception to raise UTG with 27o when the player raises everyhand. It is if the player usually plays 15% of his hands(altho there are much better hands to be deceptive with...)
In my experience, below 9/18 most players are either not deceptive at all or try too hard to be deceptive too often.
Below typically 9/18 you are better of trying to use logic and play technically correct than to spend a lot of energy deceiving your opponents. Correct pot odds calcs and Bayesian analysis are worth a lot more here and should be a higher priority.
Wise albert once say:
"If opponent gonna call anyway, what matter what he think you got!!!!!"
And don't fear, awareness is rare and a prereq to the next level. You are on your way.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
You should read Sklansky's The Theory of Poker. I think his chapter called 'Defense Against the Semi-bluff' one of the most important articles on deception you will find. spitball
Oh wisest of Abert's "said": "... below 9/18 most players are either not deceptive at all or try too hard to be deceptive too often."
Dead on. To which I add "... at least against thinking players". There are many opponents who play straight forward against the croud but ROUTINELY "tricky" against someone who can figure out what they've got such as YOU. Many others routinely play tricky all the time. "Why?" you ask? Because they like it.
Once you know these "tricky" players exist they're easy to spot. Against them: (1) play straight forward on the flop. (2) Presume their actions do NOT reflect their hand (3) Based on this presumption, Play straight forward against them on the turn (which will APPEAR "tricky" since your flop actions will often mis-match your turn actions). (1) is important so you can accurately intepret their actions for (2).
So if the guy bets and 3-bets you its rarely if ever a set. Top pair can easily be the best hand; and raising again on the turn with your draw is a REAL option (he thinks he's represented two pair, your raise "obvious" means you can beat two pair, "easy" fold for him with one pair). If he checks-and-calls early when the flop is KK6 ... rarely bet the turn. "Simple" you say? Right.
I think you will help disipate your "fear" if you do presume "tricky" instead of "sophisticated" whenever you see "strange". A really sophisticated player will, OK, beat you (until his seat in the bigger game opens up). There's plenty of money for the 2nd best player at the table. Energy spent against the best player is much better invested against the fish (at least until you can beat the fish in your sleep).
OK: Sit across the table from any player you fear (reasonably or not) since you will be in many useful ways "out of reach".
- Louie
Ponder this: Someone who always "slow plays" really isn't being "deceptive", is he? No. He's just giving away his hand AND playing "badly". Sounds like someone you can beat easily, eh? Exactly.
An easy piece of advice that's a lot harder in implementation: study how your opponents play. I play 3-6 through 5-10 myself and find that the majority of people really aren't tricky at all! The trickiest they are is trying to bluff. Check raises? fagedboutit! I've been playing in the casinos for a few months now and I've met maybe 4 people that try to check raise. After watching the hands that they show down, I realize that they're check raising just to prove that they can check raise.
Here's the tricky part in low limit games: trying to put people on hands when they have no hand requirements. I have an ace? I'll play it. Two suited cards? I'll play them. two connected cards? I'll play them. OH MAN! A PAIR OF DUECES! RAISE!
Lower limit players aren't tricky because they don't even realize what the tricky tools are to use. A year ago I had never even heard of Texas Hold 'em. I didn't know what blinds were and the concept of a check raise or a slow play would have baffled me. (Don't bet with the best hand? Why the heck wouldn't I?)
That was a year ago. I can only imagine what the concepts I'm going to learn in the next year will be. But the majority of players at your table haven't studied. They won't pull those tricks on you. When they do come up on those rare instances, then you have to decide right then what type of player they are. I don't think I'm qualified to give advice on how to avoid something when I don't know how to avoid it. What I can do is say don't be afraid of something that probably won't happen. It can only cost you money.
Dan
ps the day you encounter me at the table, feel free to stick around. You'll probably win. On second thought, don't come to my table! You'll probably win!
Hi everyone. I posted this a couple of months ago, but received very little in the form of discussion. I am really looking for some insights from the forum as I'm still stumped about these situations!
In general, how should Axs and Kxs be played preflop?
Sit. 1: Suppose you are in middle position in a game where you have about a 10% chance of stealing the blinds. Everyone folds to your A5s. What do you do here? I would muck the K5s. Is this correct?
Sit. 2: Now suppose you are in the same game but in late position (perhaps on the button or 1 off). Everyone folds to your A5s and you figure now you might have a 15% chance of stealing (or even less). Now what do you do? What about with K5s?
Sit. 3: Same game as Sit. 2 but now you have a tight limper who comes in from early position. Is this hand now even worth a call?
Puggy
Puggy,
I'll give this a stab but I might want to mess with your assumptions a bit. In the situations you describe, these hands (Kx versus Ax) play quite differently (or in the case of Kx suited, don't play at all). I'm assuming you are playing middle limits. Let's take situation 1 first.
You wrote: " Suppose you are in middle position in a game where you have about a 10% chance of stealing the blinds. Everyone folds to your A5s. What do you do here?"
I assume middle position means you have about three players yet to act behind you in addition to the blinds. If you have a good seat and the tighter players are on your left, what you really want to do is to get head up with a single blind (when you don't steal the blinds, which is your first choice). Worst case is a reraiser behind. Almost as bad is a cold caller or two behind you in addition to one of the blinds. Now the fact you are suited doesn't help much since this will usually be a battle of high card strength and decent pairs and you don't have much of either.
IMHO, trying to steal blinds with a medium strength hand from middle position is one of the biggest money losers in poker. Exceptions would be with blinds that don't play well and there are extremely weak/tight players on your left. These exceptions are rare. (BTW, hands such as medium to small pairs fall into the same category).
The big problem is that you will all too often end up in a raised pot seeing the flop with a blind to your right and one or two players behind. You are trapped in the middle with a hand that is only fair even if it hits the flop with a pair. Of course hitting the flush is great but that is about a 1% chance if memory serves me. When it flops the flush draw (about 11% of the time) it has only a tiny overlay with two or three opponents.
My advice is to fold this hand most of the time. If I believe this, then Kx suited is total trash.
"Now suppose you are in the same game but in late position (perhaps on the button or 1 off). Everyone folds to your A5s and you figure now you might have a 15% chance of stealing (or even less). Now what do you do?"
Now I think this is a good raise. The difference is that when you don't steal (BTW, 15% seems sort of low for your chances), you will usually get head up with a blind. Now an ace high against a blind is not that bad assuming you play well. As for the Kx (or K5) suited, I think you need to have a much better chance of stealing and have to be a much better player than the blind(s).
In situation 3, I don't think Ax suited is worth a call unless it is a very weak tight limper and then I would raise. I would also want tight players in the blinds so I can often get head up. I would always throw away Kx suited against a single early limper, tight or not.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I appreciate your responses and agree with pretty much everything you say (as usual). The reason I posed these questions with such a low percentage of stealing the blinds (which I realize is much lower than normal), is that I think that these types of hands play much easier in a tight game. i.e. With Axs, if you think you can steal the blinds a reasonable amount of time from late-middle to late position, you raise. With Kxs, you almost always fold unless the blinds play very tight.
However, I think that in loosy goosy games, these babies are much tougher to play correctly.
A follow-up question is how many limpers do you need to play the Axs from late position? I would say 2 minimum, maybe 3 if they are very tight.
Thanks, Puggy
Puggy,
You wrote: "A follow-up question is how many limpers do you need to play the Axs from late position? I would say 2 minimum, maybe 3 if they are very tight."
If you don't expect any callers behind you and think the small blind will call most of the time, I believe you need about three limpers.
Of course, I often call behind two weak limpers, figuring I can "outplay" them in other ways (other than when hitting flush draws). Unfortunately, if I could total my results for every time I made this play, I would discover I am losing a little money. This may be a small leak in my game.
One thing you need to look out for are players that limp with better aces, which is common at mid limits in Southern California (especially the 9/18, 10/20 and 15/30). Now flopping an ace and paying off against a bet in front of you can be a real loser.
Also note that the hand plays well against a single weak opponent who limps late when the blinds are also tight. The idea here is to raise and get head up against the weak opponent with the dead blind money in there. But this type of play is better in a time or dead button drop * game than in a rake game since the rake will come from the pot you hope to win.
Regards,
Rick
* If you are in a dead button drop game (such as the 9/18 in Los Angeles) and often find yourself head up, find another game. Otherwise, the collection is too hard to overcome.
nows me and the boys weres a down at the barn and we was playin poker with the cows. now this one cow was just a lil to smart for me and i had a hard time learnin it bluffs. anyway i was gettin thirsty so i got some milk. i had an ace one 2 a 4 a jack and a queen. now i wasnt sure if that was what u city folk call a good hand but i put all me chewin tabaccy on it and the dammed lil shit stain milker had "two" 2s one ace a jack and a 4. and then came scooter bitchin away like always.
READ THIS DAD!!!!!
boy that was a tuff beat...the milk wasn't pastuerized..and the 2-twos 2 had made the turn a wicked jackace trap.....
To me, with either A5 or K5 suited, you are after a flush. Top pair is probably a trouble hand. I played around with the numbers a little bit and I figured the odds of Kx suited and Ax suited in the same hand as being about 1 in 122. If I have Kx suited, there are 10 of the same suit plus the ace so the probability is 1/50 * 10/49 * 2 or 2/245. With a 10 handed table, there are nine other hands so you will be drawing to the second best flush once every 13 rounds or so. It doesn't seem like the Kx suited is that much worse than the Ax suited. Unless I am missing something.
20/40 Loose aggressive UTG raised the pot very solid player in seat 6 called. I’m on the button with KH QH called. The flop JS 10S 9D LA player bets, solid player raised and I called. LA player raised and the solid player capped the pot. The turn 6C LA player bets solid player raised I three bet LA player capped. At this point I put the solid player on KQ or a set. I couldn’t put the loose player on a hand so I put him on a draw (correct) The river 2S. It’s checked around to me. What would you do? The pot was very big I would hate to get checked raised in this situation. I checked won the pot, but I can’t help from thinking the pot was big so I think I lost two big bets. An input would be helpful.
My dad always said.."Don't get greedy on the end when you can get beat."
I would have checked just like you did. You could have been up against AsKs, AsQs or similar.
Nothing wrong with giving up that last bet. I get chastized sometimes by other players when I do that for "leaving money on the table" or playing "like a girl" but I don't care. Big enough pot as far as I am concerned. Why risk getting check-raised and then having to pay if off to see if you are truly beat.
Diane from Green Bay
Diane,
You can read my post below or some of the others but Louie's is the best of the lot. I can see checking down the river in a situation were your value bet is close and you are up against tricky opponents. But this one was not close as Louie and most of the rest of us mention.
I like Louie's numbers and if you add this up it amounts to real money. In addition, if you play this way, tough opponents will rarely call you on ther river unless they have you beat and they won't give any action when you have the nuts.
Remember, a river value bet does not have to be a sure thing.
Regards,
Rick
This is a tough situation, however I beleive that the LA player would have bet into you on the river with spades, and likewise to the solid player. Unless there was a player who smooth called all of this action behind you, I think you can take the chance and bet here. My guess is the LA player had an overpair.
It has been my experience that most players will not cap the turn with a draw, the flop, yes, but not the turn.
Seems likely that UTG had KQ and the other guy had a set. I would have bet. You may even have both players beat.
Diane's dad is wrong. If you're not "greedy" you will never win very much. There is no such thing as "enough money" ..err.. I mean there shouldn't be.
I presume "Loose Aggressive" means he's raising with lots of hands worse than yours. If not, skip to next paragraph. A solid player would have 3-bet the LA with a hand better than yours. If he really IS solid (and not just "selective") then YOU should have 3-bet the blinds out-a there.
I think it reasonable you'll get paid off twice if you have the better hand and it will cost you two bets if not. If so, the only real question is: "Do I have the best hand half the time?"
The Solid is EXTREMELY unlikely to have a big draw. If he's got the "gamble" to raise 3 times with such a hand he's got the "gamble" to 3-bet with it before the flop. Likewise, LA is unlikely to have raised once and bet twice into such a solid player if HE just had a big draw. Combine that with the chance they'd bet OUT a flush and I'd say your hand is gold well over 80% of the time (I'd actually guess about 90%). Easy bet. There's NO SHAME in getting check-raised 20% of the time.
Two opponents capping it is a very different situation then if you and the solid were capping it and 2 players had just been calling. THEN, maybe, you should "fear" a flush.
As Stonewall Jackson said to his division commanders in the Valley campaign: "Don't take council in your fears".
- Louie
The pot is huge here, so if you bet the river and get check-raised, you still have an easy call. I think it's OK to bet for value here because the way the hand played it's fairly unlikely that either of the other players is on a spade draw, rather it seems they are trying to charge anyone with a draw the maximum. You can go ahead and bet the river here, because you will often be called by worse hands, even though you will lose to a flush a small % of the time. There were some other posts which made good points about a made flush not checking and a real flush draw probably smooth calling the whole way.
Dave in Cali
Dear Scared,
Let's see. The loose aggressive player put the last raise in on the turn yet he checks the river when the flush card comes. The solid player had capped the flop and put in a raise of his own on the turn. Now what should be a scary card to anyone with a made hand comes on the river and it is checked to you! You have an easy bet here and should be called in at least one place, maybe two. I would say the odds that someone made a flush are miniscule based on the play of the hand.
Now I'll read the other responses and would be very surprised if they disagreed with me.
Regards,
Rick
Two little hands from a 3-6 HE game that might be worthy of some discussion. Turnover in the game was fairly high, but I would classify the game as loose/passive.
Two little hands from a 3-6 HE game that might be worthy of some discussion. Turnover in the game was fairly high, but I would classify the game as loose/passive.
Hand #1:
I'm in BB with QcJs. Four limpers, SB calls. Flop comes down Qh-8c-7c. SB bets, I raise, 2 cold callers, SB calls. At this point, I feel I might well be in the lead, but with two cold callers to the raise, and no re-raise from the SB, I feel there are plenty of cards that could be trouble as the opponents are likely on some sorts of flush and straight draws. Turn is Ad. SB checks, I check, and it gets checked out. I'm thinking, "At least no one had A8 or A7." River is Jc, giving me two decent pair, but completing the flush and making a str8 for any T9's, or even a runner-runner Broadway (hey this IS 3-6!) SB checks, I check wondering what I'm going to do when the bet(s) come from my left, and it gets checked out! SB announces, "Two Pair" and turns over Q8o. I roll over my QJ, and the two cold callers muck.
Questions: 1) Is the raise on the flop mandatory?/reasonable? with top pair/medium kicker facing 4 people yet to act behind you? Who would just call, and would anyone consider mucking? 2) I felt the check on the turn when the Ace hits was prudent. Anyone up for betting out here? 3) We can all justify our actions post-mortem, and in retrospect I left some money on the table by not betting the river with 2 pair, but I could just envision betting out, getting raised and then facing a decision of either making a crying call or mucking. I felt turning into a check/call mode at this point seemed like the more sensible route, especially since I had seen the SB fail in TWO attempted river check-raises with the nuts in the previous 20 minutes. Any dissenters?
Hand #2:
Yesterday I had read the post below about the merits? of raising with KQo, and with the lively discussion still ringing in my head, I find myself in middle position with this lovely holding. Three limpers in front of me, I just call, cutoff seat calls, SB folds, and BB calls. Flop is Qh-3h-3d. Checked to me, I bet. Cutoff folds, BB calls ( a little TOO smoothly, I'm thinking as I watch him handle his chips) and one of the limpers backcalls. Turn card is Jc. BB now bets, limper folds, and I smoothly fold.
Now my thinking here is this: I doubt very much that the BB is hanging around trying to spike an offsuit Jack looking at that board, and trusting my judgment of the way the hand was unfolding, I felt this player's actions just screamed out: "Trips!" I knew that if I called here, I would be obligated to put in another big bet on the river to look this guy up, and I decided to bail out while I was in only $6. In fact, I said out loud to the player, "Your trips are good, I was trying to steal", and smiled at him. He proudly turned over A3o.
Now maybe I'm leaving myself open for stronger players to take shots at me by laying down hands like this, but I feel there are times when you can't necessarily play "by the book", and I just felt that in this case, I would "use the Force" and trust my read on this particular player. Or should I have just woodenly gone call/call, looked at the trips I "knew" he had, and moved on showing the table that they weren't going to put anything over on old Dunc. Flame away.
no flame...tells are part of the game.Good lay down.
Dunc,
I'll answer question one now and get back to question two if time permits later this afternoon. BTW, I think the forum should be like talk radio, one topic per caller/poster :-}.
"Questions: 1) Is the raise on the flop mandatory?/reasonable? with top pair/medium kicker facing 4 people yet to act behind you? Who would just call, and would anyone consider mucking?"
I would raise just about every time but may fold against some lineups. Calling is terrible. You may be second best to the small blind, but you probably have outs and want the draws behind you to pay.
" 2) I felt the check on the turn when the Ace hits was prudent. Anyone up for betting out here?"
You were the flop aggressor and this card should be scary to your opponents (unless it makes them). If you get raised, you can probably give it up and it would cost you no more than if you did not bet and now felt you had to call against a player with some bluff in him.
"3) We can all justify our actions post-mortem, and in retrospect I left some money on the table by not betting the river with 2 pair, but I could just envision betting out, getting raised and then facing a decision of either making a crying call or mucking. I felt turning into a check/call mode at this point seemed like the more sensible route, especially since I had seen the SB fail in TWO attempted river check-raises with the nuts in the previous 20 minutes. Any dissenters?"
I thought you can no longer act post-mortem, since you are dead -;). Anyway, if the SB failed on two recent check-raise attempts on the river with the nuts, why would he try it a third time? I think you bet for value here.
Regards,
Rick
"Anyway, if the SB failed on two recent check-raise attempts on the river with the nuts, why would he try it a third time? I think you bet for value here."
There were still two others (who had cold called a raise on the flop and checked on the turn) to act behind Dunc. When neither of them bet on the ace I would be thinking they're on a flush or str8 draw. I suppose one of them could be holding a K hoping for a miracle overcard to fall. With that kind of board in a 3-6 game, I think checking when the 3-flush hit the board on the river is the more prudent move.
Matt,
You are right. In my writing frenzy, I concentrated on being clever with the analysis of the small blind. I didn't notice that the jack made both the straight and the flush. But had it only made the straight (i.e.., a jack but not the jack of clubs), I think I would bet it. You can't fear every draw.
Regards,
Rick
Dunc,
In regards to the other thread, which discussed KQ offsuit, I was one who advocated raising pre flop. But that situation is quite different. This one is more in line with what Scott Horton was thinking of when he said that just calling before the flop is usually the right play (per Bob Ciaffone's advice).
When the board pairs small on the flop in an unraised pot, I really try to focus on the blinds as you did. It appears you picked up a tell and were right. The pot is small, he could also be betting QJ, but the fact that he showed a three does not surprise me. Good fold.
That being said, I would avoid ever mentioning that I am on a steal when I lay it down, at least at the middle limits. In general, I keep my mouth shut regarding poker at the table - current events, movies, and so on are all I like to discuss while playing.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Is this the first time I have seen the term "backcall". It sounds good to me.
I think it's ok to say you were on a steal here. Dunc was concerned that he was opening himself up to be bluffed out later. By saying this, he convinces his opponent that it was not a toughish laydown but an easy fold. And since in a loose passive 3-6 game you are very rarely going to bluff or even semibluff, it is not as bad for people to think you are a bluffer as it might be in a typical 10-20 game, where you actually need to buy pots.
David
Dead Bart,
You make an excellent point regarding having the loose passive players think you are a bluffer (even though you are not). When I read Dunc's posts, I forget that he is a 10/20 to 30/60 player trapped in a location where they don't play much bigger than 3/6.
Regards,
Rick
1) Is the raise on the flop mandatory?/reasonable? with top pair/medium kicker facing 4 people yet to act behind you? Who would just call, and would anyone consider mucking?
Mandatory. Top pair is a good hand in that kind of game, I think folding is wrong, and so is calling - they can draw if they want to, but don't let 'em draw cheap!
2) I felt the check on the turn when the Ace hits was prudent. Anyone up for betting out here?
I would bet out. AcXc is a big worry here, but if he raises you can muck. A8/A7 are possibilities, but that doesn't make enough to worry about to make it worth giving a free card.
3) We can all justify our actions post-mortem, and in retrospect I left some money on the table by not betting the river with 2 pair, but I could just envision betting out, getting raised and then facing a decision of either making a crying call or mucking. I felt turning into a check/call mode at this point seemed like the more sensible route
I agree with your check. If it was just the str8 card, I would bet, figuring that two worse pair will pay you off. But with two cold-callers on the flop who check the turn, you should be scared of the flush.
As for hand 2, well played, and good job getting the guy to show you what he had. Make sure you never let 'em know what you mucked, but it sounds like you understand that (the classic "I was trying to steal").
Since I play a lot of 3-6, I'll do a "Rick" and answer before reading the others.
Hand #1: I agree that the flop raise is mandatory. My personal experience is that in these very loose games, my top pair/fair kicker is RARELY dominated, in this case by a KQ or AQ. And a whole lot of these 3-6 players will come right out betting a drawing hand. PS - I definitely think the SB should have re-raised you with his flopped top two pair; how would that have affected your play of the rest of the hand? He was very passive.
I agree with passing when the Ace lands; I suppose you were prepared to fold to any significant action.
I also agree with check-calling on the River. As I said, the original bettor could be on a draw, as well of course the two cold callers.
Well played.
Hand #2: Not much to this one. Obviously you picked up on a subtle tell, and of course you are always carefully looking for the trip card, especially from the BB who got a free flop. It was good that you did not show your top-pair hand that you were mucking.
Well played again.
Dick
I don't know what you're games up there in Canada are like, but IMExperience at the low limit games you can never really put a guy on a hand. In fact, at some point I just quit trying, and adopted the following philosophy:
IF I HAVE A MADE HAND ON THE FLOP, THEN I WILL CONTINUE TO BET IT UNTIL SOMEONE EITHER A) RAISES ME, OR B) SHOWS AGGRESSION AFTER I PUT IN THE LAST BET ON THE PREVIOUS BETTING ROUND. I came up with this after I observed (as I'm sure you've observed as well) that just because someone cold calls doesn't mean he has a frickin' thing. In the first case, it wouldn't surprise me if one of them had a 58s and the other a J4s (or would it be Q4s? i forgot what the top pair was). In short, I always kept bettin' and bangin' until someone convinced me I was beat. Which, by the way, certainly happened in the second hand. Whenever these clowns pull that 'call and bet' stuff, I always gave them credit for the goods. In sum, I would have kept betting the first hand from the flop to the river (given what I consider 'typical' low limit opposition), and would have mucked the second on the turn. But, I completely agree that sometimes you get a 'feel' for a situation, and make a move (either raising or mucking) that you ordinarily wouldn't make. So, while I would advocate betting through with the first hand, I can understand why you'd be reluctant to do so, since I often get a 'bad vibe' from a hand and play it differently than I would ordinarily. Just my two cents, Guy
You must have played some in Albuquerque!
I agree. I think the check on the turn was good, even though RickN disagreed. I think at low-limit there are two many Ace-rag combinations out there that will call your turn bet and not raise you since they figure everyone could have an better Ace-rag than them. They have you beat, but they don't take advantage of it and you learn nothing from the bet, whereas a check follwed by a bet screams Ace-rag in this situation. You learn something nothing often enough in low limit to make it a good move in my opinion.
Of course, I am as about as new as you can get at this... ;-)
$15-$30 hold'em, my wife and my "student" are at the same table, while I'm just watching. My student is a stud player whom I'm trying to teach hold'em (for free.) My wife started out totally green when I was already a grizzled veteran, but even then she did not listen to me and whatever she knows she learned on her own or from books. My goal of teaching my student is that if I teach him to play top notch poker, then perhaps my wife will stop and listen to me.
So anyway, student raises with two black kings two off under the gun at a 10-handed table, a couple of middle position players cold call (one tight, one typical), and wife calls in the big blind.
The flop comes AJ3 with J3 of clubs, wife bet, student raises, other two players muck, wife 3-bets, student thinks and calls.
Turn is 8 of clubs. Wife bets, student checks hole cards (dooh!) and calls.
River is 4 of clubs. Wife checks, student bets, wife curses under her breath, wife calls. Student's king high flush beats my wife's top two pair.
My wife thought my student's call on the flop after being 3-bet was horrible, but I thought it was borderline correct due to the large pot size and the combination of outs from the backdoor flush draw and hitting a set. Of course, if my student did not hit a set or get a flush draw on the turn, he would have mucked. However, if he does turn a flush draw, then gets to call and possibly back into his set on the river. On the other hand, my wife points out that she could have held AK with the ace of clubs or AT of clubs or something else where he could have been drawing very thin.
In general of course it's a bad idea to continue with an underpair in what was a multiway pot, but what about here?
-Abdul
This is almost off the top of my head, but I think you're right, although it's too marginal to argue about. So I guess calling isn't "terrible," but it's definiitely not "good."
Assuming a win by your student is good for 17 small bets, the 2-outer and backdoor gives him a +EV of about .05 to .1 SB vs. folding. (Calculations scribbled on a post-it).
Chris,
If there's one thing I know about limit Texas Hold-Em it's that _nothing_ is too marginal to argue about (see rest of thread)
Andy :-)
You Ks Kc
Board Ah Jc 3c
Looks Like a Call (even without considering future hands vs same opps)
Pcts vs Possible Starting Hands
Any Two Cards .797
No Trash .747
Both cards GE Ten .577
AA, KK, AKs ( .141)
AA, KK, AKnon ( .110)
Group I ( .474)
Group I with AKany ( .370)
Groups I to II ( .463)
Groups I to III ( .489)
Groups I to IV .577
Groups I to V .605
Groups I to VI .643
Groups I to VII .704
Groups I to VIII .745
Any Axs, Kxs, Any Pair .636
Any Ace, Kxs, Any Pair ( .402)
Typical Call .726
Abdul,
"My goal of teaching my student is that if I teach him to play top notch poker, then perhaps my wife will stop and listen to me."
Up until now I thought you were a pretty smart guy. The absurdity of the above statement proves otherwise ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick hit it on the head. You might know poker but you don't know women at all, especially that certain breed of woman named wife.
But, if this works, you could have a best seller on your hands.
Abdul,
I will try to be a little more serious now that I have stopped laughing (wife listening to advice from husband - that will be the day!). Note that I haven't read the other replies yet.
First, I don't like student's flop raise considering the pre flop action. You have a reasonable player betting out of the blinds and a "tight" and "typical" cold caller yet to act behind. It seems to me the chances of an ace being out there are very high and the raise won't drop even a mediocre one (except perhaps a probe bet by your wife in the blind).
Now once he is facing the flop reraise by your wife, he is looking at about 13.5 small bets (note that I am adding the small blind and subtracting the rake). From a thread of about six months ago, this does seem right on the border. What bothers me is that your student had to check his hole cards on the turn, so did he even know he had the king of clubs when he made the call? If he did not, he made a terrible call.
Your wife's point about her possibly holding the ace of clubs seems valid and probably makes your student's play quite a bit worse than borderline. If I'm right, you might as well forget about ever getting your wife to listen.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
It was a bad idea for my student to raise my wife, given the 4-way pot and high conditional probability that someone has an ace plus additional good chance he could lose to a flush or something. He was probably thinking that my wife could just have a flush draw, but this was unlikely, since she is a good enough player not to bet into the preflop raiser there with a draw, since the preflop raiser is likely to raise and make it heads up. Best play here: muck to initial bet.
I also don't like my wife's call in the big blind preflop in this spot, though it's more debatable.
But do you think his call of the one more bet was a pure sucker play?
-Abdul
His call of "one more bet" was okay. It wasn't great and it wasn't horrible. It was just one of those many super thin plays that people make. I really do think that it was marginally a loser for exactly the same reasons that you wife stated. It was almost certain clear that she had the Ace, and this makes the one-card flush draw very tenuous.
If you discount the flush draw as worth only one out, then you've got only 3 outs for the turn draw, not quite enough. Your probably make some of that up since you'll also be able to back into the set, but I'm not sure that is enough to make up for the damaged flush outs.
But as I said, it's going to be small fractions of a bet either way.
- Andrew
Math is greeted with hostility on this forum, so I'll simply give my answer for the expected value of calling that last bet on the flop: zero. Actually my calculation came out to +0.18 small bets, but my analysis didn't include subtle ways to lose such as being up against a JJ set and losing either with KK full versus quads or a king-high flush versus a full house, so let's just call it zero.
-Abdul
I don't know how tight the 'tight' player was, or if there were other factors at work that could have persuaded him to call with a marginal hand (he was stuck, etc.). However, if the tight player was either a) not too tight, or b)not playing his 'A' game, then I think you're wife's pre-flop call was probably o.k., given that she's getting 7-1 to flop a pair, and will likely have the odds to try and turn a gutshot broadway should two paints appear that don't pair her.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
The play of the student was not nearly as horrible as you make it out to be. Also unless she knows something from a previous hand about this player observation of this hand by Abdul's wife is a moot point concerning her call. You are correct about wanting to play against poor playing opponents but in this instant the student did not play poorly. If your so adamant about how poor a play this was then spell it out with a hand analysis showing the huge mistakes you apparently feel the student made.
Vince.
Here ya go vice:
Wife bets an A-hi flop into a field of three making the pot 9.5 bets. Student then raises !?!
If the student isn't giving anyone credit for an ace (with two players who cold called an earlish raise) then he's deluding himself. Let's assume that he gives someone credit for an ace. Now he is going out on a limb with a very thin semi-bluff giving himself 4.25:1 odds to push the ace out and/or win the pot by improving next hand. Giving his hand a generous three outs, he'd have to count his chance of winning without a showdown *this round* as equivalent to six outs.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't think you're going to push the 3 opponents off of that pot 1 time in 8. Not with a flush draw and a likely (strong) ace out there.
Maybe it isn't a *horrible* play. But it certianly isn't +ev.
- Andrew
So your correct play is to Fold or call. Calling certainly must be put into the same category as raising. So then you fold. But you are only saving a fraction of a bet by folding so the calling must be right but then you are costing yourself alhigher fraction of a bet so folding must be right but then raisining isn't horrible it's just a negative ev so raising must be the wrong thing to do so then if it's wrong to raise and wrong to call and wrong to fold I guess the only right play would be to marry Abdul and yell at him for having such a stupid student that just happened to win the hand. Now isn't that something Andrew old buddy.
Vince
Yes Vince, that was something. I'm not sure what it was, but I'm certain it was something. Thanks for the feedback.
:)
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request.
"TWO PLAYERS TO ACT BEHIND YOU "
If I'm not mistaken this HORRIBLE play of raising got the impossible to happen. Both of the "TWO PLAYERS TO ACT BEHIND YOU " folded. My god it must have been a miracle. I bet Badger you are right it will never, never happen again Student you must be crazy. For Badger has declared that your play was "A pure no brainer, and if you don't think so, I don't know what to say." So all I can say to "no brainer" student I'm glad Abdul is your teacher and not me. Of course I'm glad Lonestar is his wife and not me too.
Vince.
BTW - Believe it or not Badger I have played in 20-40 Holdem games where the BB calls a raise with Q,Jo and bets out with middle pair. but I guess that doesn't happen anymore.
Post deleted at author's request.
Pocket Kings (Black). Raise. 2 cold callers and the BB.
Flop A,Jc,3c. BB bets. What do you do?
Forget about odds for a moment. How do you play the K,K? You think! Wouldn't the BB bet 2 clubs? How about Qc,Tc? How about Tc,9c. Both of these hands are calling hands in the bb with three and 1/2 big bets already in. How about K,J, Q,J, J,T. Some aggressive players would bet these hands even with the Ace out to try and get the potential A,K raiser heads up or to represent an Ace to the raiser that may have K,K or Q,Q. What if the BB had Q,Q wouldn't he take a stab at the pot or would he just lay the hand down. You have to make a decision. There are two players yet to act. Your hand plays much better against a single opponent. You decide that you have two options, raise or fold. If you raise what is the likely hood that you get reraised? Someone would have to have a set, two pair or at a minimun A,K. (a lot of players won't reraise with A,K in this situation). Now if your raise drops other opponents you you have limited the opposisiton plus gained valuable information. If reraised you have gained even more information. On the other hand if you fold you are safe. You don't stand to lose another bet. You can wait for a better situation and play then. You have only one big bet invested (of course you have a little more equity in the pot than 1 big bet but how much I don't know) and that's that. If the hand goes to the river you will get to see if you made the right decision. It doesn't matter though because once you made the decision the results are meaningless. Well, not really but it sounds nice. Of course the likelihood of this hand going to the river just went down when you folded but only a small amount.
So what do you do? Do you raise and go after the pot or do you fold, play safe and wait? Which course of action will win you the most money in the long run? I don't know! But I will tell you this. Only one course of action will make you a better poker player. There are times in poker that you MUST play when you have the worse of it. There are times when you will be behind and the pot will not be offering you quite the correct odds to justify a specific play. You must make the move you FEEL is right. This was one of those situations. He played the hand and saw what happened. The students play was perfect. He PLAYED poker and in this case it payed off. Poker is a game of imperfect information. In holdem they deal two cards down so the oppenent doesn't see them. Because of this you will sometimes make a play that turns out to be wrong. If you find yourself in a situation where you are unsure but it is close learn to trust your FEEL for the game and stay aggressive.
Vince.
vince writes
Wouldn't the BB bet 2 clubs?
A *smart* BB would check raise with 2 clubs. I have assumed that Abdul's wife would be smart enough to do that, but one never knows.
- Andrew
Andrew,
You are correct. If I call in the BB with two clubs and the flop comes as this one did, I check, let the raiser bet, hope the other two call to support my draw and then raise. (Abdul's student is too meek of a player to three bet and drive out my callers even with AK). If he three bets me after I check raise, he will still drive out my callers but I am pretty sure where I stand in the hand (he only three bets in this spot with a set).
Regards-
Post deleted at author's request.
Here is a slightly different situation where I made a similar play...
20-40 at Mirage, I open-limp in early with TT, six way to the flop. Flop comes ace-baby-baby (no pair) and the big blind bets out. I raise. Now the thing is that I know the players behind me are tight and will muck their weak aces to my raise, and they likely don't have strong aces since there was no raise preflop. I furthermore know that the player in the blind is a hyperaggressive Californian. I've played hundreds of hours of 60-120/75-150/80-160 with him in California, whereas the Vegas locals may not even know him. The tight Vegas players fold, and the rest of the action went something like he 3-bet me on the flop, then check-raised me on the turn, and I held on to win with my TT. The woman just behind me commented that she had mucked AT.
The correctness of my student's raise hinges on whether my wife would sometimes bet without at least an ace and whether the later opponents could be pushed off a weak ace. If both these things are true, the play was good. This is a large pot by Vegas standards, and letting my wife pick up the pot for one measly small bet is dangerous. However, I suggested that my wife would not bet there without at least an ace, in which case the play was bad.
Also, my wife and my student both think the ace of clubs was on the board, which would much improve the strength of KK here.
-Abdul
Incredible !
I guess they were all clubs on the flop which makes the situation totally different.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
"A fool and his money ARE soon parted. "
If I knew you would lay down pocket Kings every time an ace flopped I would bet any cards I had from th BB. But that's not the point. The point is that you are assuming that when the Big Blind Bets they have to have an Ace. No joke here when you ASS-U-ME you usaually get in to trouble. But by assuming here you stay out of trouble. And, of course, since you are such a knowledgeable guy: "The play as described is textbook play for a loser" what is the point of discussion.
bye.
Vince.
Vince,
Thanks for the responses to the thread. I'll admit after seeing the math that the call was not as bad as I originally thought. In response to your last post, there are situations where I will call in the BB with hands like QJ off but this was not one of them. If I do call with such a hand I am looking to flop two pair, trips, or a straight or straight draw. I wouldn't lead into the pre-flop raiser as well as two cold callers with middle pair (one of the cold callers was a very tight player that I have played with before who was getting trounced and playing weakly as a result that night, but undoubtedly had a big hand to call the early raise). Had the hand been heads up to the flop, I wouldn't have thought his play was incorrect as I would push harder with a weaker hand in a head's up pot.
Regards-
Post deleted at author's request.
The math is that a weak ace behind will fold, duh! However, the near certainty that my wife has an ace makes it a bad play, as I've said over and over and over, duh!
-Abdul
Post deleted at author's request.
If a player will call a raise cold preflop from an early position raiser with Ace-weak kicker, they will call a raise cold on the flop when an Ace falls and the board is otherwise not too scary.
Yes, that's one reason why my student's play was much shakier than my play in a somewhat similar spot. I realized that. Still, there is a chance that A9s (or similar) would decide to call after the raiser and cold caller and then bail on the flop when it made a pair of aces but no flush draw. I see Vegas pros do that kind of stuff all the time (though I do not.) So, there is some chance of dumping an ace behind, but not a large one for the reason Tom mentions. The best play for my student versus my wife's bet is to muck, but the second best is to raise; the worst is to just call.
-Abdul
If you could slow your opponent(s) down with a raise a raise may well be worthwhile. Certainly your wife wasn't favored to have 2 pair and if she doesn't would she always 3 bet in this spot?
Exactly right.
There's no law she has to have as good as two pair.
If she doesn't, the raise that folds two players behind student will be much better than folding or calling.
Also, as MM has mentioned, lots of players will bet a draw or a Jack and check raise a good Ace or two pair.
Then his raise that folds two players is very good.
Also, the tight player behind should muck AQ no club to the raise. I would anyway, because now both AK and AJ have me dominated, and I have to put the preflop raiser on at least AQ now that he has raised the flop, since he wouldn't pull this stunt with a mere KK, would he?
-Abdul
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
If my wife would sometimes bet with less than an ace and if a player behind would sometimes fold AQ, A9s, or similar to a raise (just two if's), then it's better for KK to raise than to just flat call, though folding is best unless those chances are substantial. Note that the pot is large, otherwise I would not even consider raising in lieu of calling, and again I stress that folding is best.
-Abdul
If I knew Lonestar would not bet with less than an Ace then I would naturally fold. Badger argues like a man whose only defense is to attack the messenger because his arguement is too weak to defend his point. So I will limit my discussion with him. I play a lot of poker. A lot of 15-30, 20-40 Holdem. Most players I play against do not need an Ace to bet in this situation from the Blinds. Therefore, I will raise a lot when faced with this decision. Folding is my second choice. Calling is in my opinnion out of the question. Quite frankly I raise not expecting a reraise from the blind. Now I have to put the Blind on 2 pair because of the reraise which as I metioned before is valuable info. I do not give up on big pots very easily and if I thought there was a shot at me winning it from the blind with a bet then I would take it. Knowing that I make a stab at this pot. Also if I'm in the blind with a flush draw I will bet representing an Ace. Obviously the 2 cold callers didn't have an Ace or they probably call unless they played some real weak Axs hand. What Badger fails to recognize here is that the student won the hand. Certainly a good analyst doesn't base his opinion on one outcome but a good analyst does take each possible outcome into account. Math is a helpful tool for a poker player but it is not the only consideration when playing poker. I still like the student's play.
Vince.
BTW - Abdul, please relay to Lonestar that she may want to consider betting from the blinds in situations like this when she doesn't have an Ace especailly against Badger.
Have you never considered that if Raising with the Kings were as hopeless as think it is, that neither Abdul, Vince, Tom, or Erin would still be around to have this interesting Forum exchange with you?
Abdul,
I'm sure that there are some ratty players in 15/30, in fact I'm postive. But how likely is a caller, who cold calls 2 bets with a weak ace, fold a weak ace after such a flop? What if the ace isn't so weak and in front of you? What if the ace is held by the tight player, how weak would you estimate that ace to be?
I hypothesize that the weak ace in the weak players hand would call, and that the ace in the tight players hand would be strong.
I know what the point of the raise is, it's a weak semi-bluff, with more bluff than semi. In fact the only "semi" aspect of the bluff seems to he the "petal to the metal, I'm driving THIS truck" attitude that your student exhibited.
No matter how you slice it, you just aren't going to get them ALL to fold 1/8 of the time you need them to so that you get full odds for the semi-bluff.
- Andrew
I see now that you were talking about the math for whether the student should call one more bet after 3-betting. You see, I did the math for this situation:
(+ (* (/ 1.75 45)(+ (* (/ 1 6.0) (+ (* (/ 8 44.0) -5) (* (/ (- 44 8) 44.0) 18.5))) (* (/ 5 6.0) 18.5))) (* (/ (- 45 1.75) 45.0) (+ (* (/ 1 6.0) (+ (* (/ 8 44.0) -4) (* (/ (- 44 8) 44.0) -1))) (* (/ 5 6.0) (+ (* (/ 1 4.0) (+ (* (/ 9 44.0) (+ (* (/ 1.75 43.0) 18.5) (* (/ (- 43 1.75) 43.0) (+ (* (/ 8 43.0) -5) (* (/ (- 43 8) 43.0) -3))))) (* (/ (- 44 9) 44.0) -1))) (* (/ 3 4.0) (+ (* (/ 10 44.0) (+ (* (/ 1.75 43.0) 18.5) (* (/ (- 43 1.75) 43.0) (+ (* (/ 9 43.0) 18.5) (* (/ (- 43 9) 43.0) -3))))) (* (/ 34 44.0) -1))))))))
= 0.018
That's in LISP notation, where 2+2 would be written (+ 2 2). It would take me an hour to write it all in English, and unfortunately the 2+2 website reformats it to make it unreadable. Suffice it to say, the formula considers most of the possible outcomes and betting patterns.
Now you've pounded your chest, but have you done a single bit of math here?
The call on the flop for that last bet is marginal, very close to zero EV, under the assumption that my wife has an ace, which may be a club and the same with the other card.
-Abdul
Post deleted at author's request.
The Call of one more Bet is correct even if your wife showed your student her cards.
He's only a 6.39 to 1 dog vs her actual hand.
"only a 6.39 to 1 dog "
Did you get this from Poker Probe? This doesn't sound right for this hand on the flop. I'll run iyt myself just wanted to know how you got it.
Vince.
I came up with slightly worse at 7.14 to 1 I'm probably wrong. It may be because the Ac on 4th has the KK drawing dead. Remember in order to see it through to the river often the KK would have to pay $30 when it got no help on 4th and lay it down correctly when an Ace came. When the KK gets no help on 4th it would have to fold for a bet as he isn't getting the right odds to chase. I agree with Louie that often a check raise would be right from Abdul's wife in this spot on the flop but in this case it obviously wasn;t. She gave him a perfect opportunity to get away from his marginal hand on the flop and he raises.
Post deleted at author's request.
Wow,
That's actually pretty darn good. I think I'll change my mind about the final flop call. It looks like it's going to be a very marginal winner. I think I forgot to factor in the backdoor straight into my half-ass analysis. That should easily make up for the times that the flush is bad.
I still think the original raise was wrong. But hey, that's why they call it gambling.
- Andrew
Abdul,
Learn to agree with your wife or prepare for the divorce. Of course you can always get another wife. But a student that listens to you, Well, now that's a different story.
Vince.
BTW - I'm not sure I like the student's flop raise but once he elected to go that route I would have to give him credit for playing correctly from there on.
Vince.
Abdul,
Divorce your wife, marry your student, take up smoking.
My goal of teaching my student is that if I teach him to play top notch poker, then perhaps my wife will stop and listen to me.
Abdul, Abdul, Abdul!
Your wife will never listen to you. What she MAY do, however, is give you a daughter.
Your daughter will listen to you. Your daughter will listen to you until she turns ten, give or take a couple of years. By that time she will have learned from her mother exactly how much attention to pay you. But - you will be afforded a brief opportunity to teach your daughter poker. Treasure it.
I would never presume to offer such advice, but I know deep in my heart that the odds of you listening to me are precisely the same as those of your wife's listening to you.
The odds of your student hitting this hand are much greater than your wife listening to you about poker or anything else.
Here's an example of my wife not listening to me...
When she was starting out, I gave her lesson #1: How to peek at your cards so that your opponents cannot see them. She flunked the exam on lesson #1, and for months I hounded her to do it correctly, warning her that I thought her opponents could see her cards. She kept arguing that she should not have to use my method - that she could come up with her own method - that she did not think her opponents could see her cards. Finally, I had to sit down next to her in a game and read off her hole cards before she believed me and modified her method. Of course, she still doesn't use my method.
-Abdul
" Finally, I had to sit down next to her in a game and read off her hole cards "
Just as I surmised. You were at fault after all. Just ask her.
vince.
That'd be a tough laydown for wife before the flop for a single bet and no chance for a back raise. Yes, bad raise by student on flop. Wife should have check-raised, I think, since the prospective callers (which she wants) follow the likely better. Yes, you used "Doh!" correctly but spelled it wrong; and you all know what a stickler I am for spelling.
He's got the equivalent of about 3 outs about 44:3 or 14+:1 getting 13:1 pay off. I think all in all implied odds are bad since he may be drawing dead AND may have to call the turn bet as a decided underdog drawing to the flush. Bad call.
But maybe SHE has an overall plan to outplay the student so you'll LEAVE HER ALONE and the chances of her gambling with a flush draw may be very high (and then chicken out on turn). If so, marginal call by student.
Looks like your overall plan is doomed; such is the nature of matrimony.
- Louie
"you all know what a stickler I am"
Hey Louie, you spelled stinker wrong.
Vince
A brief, lucid and eloquent post. Now, if only all of us this concise..:)
After reading all the threads I am totally confused on what the Heck was in the hand.
-EV TO THE MAX!!!!!!!
paul
I just played over 100 hands of 3-6 HE at Paradise Poker. The lack of travel to play and no smoke at home makes the concept pretty attractive, so I thought I'd try it.
I never got two cards higher than a (Sklansky) group 4 hand. In fact, in the last 50 hands, I received only 1 group 4 hand, 3 group 6 hands and 3 group 8 hands. The rest were not even ranked hands!!! The previous 50 were very similar so I decided to keep track because it looked kinda fishy (pardon the pun). I have never played hold-em for so many hands and been blitzed like that. The best hand I had was AJ off which didn't hit on the flop at all. I realize that sometimes cards go bad, but is it possible to go that long without a playing hand?
With the 5%+ fee, a few marginal calls and the blinds, I dropped most of my trial stake PDQ. Is there any reason to stick with it or should I stay with the second hand smoke of the local cardrooms? I have to say that PP is boringly slow and with those cards, very disappointing.
Between here and rgp practically every conceivable combination of cards has been deemed fishy. 1)Too many flush coordinated flops
2) Too many paired flops
3) Too many flops with no paint
4) Too many pocket pairs preflop
5) Too many people sucking out flushes
6) too many people hitting runner runner gutshots
7) Too many aces cracked
8) Too mnay aces holding up.
Consider yourself fortunate for getting crap. What really hurts is cotinually getting drawing hands that hit for 2nd best.
I have played on Paradise for about a month, I have found that I get the same cards just like the regular casino. I think your bad run is very possible and I know this has happened to me at my local casino. I have seen a lot of posts where people believe the flops, rivers are just too unbelieveable, I think it is easy to blame something you can not see and have no control over, I have seen some amazing things at the casino to. I will continue to play online because it is cheaper than my casino and I dont have to tip anyone.
Oh, it's possible. Believe me:
Last time I played live hold'em, I went 12 (that's right, TWELVE) hours with only two (that's right, TWO) opening hands. One was pocket kings. Flop comes 3J3, I bet and get called. Turn is 3 giving me 3's full of K's, I bet again and get called, River's a blank and I get raised. Turns out I was drawing dead to a guy slowplaying quad 3's. The other opener I dragged a small pot with Jacks up.
After the first 7 hours, a guy who I play against from time to time asked me why I didn't take a break, maybe stop for the night. I gave him the "it's all one long poker game" line, telling him that getting up wouldn't change anything. He said, "But you'll start to play marginal hands because you're hungry for action". I told him "no way". Next time I'm UTG, I get dealt JTo. Remembering what he said and all the discussion I've read on this very site about JTo in early position, I muck. Of course the flop comes JJT. I tell you no lie.
shooter
I once blew three hundred dollars in a ten twenty game while only playing two hands(big slick--raised on won with bet on the flop and pocket 7s called a raise and missed the flop and folded) other than hands I caught in the blinds.
50 unplayable hands in a row wouldn't surprise me. I usually start playing them after a while and really get spanked.
I have no idea why a guy who can travel to a near by casino would waste their time playing a cyber game when the real thing is available - smoke is over rated.
How can you trust what is going on there. With the sharp hackers around anything can happen.
I have no idea why a guy who can travel to a near by casino would waste their time playing a cyber game when the real thing is available - smoke is over rated.
How can you trust what is going on there. With the sharp hackers around anything can happen.
Here is my situation.
I have a cardroom less than 1 mile from where I live. The low limit games are of the button charge variety, and they are notoriously loose and wild (CA nofoldem). With my limited bankroll for recreational play I don't think I could handle the variance this game creates. I do play there occasionaly, but my results are pretty mixed.
Online, of course, the game is raked. Much better for my style of play as I'm not getting sucked dry by a button rake I must pay every orbit live. At the low limits, this game I can consistantly beat (so far at least).
As for security, these online poker houses appear to be taking all necesary steps to ensure security of themselves and thier customers. I suppose I might be a bit more concerned if I were playing the higher limits with a substantial bankroll.
Not for me.
This is just more jibberish about a guy blaming his bad luck on the dealer. All these things do happen and will continue to happen to all kinds of people. Just buck up and play the cards you are dealt and control what you can. I would leave to see how you treat a "live" dealer.
another ignorant response. If players are complaining as a group about hand distribution both here and at rgp...the odds are good that the flops aren't random...do some computer study before you make these kind of asinine comments. At least a dealer shuffles the cards in front of you. A program does not.
I'm a software engineer too. I've written my own poker program. I agree with Gary.
Andy.
why don't you publish your program here....including statistical analysis of random flops. What language is it in? Who do you work for? Has your program been marketed? Publish the code for the random generator. Surely anyone trained in science relies upon empirical evidence and not off hand speculation.
Al,
If you are interested in my program, visit my website www.pokersoft.co.uk . It uses Delphi's built-in random number generator which I am sure is perfectly good. I have done professional work with random-number driven simulations in the field of Radar. Basic random number generators are more than adequate for these complex simulations, never mind dealing cards from a pack.
The problem is that I'm afraid you are the one relying on off-hand speculation. Don't you play poker ? Don't you know how so many players will blame anything they possibly can for their poor results ? I absolutely guarantee that if you were presented with two lists of hands dealt, one from a "suspect" computer simulation and one from real life, there is no way you would be able to determine which is which. You would "see" the same "patterns" in each.
I have serious reservations about on-line poker and would not recommend anyone to play, but non-random card distribution is the least of your worries.
Andy.
well at least your not a fraud...I'll check out your software and run a million simulations and do some analysis. I know poker, and I know that software programs can be manipulated. You should know this, too.
there doesn't have to be conspiracies....it can be just bad programming....then again....if the code can be cracked...why not make free money....Fossil man indicates that implied collusion can be at work...thats true...gut shots make sense in pots with proper odds..they do not with no odds....at a casino the deal is seen....whatever happens..happens....these online programs..however,provide the defenders with plausible deniability. The game can be completely corrupt and the perpetrators can blame poor play for it and hear cheering by people like Mr.Caro that have an economic interest in the business ......Legislation is in the works to make internet gambling illegal in most states here...and the first federal prosecution for internet betting is under way... I believe that in a couple of years the..point will be moot.....I don't believe under the current structure (and software packages) that these games will survive being marketed in the States.
Al,
I am not disputing the fact that Internet poker is dangerous. In fact I totally agree. There are many potential problems which have been discussed before and which you touch on in your last post. I was simply stating my opinion, which I stand by, that basic random number generators are perfectly adequate for dealing cards. Deliberate skullduggery is another matter. All the same, you have to balance this against the common poker mentality of blaming outside influences for bad results.
To be honest, the kind of analysis you are talking about is very difficult and I don't think it's worth the effort. If you are interested in my software, I'd much rather you gave me some feedback on its AI play and user-friendliness. This would be more interesting and useful to me and much less time-consuming for you. Feel free to E-mail me from the website. In fact, I encourage anybody who is interested to do the same.
Andy.
www.pokersoft.co.uk
I have a friend who I've introduced to HE. He hasn't read any books. I'm a beginner (220 hours in 6 months). I've read TOP, HE, HFAP, WLLHE, and Poker EssaysI one time each. I've talked to him about many of the concepts I've read about. He's played about 15 times and has came out a winner 14 times. Sometimes big. Always in 2-4 or 3-6 in CA. Last night we played for 3 hours. He won $180. I lost $61. He told me that he thinks that with the way he plays it is unlikely he will lose. I said that the short term luck factor weighs too heavily to be able say with any confidence whether his style of play is good or not. Then he told me that he's just patient and when he gets good cards, he bets them. Then he tells me that after he's won a couple of hands, he'll play a couple of bad hands and bet them the same way. He says that when he turns over Q5o in the face of a coordinated board after he's either bet or called all the way to the river, people just look at him like he's a fool. This allows him to suck them in when he has good cards. And on occasion, he'll drag a $30 pot when he's playing terrible cards like 25o when everyone folds. This doesn't sound like a horrible strategy. In fact, it sounds good. Where are the holes in his strategy? Or has he just been lucky that his good hands hold up?
Thanks,
-Michael
You might be able to do some gear shifting like this successfully in higher limit games. The problem with it in 2-4 and 3-6 is that first your opponents probably don't even notice that you turned over Q5 or 52, second even if they do notice they won't see anything unusual about that, and third you're playing no fold'em and so hands like Q5 and 52 are huge dogs, though suited they could actually be playable for one bet in late position given fishy opponents. Your friend likely does not yet understand jamming with draws and other important concepts for low limit play, so I vote for "lucky."
-Abdul
Other than your friend playing the occasional "trash hand" how does his approach to hold'em differ from yours? If you're attempting to employ a lot of advanced strategies (semi-bluffing, raising the flop with overcards, checkraising the turn when you pick up a draw against too few opponents that will not lay their hand down) then it sounds like his chances are better than yours atthese tables.
Since you are playing lowlimit hold'em,I think it'd be better for you to read WLLHE five times, instead of reading all the books you listed once. The Theory of Poker and HFAP are two of the best books out there but they just don't apply to these games.
An observation: Your post described your buddy's play and said next to nothing about your own play. Could this be part of the problem? Low limit hold'em is much more about what you got, than what they got. This is one of the many differences between low limithold'em and higher limit hold'em.
chris
I'm not really worried about my play. My win rate in 3-6 is 10+/hr. I think this is very good considering what I've read about "what to expect to win" and my limited experience. I believe I should read all of those books again and again, but regretably I haven't. I do try some tricky stuff once in a while, but that's against select players and only in special situations. My question is in regard to my friends play. I do think it's too early for his results to be a good estimate of what to expect in the future. But that only means it's too early for the results to heed any useful information. When he described his strategies, they seemed sound to me. They even sounded good. Hence the question.
His win rate in 3-6 is 25+/hr. Twenty-five per hour might be a tell tell sign of something. But is it? May be this is the best he'll do when the cards come in his favor. And may be the worst he'll do is -5/hr one-fourth the time???
Thanks,
-Michael
Soft 10-20 game I have pocket 99's,on the button, 2 bet to me pre-flop, flop comes J,10, 8 rainbow, I called the bet on the flop, and raised on the turn (air ball on the turn 3 I think) 4 callers to my raise, river I make Trips, all checked to me, should I bet or roll my hand.
Against 4 players you should just check, while against 1 player you should normally bet.
-Abdul
The chances 8 random cards contain no Q nor 7 is: 45 unseen cards, 8 bad and 37 good. There are 45choose8 total combos out against you and you hope for 37choose8 good ones. [37*36*35*34*33*32*31*30/8...*1] divided by [45*44*43*42*41*40*39*38/8*..*1] = about 18%. I don't know if this situation would yeild a higher or lower chances of that (is each person calling your raise more or less likely to have a Q or 7 than a random hand?); but am sure its not 2.5 times less likely.
2 opponents would be 4 cards 37*36*35*34/[45*44*43*42] = about 44%, for whatever that's worth.
Curious, I thought the break even would be about 3 opponents, not 2.
- Louie
Is calling two bets cold with 99 wise in the first place, even in a soft game? Opinions appreciated.
Lou
Sure why not, you have the positions all the way, you hit the flop, you win, you miss the flop you release, if you have that ablity to release a hand, (which I think is what makes a good player into a great player).
G.R.R.,
This time I read Abdul and Louie's response first and I'm going to go out on a limb a bit.
When our hero raised on the turn the board was J T 8 3. Could our hero have a queen with this raise? I don't think so (except for the Q9 suited) and his opponents (if they can think a little) should know it. At the same time, a better made hand than the eventual trip nines would have made it three bets on the turn. I don't think many hands that include a seven could call the turn (except seven nine which of course could be in there and probably raise).
So when the river comes a nine, they should be thinking that hero won't have a queen and if they have it they would bet it hoping for a call on the river. They would have to think he would check down any hand without a queen and he isn't on a bluff with his turn raise (even though he was, sort of).
I'm pretty sure an opponent having a queen would have bet for value. And when they didn't there are plenty of worse hands that may call our hero's trip nines and be played in a manner consistent with what is described (e.g.., AK, AA, KK, JTs, AJ, and perhaps 88).
Unless they are very tricky, I would consider betting the river.
Regards,
Rick
i like your argument. i also like betting. betting is fun and you gave a perfectly good reason to do it.
ignoring rick is minus ev.
scott
You are such a pathetic sniveling attention starved moron. Feel better?
You make some pretty good points. I especially like the bit about your bet being good since it looks REAL suspicious.
But I don't like the presumption that our tenacious weak opponents (1) can deduce hero is unlikley to have a Queen (2) are a lot less likely than random to have a Q or 7 just because YOU would be (these hands are drawing to STRAIGHTS, by golly!), (3) that without suspicion they'll lay down top pair (4) they can see that a straight is "obvious" and would therefore bet it out.
Lets not confuse "should" with "is" when talking about typical opponents. Oh, you're talking about reasonable opponents? OK, good thinking; except that there are far too many callers for them all to be reasonable.
- Louie :)
UTG limps, 2 call from middle position, button calls, I call in BB with KQo.
Flop= J93 rainbow.
I bet with 2 over cards and a gutshot. UTG calls, 1 middle calls, button calls.
Turn is an A. (J93A rainbow)
I check, UTG bets, middle calls, button calls, I call. UTG is a strong player. The only ace that makes sense to me is A9s. With AJ, he must raise the flop. With AQ or AK he most likely raises pre-flop. With any other ace, he doesn't call my bet on the flop, and he doesn't even play A3s from UTG. This left enough doubt in my mind that I thought I may still have at least 6 outs with either a K or Q and any T. And maybe 10 outs with both the K and Q and any T.
The river was a T. I bet, UTG folded, middle folded and the button raised? I re-raised and got called. The button had flopped a set of Jacks! The button is normaly a decent player and couldn't believe that I called the turn with a gutshot. This player thought I made a big mistake and should've given UTG credit for an ace. Maybe so, but I contend that even if my reasoning was flawed, and UTG had an ace, this mistake costs $40, while the button's mistake of not raising either the flop or turn cost the entire pot... I'd be interested to hear comments, including any errors I made. Thanks.
These are kind of morons that you make money against. He checked flop giving someone a chance to make a second best hand, which apparently UTG did(or was trying to represent),any way he had two chances to raise and never did, then when his hand is weakest he decides to raise. I can understand his play a little but when the wrong cards come off you just grit your teeth and call, you don't raise, now if the river was anything below a ten, esp. if middle or bottom flop card paired then he's got a winning play.(obviously because he'd have a full house) But the point is that he would've caught someone with trips off guard and gotten more action than normal.
Isn't that thepoint of slowplaying, to get you more action on a later street? Sometimes it backfires and someone falls into the nut hand. The worst thing todo here is raise. He's head's up, a raise will make you drop if you're trying to take the pot, a reraise if you got the nuts or a hand youthink is better than his but either way he can't reraise your reraise so why raise in the first place?
chris
Your flop bet is okay, but the turn call is very suspect. With a bettor and two callers, it is very likely that someone has an A or hands like KJ,QJ,QT, or KT that make it so the T's are your only clean outs. This being the case, you have nowhere near the pot odds to draw to an inside-straight draw here (You need 1/12 and you're only getting 1/7.5 - even adding in the 3 additional bets you got on the river, that's only 1/10.5). It was definitely correct to fold there.
UTG made big mistakes not raising the flop or the turn (but notice you would be getting near pot odds on the turn if he had raised on the flop and it was just one bet to you) - The bigger mistake is definitely the failure to raise on the turn, which would have given you horrendous pot odds. However, he took the risk of letting you in (not horrible, considering you didn't have the pot odds) to build a slightly bigger pot - he would probably have only one caller on the turn and nobody on the river if he had raised - its a trade of profit vs. variance that must be made sometimes...he should expect a bad beat every once in a while when he makes these plays.
~DjTj
He did make a big mistake of not raising pre-flop.. absolutely no idea why he did not.. what trying to slowplay a pair into the flop?? anyways you had 4 outs on the turn not 6 or 10.. it made it a little better that you got three other players in too increase implied odds,, the only way to make up for deficient pot odds.. He played well after the flop though.. he wanted to pop you on the turn.. raising heads up on the end is NOT a bad idea,, good aggresive play... didn't know what you had either.. do that 100 times and youcome out winning..
Aggressive play is great. What I'msaying is that he can't reraise. Idon't want to be in a situation where I'm calling reraises. Iwant to put in the last raise. In head's up playit's all downside and no upside here.
chris
-anyways you had 4 outs on the turn not 6 or 10.. -
I don't understand why you are so sure I had 4 outs, and not 7 or 10?
I think you misunderstood the hand. It was the button (not UTG) who had JJ.
-hands like KJ,QJ,QT, or KT that make it so the T's are your only clean outs. -
With KJ UTG (or anyone else for that matter) raises the flop. Also, KJo is not possible for UTG. QJ leaves me 7 outs (any K or T) QT leaves me 7 outs (any Q or T). KT leaves me 7 outs (any K or T).
When you say it's likely someone had an ace, I just didn't think so. This was a pretty tough game. Any ace over AJ gets raised pre-flop. AJ raises on the flop. Any other ace, what are they calling the flop with, 3 outs to spike an ace? These weren't weak players.
Your call on the turn was questionable, depending on whether or not you thought you were up against another ace. Even if your K or Q landed, you had to consider the possibility of someone pairing up the kicker to J or 9 ( the button could conceivably have called with a hand like KJ or K-9s with 3 limpers).
The button's failure to raise on the turn was a too-cute move in my opinion. I think he got what he deserved. The ace fell, people made their second best hands. Now raise and try to get the straight draws out. or at least charge them the max. Your KQ will almost have to fold for two bets cold. 10-8 and Q-T may still be out there. He is giving them a cheap price as well. His raise on the river wasn't horrible, since he probably still had the best hand, but the thing is, as another poster pointed out, if he gets reraised he is probably second best. If he gets in a raising war on the turn he can know that any hand out there is beatable (other than AA). Just another benefit I think of raising on the turn.
Today I played in a loose 6-12 game (not very aggressive). Early in the session, I was in the BB with 3s6s and 6 other players including SB in without a raise, and I checked.
Flop: Ah5c7c
Early position bet, 3 callers to me and I called (there were 11 small bets in the pot).
Turn: 4s
I checked, same early player bet, one caller and I check-raised, both called.
River: 2c
Last player bet after I and the early player checked, and we both called.
The last player had Ac9c (if he raised on the flop, he would save me some money). The early player had A5o. Was my flop call correct? Comments are wellcome.
regards,
jikun
In general, it's a bad idea to draw to a gutshot straight when there is very possibly a flush draw out.
You said that there were 11 small bets in the pot. So you shouldn't have a hard time mucking this hand. You're being offered odds in line with how often you'll make the draw, so it's a break even proposition, add to this the likely hood of a flush draw being against you and your outs go from 4 to 3 which isn't even break even anymore. Add to this the number of times you'll turn the straight and your opponent rivers the flush and you have an easy hand to throw away.
A similiar situation follows: Early position limpers, late position preflop raiser,and you call in the BB with 78s.
The flop comes 10s Jc Kd. Noticeyou could easily be drawing dead, to AQ, if you do hit your 9 on the turn, you're still dead to QQ, JQ, TQ, and if you are ahead, you have no betting power and sets and two pairs have redraws.
A different example would be if you had 57 and the flop came 6 - 9 - 10, whereas a flop of 3 6 10 would be much better because of the chance that your hand might be good if a 4, 5, or 7 comes on the turn, although clearly a would be best.
The problem with your flop call, in my opinion, is that the pot's not laying you the right odds. It's not nearly big enough to draw to this hand. When you do make your hand, I'd bet out against aggressive and timid players alike: aggressive players will likely raise and get the chance to 3bet, timid players might not bet at all. Even if the flush draw wont fold to two bets on the turn you have a better chance of 3betting if you bet out and that's what you want to do when your hands best. Checkraising just broadcasts your hand but that doesn't sound like it matters a whole lot in this game.
BTW, What kind of player is the original bettor? He calls your check-raise, fine he's got redraws but then he overcalls your call after you checkraise and a club rivers making a flush possible and any 3 beats his hand. Stay playing against this guy.
chris
chris,
I was multi-tasking and writing my post while yours was in the air. Good post.
Regards,
Rick
jikum,
There are three problems with the flop call. There is a two flush out there and a four makes an 86 (which tends to be played at 6/12) a higher straight. In addition, even if you make your straight, another six or eight on the river may ruin you or give you only half the pot..
This is a situation where your long shot draw was thin and vulnerable to redraws. Although it seems like hindsight, fold on the flop.
Regards,
Rick
A generally weak-tight 2-4 HE game.
I'm in the BB with Kc7s - 2 middle position players call, the SB calls and I check.
Flop comes 4c5cJc. I check and it checks around. The turn comes 8h. SB checks so I decide to bet out with my 4-flush/inside-straight draw. Is this a good play?
There's only one caller and the river comes Jd. I figure that whatever the caller is drawing to, he has just missed - am I correct to bet out again here?
Thanks for all responses...
Well you couldn't ask for the cards to come off better for representing a handbut you'll still get called by a 5 or an 8 or a j often enough that you shouldn't even try it. For that matter there's no reason to bet the turn.
2-4, 3-6, 4-8 , is like jv and high school football. No fancy plays, no advanced thinking, throw your big guys in the middle and push; just get the cards and bet when you got it and throw-em away when you dont. It's more of a waiting game than anything else. Which is a skill you need at higher limit games too, although at higher limit games you're waiting for "opportunities" like the one you were in as well as cards and flops. Although at higher limits there's not a lot of check around flops, esp. when they're coordinated like the situation you've described.
chris
DjTj,
At 10/20 or so, it is a good bet. At 2/4, any ace or pair is going to call you and you beat most other hands.
Regards,
Rick
An advanced player MUST consider many aspects of the game before arriving at ANY decisions, not just the nature of the game, but ANY TIME you are heads up... you must, absolutely must, know the nature of the opponent.
First off, it is 2-4, however that does not mean anything by itself... what matters is HOW people are playing the game. I know some 2-4 games that are tighter than 9-18 and some that are your normal loose games. If you think your opponent will lay down your hand, bet, if you don't check, simple as that. The rational is much more complicated. Do you have him on a club draw? Has he layed down missed draws routinely in previous hands? What does he think you have, does he even think at that level? what is your table image? etc... Too many players believe that just because it is 2-4, you don't have to play well to win, furthermore, too many players are considered about their chips... JUST play well and the chips will take care of itself...(Mike Caro Card pLayer.. some issure or another)
What you did was semi-bluff the turn, kinda difficult since it was an 8 so it should be obvious to your opponent that you don't have 3 jacks (does he think like that another question). Are you holding an 8? More importantly does HE think you are holding an 8.
My personal approach in a loose passive game is to play KILLER POKER. Bet the flop, turn and river.. that is as long as you command respect. If youwere doing this, there is no question to bet the river. If he has any respect, he's laying anything lower than an 8 down... even an ace... Play killer poker if you have good ability to read hands.. not just the texture of the flop, but also picking up tells. I can usually pick up on all my opponents tells within 2hours of play by astute observation, in lower limits where it is easier to read players expressions, I can nail them down often in 30 minutes. Knowledge of your opponents... THATS WHAT POKER IS ALL ABOUT.. remember that,... Good luck
My opponent seemed like a typical weak-tight player, but he had just sat down maybe 15 minutes ago and I didn't know for sure how he played...I'm pretty sure he wasn't even considering what I had - I wanted to bet on the river to capitalize on him thinking, "I missed my draw" and folding. I had just won a pot two hands ago by semi-bluffing a four-flush on the turn and getting everyone to fold, so I was probably a little overconfident about this move...
I'm still trying to figure out how to make a consistent profit in low-limit Hold'em - I have been playing far less aggressive than you suggest.
Anyhow, it turned out that the caller had two baby clubs and didn't think to ever raise me - about as weak as it gets I suppose.
GMoney,
All good points. I was thinking of Los Angeles 2/4 holdem (DjTj goes to CalTech) where there is almost no such thing as a tight game (the dead button drop would drive the tight players out of their seats).
On second thought, if DjTj goes to the Indian reservations (e.g. Sam Manuel), then he might find some fairly tight low limit games since the collection is taken from the pot. Tight players will sit in those games.
Regards,
Rick
Yeah, I've found the 2-4 games at San Manuel much tighter than those at the Commerce or HP. All the loose aggressive players seem to go to 3-6 at the Indian Reservations - The games seem incredibly beatable but I have not shown a profit yet - it seems I either get a small win or a big loss...it may be money management issues but its to the point where I can't blame it on cards...
Anyhow, it was probably a bad idea to bluff this river - he wouldn't have folded anything that could have beaten me (which is generally the case at the low limits)
BTW, JamesH and I will swing by the Commerce sometime, I promise - he's taking a break from poker for a while until I figure out why we're losing, but I'm sure I'll get to the bottom of this and we'll be back on track again...
DjTj,
Even at the Indian Reservations, the rake and tips are hard to overcome at 2/4.
Regards,
Rick
Ahhh... ok i see... i'm a bay area player and we get variations up here.. i've played at commerce... love the action =)
2-4 Hold'em again...I'm in the cutoff with QdQs.
There are 3 callers to me and I decide to just call. The button folds and the blinds are in so 6 players see the flop of J72 - all diamonds.
Its checked to me - I want to see where I stand so I bet. I get one middle position caller.
The turn is 5d. He bets. What do I do here? Call? Raise? Fold? He seemed to be a loose, semi-aggressive player - I was sure he had a diamond but couldn't be sure it was the A or the K.
Thanks in advance, ~DjTj
DjTj,
Math determines how much it will cost to call him down because if you call the turn you must call the probable river bet. When faced with the turn bet, there are five big bets in the pot. It will cost you two big bets to keep him "honest" and you can win six (the current amount plus his river bet). That is three to one.
Will this player bet less than the ace or king high flush? Note that in fact the best flush he can be betting that you beat is the ten high flush. The math tells you what it will cost you and what you can win and now your judgment of the player is what matters in deciding whether or not to call him down.
There is also the chance he will bet the turn but not the river if his flush is not ace high. So sometimes the odds are a little better.
Regards,
Rick
Raise, if he is loose he would probably raise in a 2-4 game.
Your Qd is probably good.
I think it really depends on your read of the player. If you think there's a good possibility he would bet a T high or worse flush, then I think your play is to raise and check behind him on the river. If you are re-raised, you should fold. Having said that, I think this is very unlikely. Most players would not bet a T or worse flush here, especially if they fear you as a player.
Hi all.
Here's a hand from a 5-10 holdem game that I really do not know the proper way to play. I'm quite sure I butchered it, but not sure exactly why.
I'm in the BB with ATc. Loose UTG calls, the player in front of the button calls, and the button, an agressive player, raises. SB folds, I call and 2 other callers call. 8 small bets in the pot.
The flop comes Ad Jc 9d, giving me top pair, a backdoor straight draw and a backdoor flush draw. What is the best strategy here? Bet out, check raise, (even check call)?? Please help. Anyway, I check, all check to the button who bets, I call (don't ask), UTG limper folds, cutoff seat calls.
Turn comes a Ks. I check, cutoff bets, button raises, I fold.
River: Cutoff checks, button bets, and cutoff folds.
How would you guys play this one? In retrospect, I think a checkraise on the flop is probably the best play. If he 3-bets, I suppose I could take one card off to see if I catch an open-ender or flush draw. What do you guys think?
Thanks.
Puggy
Puggy
I would have bet the flop and called a raise. You could be looking at a AXs with an aggreaaive player UTG your bet on the flop would have told you a lot. YOu still have outs and 2-A, 3-T,4-Q, T may make a straight for button. 9 outs - I think I check/call the river.
Rounder How are you counting outs to this one.Because Puggy put button on AK and folded( no A no 10 only 4 q) if button had AJ then an A will fill him a 10 give a st. A 10 Tie,A any thing else he gone i think ?
See I put the button an aggressive player (Puggys assessment) on the button. I put him on AXo or AXs even a peir of 8's+. That is why I think he folded prematurally IT is all about the other guy and his style.
OK I think he is in with A anything. His raise on the button is really meaningless - and his bet on the flop is also meaningless now if Puggy had bet and got raised it is another matter. Marginal call and I won't criticize his fold much if I'm in this hand I bet the flop to see where he is since he has the button I have no idea if he is for real.
THANKS
I think it's close between betting out and going for a check/raise. If the players between you and the button are good, you can bet. This is because they will fear a raise from the button and should fold all pairs (including weak aces) and gutshot draws. If the button raises, you can call and muck the turn if you don't help. If you check the flop, you should raise when the button bets. If he re-raises, you can be fairly sure you are at least out kicked. You can take one off and see if you pick up your flush draw, but you should fold the turn if you don't help. (you can probably call even if you pick up a gutshot str8 draw) I prefer betting out because it only costs you 2 bets if you are in fact beat and the button raises, instead of 3.
I agree with check raising the flop as the best play...but if you do check and call, why not bet on 4th to give yourself a chance to win?
An "aggressive button" to me means someone raising with lots of hands worse than yours. If so, this is a brain dead 3-bet before the flop to drop the callers. Choosing to "just" call means you believe he probably has a better hand than you do.
Hands better than ATc are going to hit AJ9 flops. There is little money to be made vrs KK and little risk of him outdrawing you; so checking doesn't matter. If he has KQ he's got a nut-gut draw he's unlikely to fold. The aggressive player is VERY likely to bet the flop no matter what, so betting vis-a-vis him makes little sense other than to give your hand away. Your straight-flush whip-saw isn't worth too much, except that you just about have to see the turn card.
You have the "threshold" hand where someone with a hand better (AQ) is very likely to show down and someone with a worse hand (A8) is very UNLIKELY to show down. You won't get many people drawing to beat you to fold. You are in bad position with a likely inferior hand and can't bluff and can't really get paid off. Yuuuuuuuuuck.
You are in "trouble" here and you know it. You should BET OUT if you can (unlikely) gain valuable information such as they won't raise with a worse hand and WILL raise with a better or if the 2 others won't even CALL with a worse hand. Check-raise a raiser that you should have 3-bet before the flop. But ...
Think "sow's ear/silk purse". If you EVER check-and-call the flop, check-and-fold the turn this is the time. Well played.
- Louie
Oh yes. Most of the cards that help you also help the opponents and visa versa.
Louie,
You wrote: "An "aggressive button" to me means someone raising with lots of hands worse than yours. If so, this is a brain dead 3-bet before the flop to drop the callers."
This is one that is not in my bag of thricks. Maybe that is because I rarely see any player not call three bets after already putting in one bet (at least in Califonia).
Anyway, interesting analysis.
Regards,
Rick
Puggy,
I do not like the check call on the flop. For one, it puts no pressure on the limpers. I probably bet out because slightly worse hands on the button will tend to give me some credit given that I am betting into three opponents and fold (which I want) especially if there are callers in between (unless the button is on a draw such as KQ). If any player raised me, I would take one off to see if I could pick up a draw of my own. Note that the limpers could have hit this flop since it contains two upper-middle cards.
As an aside, I also like to bet through pre flop limpers with a medium hand when a late position player raised pre-flop. If they stay in with a potential raiser behind, they probably have something (which I want to find out early) and a late raiser could have many hands that do not dominate me (as opposed to an UTG raiser).
A check raise of the probable button bet also has merits. Here you would want to get head up with a button player who could well be making a cheap street raise. However, if you are three-bet (either by the button or a player inside), then take one off for your draw. Be prepared to check and fold the turn if you don't improve.
Once you checked-called the flop, you played the hand correctly.
Regards,
Rick
As I've previously posted, I usually play low limit (3/6) hold'em in Southern California, primarily at the Hollywood Park Casino. Hollywood Park Casino collects $3 on the button in that game. My conundrum is this -- people have opined that:
(1) said game is unbeatable in the long run; and
(2) one should not start playing at a higher limit until one is regularly and consistently beating the game.
Any opinions?
Like I said before, if you are breaking even here and you have five grand to play with, move to 6-12.
I have to disagree with Sklansky on one point.. you don't need five grand to play 6-12, you just need to be good enough to beat the game.. and 5 racks of bankroll.
Furthermore, in a discussion with my friend who is a dealer, we came upon the number 5% of people who actually come up winning in low limit hold em games. The actual math is very complicated, but it involved a standard deviation of 3 and the button charge as shifting the standard deviatio bell curve over to a certain extent. The mathematical model seems to be correct in my view.. Regardless, it actually states that you'll at least break EVEN if your in the top 5% of players.. not make money, if you making money, move up.. furthermore, don't expect 6-12 to be that much different than 3-6... in my experience , its still a low limit game though it is usually considered a mid-limit game. Remember,, LIMITS ARE IRRELEVANT, what is relevant are the players that play it. you do get a bit smarter players at 6-12, but not that much smarter, if your in the top 5% of 3-6 players, you'll rock the 6-12 for sure.
GMoney,
For the most part, I agree with you. A "bankroll" is rarely irreplaceable at this level unless you have been out of the work force so long that you are unemployable. I would prefer to have about $2000 or so for 6/12, but the $5000 David mentions is for someone who only has one shot to determine whether of not he can beat the game.
If you read my posts, you know I hate the dead drop. It is bad for business and bad for the better players other things being equal. Paradoxically, it is the primary reason the games are so good. Rarely will more than three half decent players sit in one game. If they by chance do, enough will "change out" (i.e., go on the change list to find a better game) that the game will eventually become good.
Regards,
Rick
FIVE GRAND!? For 6-12? Why so much?
One should always use them for safe sex.
:-))
Excepting the tight bet-and-take-it games, these games differ from $3 rake games in that you pay your "fair share" of rake instead of your tighter 2/3 fair share. So instead of paying rake for 2 hands an hour you pay for 3. That means these games cost the selective player only about $3.50 more than a rake game. LOTS of people can and do beat 3/6 rake games for lots more than $3.50/hour ... but I'll let others draw the obvious conclusion.
I am confident that lots of people say they can't be beat because THEY can't beat them.
- Louie
hey Louie,
why not go play one hundred hours under these conditions and come back and publish your results. I'm sure that many players would find it interesting, as you are one of the more respected posters here.
CharlesRC,
The game is not unbeatable, but a top player would not make more than about $8 to $10 per hour in that game, which is pretty close to burger flipping wages. If he played that well he might as well play 6/12 holdem, since the collection is the same (at least at Hollywood Park) and the level of play is only slightly better. I believe the best two or three percent of the 6/12 players can make around $20 per hour if they work to stay in the best games and play at least their A minus or better game all of the time.
Here is my bottom line: If you are a small winner at 3/6 over a thousand or so hours and have a replaceable bankroll of about $1500 (i.e., you still have a job and losing it would not be the end of your poker career), you should probably play 6/12. Stay away from the extremely wild games and learn how to adjust your play to loose, moderately aggressive games. Keep an eye out for better games when yours slows down or there are too many walkers (seven handed games are murder since the full drop is taken).
Regards,
Rick
My question is whether I should continue to bet on the turn when the flop contains a pair, there are at least two callers, and I have an overpair. The In the past I have always continued to bet until someone tells me different by raising, but lately I have run into trips so often that I am begining to wonder if this is fundamental flaw in my game.
A typical example Loose-passive 8/16 Holdem. 2nd to act,, I raise with KK. Called by the 6 position and the button. Both are basicly big card players, but pay little attention to position. Flop comes TT3 Rainbow. I bet the flop both call. Turn is 7, no flush possible. I bet turn, 8 position calls and the button raises. I muck and watch as the button's KT outkicks the 8 position's JT.
Thanks, Calvin
I suspect you have just been unlucky.
I think the difficult decision is whether to fold or not when you are raised.
I can't streess this is enough.. as in an earlier post to djtj... YOU must observe your opponent. Additionally, position is very important.. Normally, it is a good idea to bet with an overpair as a general rule, unfortunately, there are ALWASY exceptions to rules in hold em. Ok.. lets see your in worst position,, they both call the flop.. did youwatch them to see HOW they bet the flop? Did it look like a call with overcards? or a call with trips? Secondly, what kind of a paired board is it? See its like a solving a math problem. What is the given... they both play big cards.. what is the problem.. they board paired with 10's.. hands that big card players play often contain a ten. What this all says is that your up against some bad odds here. Additionally, you know that they won't have pocket aces cuz if they did, they're likely to reraise your raise before the flop, thus another assumption is that the only hand that beats you contains one of two remaining tens.
OK, next, you bet the TT3 FLop, what do you think that they think that you had? Have you been raising in early with hands like JT suited or anything with a T? What is your table image? Most likely, they cued you on an overpair so their raise tells you to get out. In this case, its such a 50-50 decision that knowing your opponents will tip you one way or the other. If you do bet and anyone calls on the turn, you must check down the river due to your bad position and a risk of a raise. IF you do win the pot, you'll be winning the pot on the turn.
By the way, if i was in late position and knew how you played and cued you in on pocket kings, I wouldn't hestitate to raise you with nothing at all, if i was the last one left. Remember that... you are susceptible to moves based on the way you play. Many factors to consider, the prima facie one is knowing your opponent.
To sum it up.. you should bet if your opponents are calling on overcards, and check if your opponents are calling on trips. How you know is knowing your opponents. Remembers, poker is not simply routine throwing in chips and checking.. its about playing the players.
Lets jump to the specific example. With 6 opponents the chances of 12 random cards having neither of the two remaining tens is 55%. T is a better than average card and when there are more than average callers then I'd say on the flop you are a favorite NOT to have the "best" hand. You should bet anyway. When two "high card players" call you need to figure out what they have. The chances of them both calling with a pocket pair or an unlikely 3 is pretty remote. This makes checking-and-folding a reasonable option. Checking-and-calling is also reasonable since they MAY take a steal at it.
Back to your original question. It matters how high the pair is, whether the kicker is bigger, and whether there are reasonable draws. QQ4 rainbow is much worse when called then Q44 2-flush since the Q44 has MANY more callable hands that KK can still beat.
Ask yourself: Can all the callers reasonably be calling with worse hands than mine?
Also ask yourself: If I tend to steal at uncoordinated paired flops why would I want them to suspect I won't bet big pairs at them?
- Louie & Laura
I did a little probability study of odds of an opponent having trips here on the flop. As it turns out, it is not until you get to 6 opponents seeing the flop that it is about even money that there are trips out. With two opponents, the odds are about 5 to 1 against, so you ran into a little bad luck here. You need to bet out the flop tho, to see what and whom you may be up against. The side card to the pair tells you if they may be calling with a straight or flush draw. Knowing the opponents on the turn helps. Is there a rock who would never bluff raise? Or a person who would never call the flop without trips? Also, with your pre-flop raise, the higher the pair on board, the better the chance that someone may have a set. If the callers are good players, they would not be in there short-handed with small cards.
The problem with this hand is what happens if you don't bet. If you bet and are raised, and now you are very sure that your opponent has trips, betting was certainly correct since you can safely fold. (Many typical players will follow this pattern.) On the other hand if you bet and are raised, and now don't know what to do, you have a problem.
The same is true if you check. When your opponent bets, you essentially get very little information about his hand. He might be betting trips, a small pair, or just two random cards. Thus because of the strength of your hand, you have to call twice. But again, if you are against someone who is prone to bluff in this spot, you may want to check and call twice.
Mason,
When I raise early with a big pair (AA or KK) and the board pairs middle to small cards my opponent's figure I will have at best two pair of maybe just big overcards. They think they have information about me and figure I have little information about them. So anyone with a little imagination will often bet off weak hands in this spot, especially on the turn and river.
Unless I am against a mid sized field with some predictable players that would not raise without trips (and I don't have odds to redraw), I think checking and calling twice (assume I bet the flop and got a call or two) is often the best play (assuming you have the big pair). Anyway, that has been my experience.
Regards,
Rick
Excellent responses. One thing that I would like to throw into the mix of things to consider when deciding whether or not to bet the turn is the size of your overpair. I would think that the smaller the overpair, the more important it is to bet since more cards can hurt you if you are still the best hand after the turn. For example if you hold AA, a king will probably not hurt you whereas if you held JJ, a King might cost you the pot.
As for the hand in question, I believe that I probably played in correctly since I was able to save one Big Bet by folding to the raise. I posted this hand because I was reasonably certain that I was beaten in at least one place when both players called my flop bet, but I still felt that a turn bet was mandatory. My rationale was that both of these players would call one small bet on the flop with Hands like AK or a pair because they knew that I would bet AK on the flop as well as a big pair. On the turn I felt I would be only be raised if one of them had a ten, otherwise I would win the hand right there.
All in all it still seems to me that betting the turn is usually the best option against most players. The exceptions would be if you are facing a total rock or a very strong player who knows that you might lay down an overpair when faced with a raise on your turn bet. Thanks for everyone's help.
Calvin
Don't let them know you're laying down big pairs like that or you will find yourself doing it quite a bit.
Another thought on the size of your overpair. Let's say you have aces, with a rainbow flop plus no straight draw. Let's say I check early. If there is a bet, check raise and see if I'm re-raised. If no re-raise, my hand may be good. Many players with trips here could not resist making it 3 bets. If I happen to give a free card, when no one bets, it probably won't kill me. A pair of K's might be ok also for this play. If the overpair is Q's or smaller, I believe one should bet the flop irregardless of the texture of the flop. Can't give free cards to the A's and K's.To bet or not bet the turn, is I believe more of a function of knowing the players, and how many players. If I don't know them, then a check and call may be the best. Trips in HE as well as 7CS usually means that someone is gonna win a stack, and someone is going to lose a stack. That's life.
I've just read the results of the 1999 Hold'em World Series (all Hold'em finals) and the brief narration of the road to the winner's cirlce seems remarkably different from any and all the theory I have read. Any comments? thanks, dan rogers
I had the following hand yesterday, and after the play was over the thought occurred to me that my poor position had not hurt me. See what you think.
3-6 game, very loose and very passive. 5-6 people other than me seeing every flop, with very little pre-flop raising.
In the SB I pick up
Four limpers to me, I raise, BB calls as do the limpers. Six-handed we see the flop of
I bet out, BB and 2 others call. The Turn is the pretty
I bet, BB raised, other 2 fold, I just call. The River is a blank (not a heart, no pair), I checked, BB bet, I raised, he called. He showed Q© J© for second place.
I have two thoughts about position in this hand: (1) position is less important if you make a big hand; and (2) in this kind of no-fold-em game, where you pretty much have to show the best hand to win at the end, with very few "plays" working, position is less important as well.
Comments?
Although I don't have a question about it, the hand also illustrates once again how betting a draw can have tremendous deception value. After raising pre-flop, my flop bet represented a pair of Queens or perhaps AA or KK - not a flush draw.
Dick
Good position mostly helps marginal hands since these hands change value drastically based on what the opponents do; getting to see what they do first is a real advantage.
But position also helps big hands since you will more often get multiple bets in from late position than first. In this case, you would likely have gotten a raise in on the flop with your 2-overcard flush draw. Your psuedo-slow play is also in more jepardy since he may have checked whatever non-flush hand the BB may have had.
Yes, your position hurt. QJ top pair flush draw is much more likely to raise a late position raiser than a selective SB raiser.
I don't think your deception helped you all that much THIS hand. Now if it had convinced QJ to 3-bet you then that's a different story.
- Louie
When up against another good hand, being out of position can sometimes be an advantage, allowing you to get in a reraise. Your play on the turn might have allowed you to do this if you had bet the river instead of going for a check raise.
The greater number of callers before the flop, the less important position is.
In a loose passive game, I feel that position really is a very small factor except in the case of drawing hands...
Preflop you still need to adjust your requirements based on position since you don't want a late position raiser to force you to pay 2 bets for a flop. This is especially true of suited connectors and other 'drawing hands' that play best with a cheap, multi-handed pot.
Postflop you want to be in late position with your draw because only then will you be able to make free card plays and make calls knowing you won't have to worry about a raise.
However, with a made hand like you got, position doesn't matter all that much at all
All good observations, and I agree with all of it.
Pre-flop in these games, I am very aware of position, and I limp in with the more speculative of my drawing hands only in late position or the blinds.
The "you wouldn't believe it" is the following: often these loose-passive games I am in are so passive that the Free Card play works from early position! If in the posted hand, I had not made a hand (either a flush or split Aces or Kings) on the Turn, and if I checked, it often happens that the Turn is checked around! I'm sure that would never happen in a tough game like the Bellagio mid-limit games.
Dick
Sure when you have a hand like this being 1st to act is not a bad place to be. But change the flop, make it.
Now your leading the betting is not so positive - just an observation I agree with you and the way you played the hand but the board is everything here.
Rounder,
How do you get those big beautiful cards to appear in your message?
Thanks, Margaret
the qs is queen of spades as is ace of spades and th is ten of hearts and so on.
just make sure you do the put> with no space I used the space so it would show up.
http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/Cards/qs.gif
is the url for the Qs see it just before the .gif ts as is for ten spades and ace spades and so on.
where you want a card type and you should heve it
x
x
Margaret,
Dick has a cool web page that describes how to do this.
Check out:
http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/Deck.htm
Vike
But in exlaining how to do it I couldn't NOT get the Q not to show up so my expla - oh shit - you know what I mean. Hope she picks it up.
Margaret - See my poker page sub-page at
and just copy-and-paste the text there into your post. Then be sure to change the "as" to the card you want in both places, the .gif file name and the ALT= text.
Credits to Chris Villalobos who found the deck of cards, and to poster Cyrus for showing us how to insert the symbols § ¨ © ª into our text.
Dick
Somewhere (I can't find the quote-and I'm paraphrasing)Badger said something to the effect; most hands are 55-45 that you are trying to turn into 60-40. If I have this all messed up then shoot me.
My question is this: How do you turn a 55-45 hand into a 60-40 hand?
Post deleted at author's request.
The following hand ocuured to me yesterday.
Game is loose passive 10/20 , 6 calls preflop, I´m in the BB with JJ and raise (get nice odds for flopping trips). We see the flop 7-handed. Flop comes 7s 4s 2d. I plan to checkraise, when somebody bets on my right. Things didn´t work out well, UTG bets, everybody else calls. Now i made a mistake and raised (don´t like this play of me, because now the pot is way too big for anybody to fold overcards on the turn). Anyway, turn is 8d. I bet, 5 calls (one folds). River is 5s. I check, UTG checks, next bets, everyone else foldes to me. There are 21 BB in the pot right now, so i just have to win 1 times out of 21 to make a call correct, but i didn´t see any chance to win this pot. (was a little bit scared of a trapplay from UTG, who might have bet out a nut flush draw on the flop). I folded, UTG called.
My question: No matter what the other players had, should i have called the bet (1:21!)?
m.a.
m.a.,
I have a couple of quibbles to start. How do you figure to get a "narrow the field type" flop check raise when you raised out of the blinds pre flop? They expect you to come out betting and you can't be very sure your opponents will bet for you with this flop.
When it turned out your left hand opponent bet the flop you should be happy to raise. Yeah, the pot is so big that no one will throw away overcards and long shot draws that can beat you. But you should end up winning a much bigger pot when you do hold up so how bad can that be?
Anyway, it sounds like you have about a one in forty chance (plus or minus twenty chances) of holding the best hand on the river and the pot is only laying 21 to 1. Call anyway, since if you find out you threw away the winner it will drive you crazy for the rest of your session. Sometimes maintaining sanity counts more than getting the right odds.
Regards,
Rick
"Call anyway, since if you find out you threw away the winner it will drive you crazy for the rest of your session. Sometimes maintaining sanity counts more than getting the right odds."
I think this is a great point. I think you must call based on this alone unless you are one of the toughest minds out there whom this won't bother a bit.
"Call anyway, since if you find out you threw away the winner it will drive you crazy for the rest of your session. Sometimes maintaining sanity counts more than getting the right odds." - Right, this was the point. I made one of the biggest mistakes i ever made in limit holdem and folded, because I just didn´t see any chance to win the pot. What happened, was that the guy betting the river had T7o (bet for value???) and was called by the player, who bet out the flop with A7o. This pot really drove me crazy, and I got up 4 or 5 hands later, just because I was close to going tilt. So this laydown didn´t just cost me a huge pot, it prevent me from playing a wonderful table, where I should have had the best of it. I hope, this won´t happen the next time to me.
Regards
m.a.
1 in 40?! Well, versus 6 random hands you have a 1 in 16 chance of having the best hand. Given that everyone called the whole way, that raises the chance of someone having a flush now. And given that someone had the cajones to bet into everyone else, that again raises the chance of someone beating you. On the other hand, the board is very raggy, so that lowers the chance that someone beats you (with two pair.)
It's possible that folding is the best play, but I have to advise calling, since calling is such a small mistake here if there is any chance you have the best hand. Don't think of it as throwing away a small bet. If you would have the best hand even 1 time in 40, then you're throwing away only half a small bet, and most likely your chances are much better than that.
-Abdul
Absolutely.
There is probably no game where I would fold here as a general rule. There are only a very few players whom I know are so dependable to only bet a top hand on the river here, that against anyone but them I call.
In a weak game, with weak players, many of them bet just for the hell of it. Once you check the river, they actually think that their pair of 7s that they flopped is good, so they bet it. Against strong opponents, there is too much chance that they will bet the river with anything just to blow you off your hand. They might have been calling with KQ hoping to spike a pair, and once you check, they bet so they can get you to fold an unimproved AJ or the like (that will beat them).
CALL.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think that you can lay this hand down against a lot of players because many players would never bluff in this situation. Also it is less likely that the person to your left would be bluffing because their are still a few players to act behind him. Also the raise on the flop is imperative because you really should be able to get out overcards like KQ and A10 because they will now have to think that you have a a big pair (that could have them dominated). The only argument for waiting to raise on the turn is if you are quite sure the player UTG will bet the turn as well, but he could easily stop betting especially if everyone is going to call the flop.
Shawn Keller
There is a short thread below with the title "Button decision?!". I came up with a response that was quite a bit different from those posted by Abdul and Louie Landale, true superstars of poker cyberspace.
I expected to get flamed at least a little but it sits there all alone with nary a response. Maybe it was lost in the shuffle or perhaps so faultless that no one could argue with it.
Anyway, I don't mind disagreements but I hate being ignored. In the real world my wife ignores me, my parents are starting to ignore me, and my "superiors" at work ignore me. If you guys ignore me I may have to see my shrink every week instead of twice a month and I can't afford that. So please flame away if you have the time.
Pathetically Trolling For Attention,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
nmsg
I think you really have to know your opponants in this case. Most players at that table would likely expect G.R.R. to bet out in this situation. G.R.R. is a very aggressive player BUT he plays the river very well, a gear-shifting which is beyond most players at the table. G.R.R. knows the turn may have been bet with KQ or AQ which I think is why he raised the turn in the first place. Now he is likely counterfeited.
I would roll over the nines unless I was very certain the turn callers had made hands like two-pair or top-pair good-kicker (JQ is a likely and worst-case candidate) and feared the straight (no re-raise). However, G.R.R. is much more likely to raise the flop with a made straight on the button unless he's certain the lead bettor will take another run at the pot on the turn. If I bet out with a non-nut made hand and face a raise from an aggressive button after an airball-turn, I re-raise. Facing no re-raise on the turn and with a four-card straight on board, I think G.R.R. is prudent to be cautious on the river. spitball
Having read your post, I would say that you are right I should have bet the river, because trip Jack's could not call, (he was first to act, with 3 players behind him( he could face a raise, maybe a re-raise down the road. Thank you fro your respones to my post.
2 things that I have read are correct but I I’m not sure about in a weak/passive game.
1.Pre-flop position raising Is it right to open with less the nearer you are to the button (popular theory) if you know that passive weak players acting in front of you will not raise with even very good hands?
2.Strict starting hand requirements At loose passive tables is it almost always correct to limp with almost anything when it is rarely raised pre-flop? Logic being that you get to see the flop (70% of your hand) so cheaply (1 SB)?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
1. (I take it that by "open" you mean "raise.") Sure, as long as the passives will open with a wide range of other hands. Obviously you don't want to raise much against an limper who won't even play in that position with less than AQ, but just because they'll play AK the same as Q9 shouldn't make you let them in cheaply with the latter. The trick with these people is how they play postflop, such as whether they'll typically bet a decent hand or are trap happy types that prefer to check and call all the way with top pairs and overpairs.
2. No. If by "almost anything" you mean any two cards, including pure crap like 95 and J2, you'll be behind the field in terms of starting quality and will never hit enough flops to compensate.
But what if you have 75o in the middle, 2 limpers in and 4 left to act, plus the blinds, and know that this pot is no more likely to be raised than the last dozen?
I think you're still a few precious slots out of position to make this hand pay off. You won't flop enough straights, nut draws, open sets and 2 pair hands to just wait for these or muck. You're therefore going to have to play and win with some 744 flops and J53 flops to get your bet back. But with 2 or 3 opponents behind you, you can't play flops like these very well. In last position, by contrast, you'd have perhaps twice as much information about how your opponents generally view the board. This difference, coupled with even the remote possibility of dowstream preflop raise, makes having position all the more critical when playing a very marginal hand.
Hands that can more easily become monsters, like 76s, K2s and 33, are another matter entirely and can be played way out of position in a very loose/passive game.
Chris, thank you for your response. It has helped me to understand the general advice I have read on this forum. It’s just annoying when you decide to raise on the button with K Q after 3 limpers only to find out at the showdown that one of the limpers was slow playing pocket kings and not for any strategic reason either!
Also, I sometimes play in a loose passive pot limit home game with little raising pre-flop. The implied odds I am getting to flop a monster with something a little marginal are frequently there. I guess I just need to be a least a little more fussy on which marginal hands I pick.
Thanks, but Louie's response suggests that I might have misunderstood your question, which I take it is whether limpers that never raise will undermine your general tendency to raise with more hands the closer you are to the button. I said no, but I was thinking of raising on limper in the cutoff with something like KJs more often than you would earlier, even if the limper is so passive (but not so tight) that he might have a much better hand.
Whether to raise several loose limpers with KQo on the button is a complicated question, but in general I'd call unless I thought they've give my raise a ton of respect. Note that the blinds won't fold, you'll have position no matter what, and the bigger pot will make it harder for you to manuever if you don't get a great flop.
(1) I don't think its a popular theory at all to raise with less than premium hands when there are lots of players in the pot. Most posters on the subject appear to subscribe to the "see the flop cheap" approach when they CANNOT win it now. (I subsribe to the "fair share" approach and raise liberally).
If you are refering to weak-tight players who call early, it'd be virtual suicide to ignore they are in and raise with normal button stealing stuff: KT has little value against any tight early players.
(2) I think the advise is to be willing to play more hands early that you are willing to play in middle or late position; that is pay less attention to position at least for small cards. Trouble hands remain trouble.
The real issue is that there is a huge difference in profit between calling on bet and calling 2 with "speculative" hands. In passive games most flops are for 1 bet and many hands become profitable.
- Louie
My friend is playing 20/40 in Taj last night. I walk over to say goodbye so I have no knowledge of the players in the game. He is SB and has JJ. There is one early and one late position caller. Button raises. Q1. - Should he now reraise with JJ in SB?
He calls, BB folds and both of the other players call.
Flop is 5 5 10 rainbow. Q2: Should he have bet or check here?
He bets. Early caller folds. Late caller raises and button folds. He reraises (Q3 - Right play?) and is called.
Turn card is an 8. He bets and is raised. He calls.
River is a Queen no flush possibility on board. He checks. Player bets and he calls.
He is shown Kh 5h.
I probably would have mucked on the turn.
In general, if you are SB in that situation, don't you want someone to call with K-5 suited in late position? He only has one caller in front of him and ends up calling 2 bets with a pretty mediocre hand.
The best way to think about it is to determine just what kind of action you want with your hand; in the case of JJ, you want either one or two callers, or a whole hatful. Three or four callers is bad, since you're not getting odds to flop a set, but it's going to be hard to win the pot unimproved. So, if the K5 was the first limper, you wouldn't mind him at all, since you can now raise from the SB and (probably) get it heads up. Similarly, you wouldn't mind if the K5 was the sixth caller, since he'd contributing to your odds for making a set. But you wouldn't want him as the second caller, since your raise is less likely to blow out the BB, and you'll be forced to take the flop four handed with no position. So, it depends. But generally any game that has players calling pre-flop with K5s in small pots is a good game to be in.
A1: 3-bet anybody who would raise with AK which is everbody.
A2: The raiser is VERY likely to bet at this benign flop so a check-raise is a real option.
A3: Looks like the raiser has a ten so play it that way, possibly calling then check-raising.
A4: I'm not laying down big pairs heads-up very often. If I did, I would start thinking the opponents couldn't possibly be making trips as often then they are; and I'd be right. "Nice Hand".
A5: Had he 3-bet its a lot less likely someone would call with a 5 and so can play his big pair aggressively much more safely.
- Louie
This hand was lost when he didn't protect his pair by reraising preflop.
Having not raised preflop. he should have mucked it when he got raised on the turn.
All in all, I'd give the play of this hand an "F".
While there are no absolutes in poker, this is how I would have played the hand.
Two limpers then a raise on the button. The pot is protected from a steal by the limpers so what would be the motivation of the raiser? If the raiser is a good player (which I suspect is not the case given the hand he showed down) he has either a really strong hand (AA, KK, QQ, or AK) or he has a good drawing hand and would like to create a bigger pot (namely A something suited). I would three bet with the JJ in the small blind likely making the pot heads up to the flop (though there is a chance of the limpers calling 2 cold). Based on the raiser's action here you have an idea where you stand and can further narrow down the hands the raiser could have.
Once the flop comes as it does, your friend is pretty much stuck in hand. Betting out or check raising is a pretty close call. If you check, you give overcards a chance to take a free card to beat you. On the other hand if he had three bet pre-flop, he will usually bet the flop and then gains more information about the raiser's hand. If you bet and get raised on this type of board (small pair, no draw), I would call and then go into check and call mode for the turn and river unless I hit my jack. There's a chance you are already beat (AA, KK, QQ, or a 5) but there's also a reasonable chance the raiser held AK, AQ, or is playing A,10 hard and for that reason I wouldn't lay down the JJ.
Side note: My analysis would have been different if your friend had been playing 3-6 instead of 20-40. 3-6 players play so straight forward that he could have comfortably folded on the turn given the action.
Regards-
10-20 hold-em at the Taj.
First hand: red QQ, utg, i raise and get 6! callers.
Flop is K83, two spades. Blinds check, I check and next player bets and there are three callers. I fold.
Second Hand: 66, BB. Two new players in game, they are the ones in this hand, so I can't give you much info about them. Middle position brings it in for a raise, other new player cold calls, sb and I call.
Flop T86, rainbow. Check, I bet, PFR raises NP calls, i reraise, both call. Turn is offsuit 9. I bet,call,raise,call,call.
River is an 8 I bet, PFR raises, call and I call.
Comments?
Danny S
Well played. What's the problem?
Don't tell me QQ would have won and PFR flopped top set so you believe you played them poorly.
- Louie
First hand: Well played. Tough cookies.
Second hand: Get in another raise on the turn or the river somewhere, though its very dependent on your opponent. An aggressive player would have played an overpair the same way.
Both hands were played well.
First hand is an ugly flop. You have a lot of odds to call but probably only one out, so a fold was correct.
Second hand: PFR knows the 3rd player probably has a straight, yet raises your river bet. Up unil the river raise, it's possible PFR has a big overpair, but now his most likely holding is pocket tens. Still you have to call for the size of the pot.
Dan,
I'll just comment on the first hand before looking at the other responses. You got a bad flop. Most playable kings won't fold for a flop bet and it is almost a sure thing at least one king is out with that many callers of your UTG raise. I like your check.
When the action gets back to you there are 18 small bets in the pot. If you had the queen of spades then you would take one off (both for the flush and for the fact that if you hit your set there will be no flush yet). Without it I would call it a clear fold.
I wonder about one other factor. If your opponents are semi-sane, then they are calling the UTG raise with higher than average cards. A queen is a higher than average card. Would this reduce the chance of spiking your set on the occasions you had a the same flop but it is a rainbow (thus making it a marginal call with most medium pairs)? Any comments?
Regards,
Rick
Did the middle position player have a blind posted and then raise preflop? Why can't he have a hand like T8s? If he had pocket TT do youreally think he'd slow down on the flop?
Played well. Although with this board and the action on the flop, I think checkcall the river iscloser to right.
chris
I'll just chime in with the consensus. Well played on both hands. Hard luck.
On hand No. 1, I would peel one off if I held the Queen of Spades as Rick suggests. I don't know that you can read too much into the "high" chances of the players behind you calling your preflop raise with a Queen (thereby reducing your chances of spiking a Queen on the turn). All it takes is 1 or perhaps 2 cold-callers of a raise and the next thing you know there are all kinds of callers getting in there on some kind of "implied odds" theory or a "I am here to gamble" theory. The last 3 callers of your raise could have hands such as 22 (a correct call in my opinion) or even something as hideous as 9h6h or 5h2h.
Greetings,
Here's a hand which at the time I played correctly but I am unsure now (though I think my main opponent played badly.
In a passive game 4 Limp in , I call w/77 on the button. And both blinds calls.
The flop comes 7 8 9 rainbow. 3 check, 4 th bets 5 th raises, and I reraise. All fold except the raiser who calls.
The turn is an offsuit 2. He bets I raise and he calls.
The river is a 5, he looks disappointed (but has checked a few monsters in early position on the river) and checks. I check. He turns over T 6. For the straight.
I only put him on either top pair w/good kiccker on the flop( or possibly two pair or a pair w/a a straight draw), I thought it was unlikey he had a better set, or a made straight. I think I was lukcy to only lose what i lost in this hand as he surely should have reraised on the turn or on the flop...
Is the reraise on the flop too aggressive? SHould I want to keep a few people who might call w/ gut shots and such? I thoguht I wanted to thin the field as much as possible.
All comments appreciated!
I frequently play these hands slow on the flop. Now if the terribe card comes I will just call on the turn. If a blank comes (and that can be a high card) I will then raise.
However, I don't believe that there is a hard, fast rule on how to play in these situations. A lot depends on who is doing the betting and the raising. There are some players out there if they flopped a straight would never bet or raise on the flop. While there are others who will only bet or raise with a very strong hand because they are afraid that someone else might have it.
There are lots of players you cannot influence with raises if they have any sort of straight draw; they are going to call. Against these players you need to decide whether the extra bets you get from them compensate for the bets you MIGHT get from one-pair hands drawing dead.
And even if your objective is to drop the draws its often better to call and raise on the turn.
The players with a 6 or T players are going to call. So a raise saves you the pot only when someone has a J or 5, will call 2 bets but not 3, and are going to hit a T or 6 on the turn. So I'd say raising to knock out the draws is rarely relevant this hand. Call and let the one pairs draw dead.
My first inclination with a set is NOT "protecting my hand" its "build the biggest pot" I can. If slow playing will do that I'll slow play. It possible you could have played with slightly more EV, but flailing away with a set is rarely "wrong".
- Louie
i think his play is atrocious here.
i think he should have re-raised the turn and then bet out on the river after you called his turn re-raise. it's worth a call (any 7,8,9,2 is great for you. 10 cards.)
what was he doing? (1) shifting down a gear on the turn for the check-raise on the river, which wouldn't have got him any more bets, and possibly fewer than what i described above. I think people make this play, not knowing what they are doing .
(2) getting scared of TJ because of your raising. well, buddy, sometimes you have to lose money. besides, if he had put you on TJ, he should have assumed you would call the flop so you could raise the turn.
of course, he's playing T6 in middle position so what kind of playing do you expect.
in terms of your play, i probably call that down, and of course, get aggressive if i fill. with that many players in, you might figure that someone is at least close to a straight, and possibly any 5,6,T or J does it. Now, you were trying to limit some of these people, and in the right position to do so. Is your game one where it will work? It doesn't exactly sound like it (people playing 6T in the middle). Calling it down is a lower variance play, too, of course, and similar to your play in EV (if I had to guess). How do you like to play?
mth
With that flop you just want to call. You pair the board and you will have players to pay you off plus you are probably raising into the straight. He checks the river cuz you are representing a JT in his mind.
You over played your set big time and you are also playing a guy who is a much player than you give him credit for.
Rounder, I respectfully disagree that he overplayed his hand. You have to assume that no one has a higher set than you (If you feel like that, you are entirely too timid) Also, I don't think that you could necessarily put the guy on a straight. Here's why.
Although he raised the flop and bet into the reraise on the river, I think that he could easily have been playing two pairs or a hand like 9-10 and didn't want to give a free card if that's what he read the guy to be on, the famous free card raise.
He also played the hand pretty meekly in my opinion, yes you have to give somebody credit for having a 10-J, but you have to make them show you...you have to ram and jam that flop. I think he played the hand well
Mike
I'VE ONLY BEEN PLAYING HOLD'EM FOR AROUND 8 MONTHS AT OUR LOCAL CASINO. MAINLY 4-8 AND THE WEEKLY TOURNAMENTS. I'VE BEEN READING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND PLAY PROBALY CLOSE TO 10 HOURS A WEEK IF POSSIBLE.
FRIDAY NIGHT I MAKE IT TO THE FINAL TABLE AND END UP HEADS UP WITH ONE OF THE LOCALS.
BLINDS ARE $10,000 - $20,000 I'M BIG BLIND AND I ONLY HAVE $30,000 IN CHIPS. GUY HAS AROUND $55,000 IN CHIPS
I GET DEALT Kh 6h GUY RAISES ME TO $40,000. NOW I'M SITTING HERE THINKING I GOT THIS HAND AND ONE MORE HAND TO PLAY SINCE I WILL BE ALL IN FOR THE SMALL BLIND NEXT HAND. I KNOW I'M AT A DISADVANTAGE CHIP WISE AND BASICALLY I THINK HE'S TRYING TO STEAL MY BLIND. HE RAISED EARLIER W/ TQo AND I HAD KQo. WE SPLIT THE POT BECAUSE THE BOARD WAS FLUSH AND NEITHER OF US HAD A HEART.
ANYWAYS I DECIDED TO GO ALL IN FOR 30,000. HE PAIRED A T ON THE BOARD AND WON. HIS HAND WAS TQo AGAIN. WAS MY DECISION TO GO ALL IN WITH Kh6h COMPLETELY WRONG OR SHOULD I HAVE SEEN FINAL HAND IN SMALL BLIND
COMMENTS PLEASE
Glad to see someone here is using all the capital letters that other people on this forum have forgotten.
Anyway, Kh6h is an above-average hand and if you could only see one more hand, you might as well go all-in with this one and try to win - if you hit the flop you'll be ahead and in he'll be stuck in your position.
~DjTj
......Qs>
.......>qs .......................qs<..
.........
.........
.........
Posted by: zzzz
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 February 2000, at 5:10 a.m.
There's 50 in the pot and it costs 10 to show this hand down. Being all in there is no such thing as position, no such thing as trouble, no such thing as playing worse than the opponent. Without a doubt you are going to win this pot more than on time in 6.
Getting 5:1 you should always call even with 32o except against an opponent only raising with pairs.
With blinds of 1/2 and only 8 chips on the table its a crap shoot unless the opponent is looking for a reason to fold.
- Louie
20/40 I’m On the button with Kc Qd. UTG raised three callers. I call the flop comes Ks Qs 8c. Bet called in three places I raised. UTG reraised I capped the pot. My thinking now was the reraiser had AK or AA. I discounted KK QQ because I had a K and a Q. (correct) I put the other players on a draw or top pair. The turn Ad. That card was a very scary card for my hand. It was checked to me. UTG player has been check raising a lot. I checked because would he call me with a worse hand? If raised the pot was too big to fold. I also thought that someone was a flush draw I hated to give a free card, but I did. The river 7s. Checked all the way. I won The hand UTH had KJ.
20/40 I’m in the small blind A very tight aggressive player raised in early position. I’ve played many hours with her. If she raise upfront 99.9% of the time it’s a big hand. Three callers. I muck J10. Question am I playing to tight in the small blind. Can you please give me some guideline when the raiser is not in steal position. I lose a lot of money out the small blind so I started tighting up my starting hands.
Dreamer,
Hand one: It sounds like UTG was something far less than a solid player. If fact, he played like a maniac during the first two betting rounds based on the hand he was holding. Put this information in the equation (and why would you leave it out, given you had played with him enough to note that he had a tendency to check raise strong hands on the turn?) and you probably have an easy raise on fourth street.
When you didn't raise on the turn, and knowing how UTG plays, why not bet the river when the spade came? Wouldn't a flush held by the players inside bet the river given that the turn was checked through?
Hand two: By JT I assume you mean JT offsuit. The oft heard advice that you should not play a hand in the small blind you would not play on the button is somewhat flawed. Other dynamics matter here. First, a very tight, aggressive player raised UTG. This means that JT loses the part of its value that is inherent to its high card strength. In other words, flopping top pair and nothing else is probably a loser. Now you depend mostly on the value of flopping straight draws. Given this, I would want at least five callers or so. If you also were suited, three callers would be enough. In either case, you will probably not be able to draw to the straight cheaply given the pre flop aggression.
BTW, in an unraised pot I would call against any number of opponents. Now the hand has high card value in addition to straight value.
Regards,
Rick
I know that this is not responsive to your post (Rick has already done that). But I will comment on this statement of yours: "I also thought that someone was a flush draw I hated to give a free card, but I did."
Giving free cards to a flush draw is not a huge disaster because they would call your bet in any event. For example, let's say you have the same board and you are heads-up. if you check here, you are losing only 1 bb i.e. the bet he would pay to draw. Notice that you can sometimes recoup this lost bet if your check on the turn can induce your opponent into betting the river after he misses. Notice also that if your opponent has position on you, you may in fact not lose any bets at all in that your check on the turn may cause your opponent to semi-bluff the turn. If a blank hits, he may bluff again on the river.
BTW, I am not advocating a break-through "check-call your way to victory" system or anything but I hope you get my drift.
Where giving free cards really hurts is when you allow a hand that would have folded for a bet get a free ride and overtake you with a miracle catch. Thus, on your hand for example, you would had a disaster if a hand like 10,8 went on to catch a Jack on the river when he would have folded on the turn had you bet.
3-6 HE. I have perfect position - 4 loose passive gambooolers to my left, 4 solid, Tight aggressives to my right. I was not involved in this hand.
I am OTG. I fold. Man to my left opens with a raise, saying, "Gotta Raise my wired Jacks." Contributer Fish to his left RE-raises; Crazy Asisan Man re-raises, and another nut caps.
Flop: Js 10c 10d
Bet; Capped again.
Turn: Xs
Capped AGAIN!
River: Xs
CAPPED AGAIN!!
Original Raiser, Jacks full of Tens. Contributor Fish, 10s full of rag (he was playing EVERY hand. Blew $300 in 3 hours. yum...) Crazy Asian Man: NOTHING Other Guy: A high flush...
Amazing....
All the Tight aggressives were eyes wide open. Ahh... 'twas a grand table.... Tim
We define "perfect position" differently. I prefer the tight aggressives across the table and as far from me as possible (where I will be involved in the same hand the fewest times and where "plays" are less effective); loooooose gamboooooolers on my RIGHT, and tight whimps on my left.
All in all this seems like a normal thing to happen when there are multiple brain-dead aggressive types in the game. There is no such thing as a "small" full house nor a "bad" draw.
- Louie
haha
i've seen a guy call in stud on the river when he was beaten on board.
scott
In a stud game I had KK on board and this woman raised me with Q's when I called her she threw her cards at me.
Hey if you think this is funny come on down to casino Arizona and play in the LL games you will bust a gut hand after hand after hand.
what's funny, her throwing the cards at you or the raise? if she called, it would have been funny.
she's bluffing to tell you she has kings beat, and when you call, she's done with it. that raise is a play i've pulled off a million times, and I'll guarantee I've made a profit on it (i maintain a tight image to make these plays, however, and plenty of times I turn over the two pair that had the K's beat). if there's 100 bucks in the pot, and she makes a 10 dollar bet, and you'll throw the kings away more than 1 in 10 times, she's making money. and, it doesn't even have to be that good because next time she comes at your kings, she's gonna know you'll call and she's gonna have more than that pair of queens.
now, if it was a 5-stud game where you had K's on the board and she had a split pair of q's, that's a different matter. in that case its funny.
mth.
I saw somebody overcall on the river with 52o, second nut low, 5 plays, straights and flushes possible while calling bets the whole way!
Another guy called on the river: "I'm just calling so I can show you how great a draw I had."!!!
BTW...
"10s full of rag (he was playing EVERY hand. Blew $300 in 3 hours. yum...) Crazy Asian Man: NOTHING Other Guy: A high flush... " I don't define these as passive players for preflop raising.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
"I don't define these as passive players for preflop raising. "
You're right -
This was the only time during the session that there was that much raising. On occassion, it was raised preflop. Most of the time, though, just called. Perhaps the stars were aligned just right.....
Thanks, Tim
Another one i saw about a year ago in a 10-20 holdem game, board was 34xxx at the end, guy bets, other guy calls, they both turn over 65, no pair.
30-60 stud about 2 months ago at casino AZ, guy has three 8's on board, bets 6th and 7th street, gets called, says that's all he has and throws his hand away. While he's doing this the guy that called him showed that he had three 6's.
Dude raises preflop with 22 on the button. Lady in the bb calls. Heads-up.
Flop: Q74
Turn: Q
River: 7
Lady check-calls the flop, turn and river.
At the end, Dude shows his 22 and shouts out "I play the board". Lady smiles and says "I knew you didn't have much" and shows 54.
...ah yes...the 10-20 games in Vancouver are a dream.
Recently, I got called with 9 high on the river on Paradise poker (10-20) when the board had 5 different ranks. The guy must had a great read on me because he won.
3-6 holdem a year or so ago, TJQKA on board with no possible flush at the river, 5 people in, i'm on the button. First guy bets, 2 calls and a fold!?!...so i decide to raise just for the hell of it, first guy reraises. Both of the "players" who called the first bet end up mucking for 2 more bets.
Casino Az. same board I had pocket T's and had put heat on all along as I had a set on the flop. Broadway straight hits the board on the river and I bet - this lady mucks and askes me what I had I said set of T's she says I know you had me beat.
Funny, I’ll tell you a story which up to now still keeps me thinking and I was not even involved in this particular pot. The pot was $450.00.
15/30 HE at the Planet Poker. I was UTG with a 3, 6 offsuit, easy fold. Six players called. Flop comes Q, Q, 9. Three players called. Turn card another Q. Everyone checked. River card another Q. First player checked, middle player checked, last player bet, first player raised, middle player folded, original bettor folded.
sounds like first player played his A? just right for max, vaule
eh?
I don't get the humour.
You do realize that Ax gives one the nuts.
There's no humor in it at all. Just the opposite. Why did the last bettor not call the raise when the pot was too huge to give up! How does he know for sure that the raiser has an Ace in the hole? Up to now, I am still upset thinking about it.
Suppose the last bettor has 66 i.e. he is bluffing. He mucks when he is raised.
Better for him not to have bet in the first place. In that way, it's a showdown of cards for all three players. Who knows, the raiser could also be bluffing too. But a $450 pot, it still upsets me.
4 Qs on board and two folded? Happens. The funniest one I have seen came 4 Kings on board. First player bets, second raises, third reraises, first caps it, call call. First two flash their Aces, third player yells, Aha, I have a pair of tens in the hole!
The table had to explain why he had lost.
Soft 5-10 HE. Excellent player in #9 seat has been running over the table. At the river, un-paired board has four spades , no straight flush possible. #9 lead bets and flashes the table his A of spades. #2 seat calls, #4 seat raises. spitball
playing in a 1-4-8-8 HE game full table, Blinds are $1 and $2 . 9 out of ten hands the flop is seen for $2 , with 6-7 seeing the flop. If I read correctly, with no ante and low blinds you should tighten up starting requirements, but it seems that for $2 you could almost see every flop. Note play in this game seemed to be very loose on starting hands, no preflop raises and then everyone tightens up after the flop. I played a solid tight game and was only one of 2 raising preflop. the raised hands still had 4-6 seeing the flop. Local to my right commented that I must need JJ or better to play. Did I play this type of game correctly or should I have lowered my starting requirements.
I believe the large end bets coupled with lots of turn and river calls (were there lots of calls to the river?) and the timid preflop play allows you to loosen up a fair bit.
All suited connectors higher than 34. Suited 1 gaps in mid to late position.
Big pairs of course. Smaller pairs in later position
Axs
I would also play only large cards like AQ, KQ and let the rest go unless they meet the above criteria. AJ - A9, KJ are too borderline. It will also give you a sense of restraint or control when you muck these cards
The big cards have to hit something like trips or face very little pressure when you get part of the flop.
Most pairs will need to make a set. Don't be afraid to raise on the flop to increase the chances of winning (even by 1 or 2 players).
Give up when it's re-raised to you. You might be best but with these players (who are timid usually) you just don't know.
So, loosen up preflop and tighten up post flop.
DISCLAIMER ==========
If you looking for a high probabilty of a win vs maxing out you expectation then do just play big pairs (QQ+) and AK,KQs and Ace Face suited.
The above is a mix of my reading and experience knowledge. Nothing more.
If its loose AFTER the flop you should play all sorts of cheese since your draws will MAKE money: nothing like getting 5 calls when you are only a 2:1 dog to make a flush; cha-ching. Not to mention when you have a set!
If its really tight after the flop you still can't make much from the suited-connector hands. Even if getting 7:1 now you are still going to call heads up with your draw which is losing money. Small pairs are still playable since even heads up money is plenty to justify trying to flop a set. In these games, play LOTS of hands on the button figuring to steal liberally. But otherwise, you still need to play top-pair poker most of the time. An excellent rule of thumb is for the first raise B4 flop or bet on the flop, if you hand isn't clearly worth a raise its probably not worth a call (since the pots so small). Top pair weak kicker is an easy fold when the early position player bets.
The tight player's "JJ or better" statement is rooted in the fact that the low ante/blind games allow tight players to practically guarantee not losing. But such play routinely reduces your EV to the point that its practically guranteed you also cannot expect to win. Noticing when these players bet or raise is easy, but you also need to notice when they call. How do you like AJ against someone play JJ or better?
- Louie
I am getting to HATE this question - or rather - this prodding. Dealers in my area have begun to do this when no one opens around to the SB. The dealer then asks the SB 'Do you play heads up?'. This conveys the message that it is poor form to play heads up, like it's going to hold up the game or 'real' players don't waste time with it.
The other night our Holdem game shrank to 5 players. I was getting excited because my expectation really goes up in short handed games. But the dealer put the question to the SB to my left after it folded around. He actually held the deck in a posture suggestive of scooping up the cards.
The blinds did play it out. But shortly thereafter two players left the game citing that there were not enough players, so of course the game broke up. I felt like yelling at the damn dealer, but decided to take it up with the floorman, who had nothing to say about it.
My theory is that dealers are being encouraged to stop heads up play because it draws little rake, and small or no tokes.
1) Declare before the deal whether or not you 'chop'. 2) It has always been my understanding that the BB,not the SB, has the option with no prior arrangement. 3) In games with 5 or fewer players, it is unusual to 'chop'. 4) Dealers are not discouraged from dealing 'heads-up'. 'Heads-up' draws more rake and tokes than no game at all. Dealers are encouraged to keep the game alive. You may have been at a table with an inexperienced dealer.
spitball
What would be the point of declaring before the deal that you don't chop? The issue only comes up on those occasions where everyone folds to the blinds. A pretty rare event in middle and low limit holdem. Besides, how can I speak for every player?
You are right, the BB has the option. But the dealers are really putting the question to both players - SB and BB. Since the dealer is really trying to discourage heads up play, if he can get either player to agree it effectively spoils it for the other player. Rarely will a player continue against another who says no. And like I said in my opening, this is getting to be a common occurrence - I would say almost routine - that dealers are doing this. That's why I suspect it comes from above.
I was not accusing the dealer of breaking up the game intentionally. I'm sure he didn't want that. But he did push the 'chop it' thing and that's what caused the game to go sour.
I would like to know what good players do in the following situation: The pot is heads up, you have top pair with the best kicker, you do not know anything about your opponent, and you have checked and called the turn. On the river do check and fold if there is a bet? Or bet into them? please help, thanks.
Depending on preflop action,the board, and other player.
You ought to be betting your top pair A kicker under most conditions.
Rounder, so if I bet into the other guy and he calls, I should win overall?,and I should fold if he raises.
This appears to be a joke question. It's phrased in such a way that the answer is obvious.
Ok so I'm gullible!
You're not going to fold. You should have raised when you had the chance on the turn. If your raise is called you can check-call the river if you like or bet it out. Head to head, top pair/top kicker is a strong hand.
What a player should do is not as important as why he does it.
When starting heads on the flop against any sort of player at all, if you need two hands to count the times you fold top pair top kicker up IN A WEEK you're folding way too often.
- Louie
Yes, I exaggerate.
I'd like to answer this, but as I can't remember ever checking and calling with top pair on the turn without knowing something about my opponent, I can't.
On the turn you either bet or check raise. If he reraises then you call and on the river you check and then call. Bottomline, I don't really know enough about this situation to give the best advice. For all I know there was 4 hearts on the board and you don't have any.
3-6. I am SB with 95c. 2 players limp in, the button checks, I call, the BB checks. Flop is 8s Qc 3c. I check (am I playing weak here?). BB checks, 3rd position bets, everyone calls. Turn is 4c. I check??? Everyone checks behind me. River is Kc. I check, BB checks, 3rd position bets, fold, fold. I call, BB folds. Opponent shows Jc Qd. How bad did I play this hand?
Thanks.
You should have bet the flop bet the turn. I can't believe the JQ didn't bet out on the flop or river.
You played way to weak here but I think you were playing a "calling station" and you were not getting him out of the hand anyway so you probably saved some money here.
What's the point in checking? You are going to call and wish you had bet if everybody checks. The worst that can happen is if the BB raises and everybody folds. If you get 2 calls you are breaking even; 3 calls and making money. You're flush draw is a strong hand AND a bet can win it now or the turn.
What's the point in checking? Unless the opponents are particularly aggressive, you can expect them to check to the "obvious" flush.
What's the point in calling? What's the chances he's bluffing? If he isn't much of a bluffer; you should fold. But calling IS consistent with your check on the turn hoping an aggressive player takes a stab at it. If he IS aggressive there is about no chance he has you beat on the river since he would have bet his draw on the turn.
Marginal, but OK call of 95s.
- Louie
Even though you probably saved money by checking, betting after the flop and turn is the better play, unless if you know that your opponents call with anything. What I wanted to talk about is, 95s. Even though it only cost you half a bet I would have folded. In a full game there are just too many other flush cards out there better than yours.
You should have lost quite a bit more money on this hand. I would have lead bet the flop. If raised I would have called, then strongly considered going for a check-raise on the turn (depending on my opponent). On the river I probably would have check-folded, although it's hard to say since I don't know anything about the other guy. The biggest mistake you made here was just calling on the turn after you'd made your hand.
Played about as bad as it could be played. You're in theblind so at the river the play of the hand has only costyou one small bet. I don't think a call is even justified at the river. If you can't throw away a baby flush with 4 tothe flush on board youshouldn't be playing poker for money. There's not a hand that anyone can put you on so no one at the table would think you're throwing away a flush. Showing that crap down at the river (besides being a losing play) puts a capitalized WEAK on your forehead.
chris
(a different christhan the original poster)
The scenario:
You are up against a tough player with something like QJs.
The flop is something like 9,8,2 two of your suit.
You have flopped a draw but the tough player UTG lead bets every street. He bets draws and will reraise many times if he is raised. Final board 9,8,2,x,x no flush . You missed but call anyway with only queen high.
The "tough" player mucks his hand and announces that he missed his nut flush draw.
Congratulations, you have just pulled off a "Bluff Call"
Your opponent mucks because you "obviously" had the goods to call.
I have never pulled one off but have thought about it. Two major criteria: The opponent will muck his "failed bluff" attempt. The pot is relatively small to justify the pot odds of risking 1bb but not 2bb.
Of course if the pot is big then raising the possible bluffer is better.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
This is something I've thought about in the past as well. Its useful I think once you see a player who gets called muck his hand after being called and say "nice call". I figure it has 2 advantages over a raise: first, you only invest 1 large bet, and second, a raise could occasionally run into a bluff-call on his part (more likely than a bluff re-raise, but anything's possible I suppose). I think it comes down to the psychology of the player not wanting to show his hand once he was called. If you think the player would be this type, then its even possible that a bluff-call has a higher EV than a bluff-raise. It comes down to an estimation of which hands the other player is likely to fold on a raise, vs. which hands he is likely to fold on a bluff-call. Another thought: calling the whole way (as perhaps you have done) and then simply calling at the end is more difficult to be construed as a bluff call than a raise at the end 'out-of-the-blue'.
I figure this: If on a scale of 1-100, I have a hand which ranks 40 or so, I make a bluff-call if: 1) He will call a bluff-raise with hands over 40 2) He will throw away hands for a bluff-call between, say, 40-45. 3) I put him on a weak hand, but probably not as weak as mine.
I've been on both sides of this and showed down 44 to beat 33 (by the caller) with a flop of 962o.
Position is the key
The position has been omitted, which makes analysis very hard. If you were the blind, pulling this off isn't that rare (i've done it before). If I was the other guy and bet with my Ax miss (or more probably KT miss) into a blind who called on the turn, and fold when called occasionally.
However, he didn't have Ax or KT. Otherwise he would turn it over to reinforce his image of occasionally "overplaying" of draws. Anyone at the table can ask to see his cards (or yours). It would also pay dividends by seeing what kind of hands you need to turn into a calling station. That's why he'd showdown.
You also could not be the blind. Since you must be playing after him (or else the scenario turns into check-call on the end, or a situation where the bluff call would work much less), the assumption is that the cards you play must be better than his. If the cards are all lowball like 9o8s2s-4o2o, then he has to weigh the chance that you have a hand that is better than his. With lack of evidence, he should should actually put you on a busted flush draw. The only question is how high you might be drawing. If you actually had middle-top pair, you'd bet/raise for value on the river.
Your position is a major factor in his thinking, because with just two people in (for the small pot), you'd barely be getting the correct odds to stay on. There is very little else he can put you on. If you flopped top pair, you would bet it right there assuming you had overcards. If you hit the off-card on the turn, you would bet/raise to try and win it right there, or lose nothing by checking the river. If you had anything on the river, you would raise. Therefore, you most likely had a high draw to a flush.
Besides these semantic arguments with your setup, I agree with CJ. However, your position is a big factor in this. If your the board is lowball, and you were in early position, your bluffcall will work much less than if you were the dealer (and have been turning over 53s all night) ;-)
The "tough" player mucked his "nut draw" (i.e. an Ace)? More likely he actually mucked his 6-7 or very low flush draw, eh?
"The "tough" player mucked his "nut draw" (i.e. an Ace)? More likely he actually mucked his 6-7 or very low flush draw, eh?"
The actual hands are irrelevant.
Basically you are calling with a hand that cannot beat a bluff.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
The perfect scenario is (1) a player who routinely folds to avoid letting people see his hand (2) a player who doesn't bet marginal hands for value often, meaning he's either rather strong or rather weak (3) an aggressive player who is willing bet nothing on the end.
In this siuation there is no value in raising since he's either going to fold a hand he'll fold when you call or call with a hand he's going to show down.
As previously noted it MUST be a player you've SEEN fold when called.
The other "bluff call" is when you are sure the player behind you has you beat but can't stand to over call. The other bluff call is to call a check-raise on the turn with nothing when there is no reasonable draw out, convincing the opponent you must have a pair.
- Louie
Silly guy bluffing on the end since you're obviously going to call with your apparent pair of 9s.
Nice thinking.
Just keep this in mind.
The guy mucks the hand but not before flashing it. He does have Ax that beats your QJ. Then he asks to see your hand because it was a called hand. Your hand is lying somewhere between you and the muck since the pot was already pushed to you, his hand is also clearly definable. The dealer is quick and very good. She opens your hand which is QJ. The guy goes bzzrk and quickly retrieves his hand from the muck saying he's got the winning hand which several people saw never mind he mucked because he thought he was beat. A floor is called over and they award the pot to the mucked hand. HOW about that?!.
Just something to keep in mind.
P.S from experience
While I approve of "reasonable" and "no fault of player" decisions (such as if the dealer mucked a face up hand), I would never approve of a decision to award the pot to a player who voluntarily mucked his hand before the showdown; it would make no difference if it flashed or not.
If I had the QJ, I wouldn't even THINK of releasing the hand until the chips were in my stack and HIS hand was irretrievably in the muck.
If I called a player (good call or no) and he mucked his hand and demanded to see mine, I would muck mine anyway after getting the chips.
- Louie
"Negotiating" largely nullifies this tactic of bluff calling (which I think is better termed call-bluffing.) So, for example, if you call with your QJ high, your opponent might say, "Queen high!", and then you are pretty much obligated to turn over your nut queen high at that point (or at least ask, "How big is your kicker?"), and then if he has QJ too you'll split the pot.
I discuss negotiating and the call-bluff in an old rec.gambling.poker article.
By the way, recently I encountered my first instance of a dishonest negotiation. Board was 85432, opponent bet, I called with AJ, opponent says "no pair", I turn over my hand, opponent turns over 66. He had not just the straight, but a pair too, and the effective nuts considering that I didn't raise.
-Abdul
"...bluff calling (which I think is better termed call-bluffing.)"
I think "bluff raising" is accepted terminology, as is bluff reraise.
Just trying to keep parallel structure.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
That's your FIRST INSTANCE of dishonest negotiating?????? That's hard to believe. You obviously didn't grow up in California. Besides, it wasn't "technically" dishonest since his final hand (straight) is not a pair. Consider "unethical" negotiating.
- Louie
Anyone have a link to a pre-flop hand rank page?
thanks jdoe
Thx
Playing 3-6 at the taj. First time ever at a casino and first time ever playing live hold em. 9 hour session at the same table and I only remember one hand. Somewhat of a tight game. I'm in early position with ATo. All but a middle and late position muck. No-raise pre-flop. Flop comes AAT. I bet. Both players muck, I drag a puny pot. One guy said as he mucked "I'm not liking that pair of aces."
Like I said, this is the only hand I remember, and it's been bothering me for a week now. I'm pretty sure I screwed up. How would you have played it? How do you usually play a flopped full house, and an aces high one at that. Thanks,
CB
If it was a truly tight game, you shouldn't play ATo in early position. You can either bet and hope someone with an A raises or someone with a ten/goodkicker calls. Since there was no raise preflop you can discount a big pair being out. If there was a big pair out(or yoususpected a big pair being out)check/call the whole way or lead beat on the turn or river if a K or Q comesoff. Of course, if a K or Q or J comes off you might be beat. But you can't do anything about that, A/good kicker will be there anyway.
I don't think there's anything to think about with this hand. If you never slowplay at 3-6 you wont be making much of a mistake.
chris
CB,
Never play AT offsuit in early position in any full game, no matter what the type of game. The exceptions to this general rule are so rare that they are hardly worth mentioning.
Regards,
Well, I am a newbie here and maybe you guys are on another plane that I don't know about. But it seems to me that the answers to the original query here are outrageous. First of all, you both said "never play ATo in early position in any kind of game", but a) I would never say "never" about that, and b) that was not the question.
But back to the question of whether it would have been better to slowplay A-full-T than bet it lead-off on the flop. Of course it would! If you don't slowplay that, what would you _ever_ slowplay? You will make _so_ much more money if the other guys get frisky than if you chase them now that the question seems ridiculous to me. At least check now, and if nobody bets try for a big-bet check-raise on the turn. If that fails than I suppose you must bet on the river, but you feel very sad about it. If they do start betting sometime, then you nurse them gently along. Do _anything_ except drive them out quickly.
Moreover, this is 3-6 here, not pot-limit. You don't even _think_ about the possibility of being beat: that would be like walking down the middle of the expressway because you are afraid of getting hit by a piano on the sidewalk. You are worrying about what these limpers might have -- hell, who cares? And one of them probably is going to at least try to steal if you give them half a chance. Think of the fellow in last position if checked to -- he has a powerful incentive to pretend he has an A, no matter how tight he is (and this was only "somewhat tight 3-6" in the first place, which is not very tight.) About the only reason he wouldn't is if you inform him that you have one -- now, why would you do that?
Seriously, I feel like you guys are from Mars. This seems to me elementary and eternal, not much worth discussing except that apparently you both disagree. Is it me? Am I really that out of touch with some advanced modern theory of poker? I'd really like to know...
ATo is a weak hand and should not be played in early position in a full game. i would only consider it against an extremely weak tight table that respects my play. or for play money online.
as for slowplaying. just because your hand is super strong, almost unbeatable (you are right to assume you have the nuts, until really proved otherwise), does not mean a slowplay is correct. if you think everyone will fold to a bet, then check. but what usually happens, especially at low limit, is they'll call you down anyway. but if you check call and spring to life on the turn, they are all going to fold. against many lineups playing big hands fast gets them more action.
i agressively attack pots when i may not have the best hand. i also bet aggressively when i do. i only slowplay when i think at least 2 people will bet and raise for me. if conditions are not perfect for a slowplay i just bet out.
in this case a slowplay is correct only if these people would fold a wired pair or a T or a gutshot to broadway. but i don't think most players would.
scott
That wasn't the question, but the guy just started playing live and could probably use the advice. A-10o early is a nasty holding. Period. As for slowplaying, I think you sort of have to. But at 3-6, the guy with K-J (or worse) is probably going to call anyway, so who knows.
Last night I had A-Ko in the SB in a 10-20 game. One guy limped, I raised, and both the BB and limper called. The flop came A-A-K. Checked around on the flop, checked around on the turn (rag) and I bet the river (rag). Both folded. Yippee! A $39 monster. Now if the turn is a queen and the river is a 10, I probably would have made a shekel or two. But in general when the flop hits you that hard, it misses everyone else and you won't get paid much. It actually might help you to go ahead and bet because slowplaying is such a automatic reaction for most people when they flop a big hand.
That's why I like the idea (stressed by a few people in this forum) of not slowplaying when you raise a big pair and flop a set -- good players won't fall for the slow play and no one with a second place hand will suspect you have a set if you play fast.
I have to agree with scott and Scott.
1. ATo is not a playable hand in early position.
2. Slowplaying in this situation is not automatic. By my calculations this hand is the absolute nuts. Nothing can beat it. However, slowplays on this kind of flop are expected from those holding monsters. My decision would depend on the individual players at the table. I know that I could garnish some bets from my friends if I were to slowplay this. However, against many I would go ahead an bet out.
NOTE: Nobody gave me a serious response to my Lou Krieger post on the Beginner's Forum. According to his "Beginner's Course in Texas Hold'em" series published in Cardplayer Magazine ATo is a playable hand in early position. Should I ignore this guy or what?!
sorry but i never read any of lou krieger. hand selection is not that important. start with sklansky and shade things on whims. preflop is not that important once you play it adequately. just be tight aggressive. especially when faced with a raise. whatever. don't worry about it.
AT makes the current nuts, but any serious action means AK, AQ or AJ (which are drawing to 3 outs) or TT (which is drawing dead). if you and a guy go 4 raises on the flop the a K comes on the turn, i might just check call. and if the final board has 4 to broadway (and the A paired, of course) i definitely check call if there has been significant action.
scott
Jon,
I remember the series of articles but did not read them. Do you remember approximately when this was published so I can look it up?
Regards,
Rick
Thanks Rick, I appreciate your time.
I found Krieger's articles them in CardPlayer archives. It was a six-part series starting 10/29/99 through 12/29/99. Part II, which has his starting hand tables, is not in the archives, but in CardPlayer's "must-read" articles section. The title "A Beginner's Course in Hold'em Poker" instantly drew my attention.
Krieger acknowledges that his tables are a little loose. But the rest of his advice sounds reasonable to a beginning player like myself. I must admit that a lot of what I read in the articles sounds like a "Cliff Notes" version of what I have previously read in TOP and Sklansky's Hold'em Poker.
Thanks.
Jon
Karl,
CB's post was on top the message index when I checked it before going to bed last night. It was apparent he was fixated on whether or not he should have slowplayed when this strong flop hit his terrible starting hand.
It was just as apparent to me that letting him worry about the slowplay would be analogous to a Doctor concentrating on removing toenail fungus when the patient needs a triple bypass ASAP. The difference in one's expectation between slow playing or not when you hit a flop like this is minimal in the overall scheme of things. OTOH, get in the habit of playing Ax offsuit up front (and AT is Ax when played up front), and your bankroll will be destroyed as this hand comes up all the time.
In essence, I didn't want to write a "well you shouldn't have played the AT but since you did here is what you should have done" reply. I wanted to throw a bucket of water on this guy and get him to see what is important at this stage of his game. And knowing not to play weak aces up front is important.
Regards,
Rick
Shifting gears slightly, in a loose-ish game with a mix of players, what about AJo? I have played it all 3 ways, tending to dump it when the table gets a more loose-aggressive tone to it.
Scott,
I think AJ up front is also a loser, but not nearly as bad. Compare AJ to AK when you flop a pair against many opponents. In loose games both hands loose to the draws and the five to two outers, but in addition, AJ loses to the better ace when the ace flops and has to worry about the K and Q overcards when the flop comes jack high. This is just too many ways to loose.
However, in a weak tight game when my image is right, I will come in for a raise up front with AJ offsuit but I doubt it makes me much money in isolation and it is easy to get into trouble and start playing it when the situation is not right.
As an aside, if you are on a steal near the button then there is not a big difference between AK versus AT. In fact, I would rather have AT offsuit than KQ suited.
Regards,
Rick
Experienced players, even bad ones, will recognize a newbie. I suspect you were paranoid and not betting very often. Is there any hand you WOULD bet less than trip Aces when the board is AAT? Would you bet KT? KQ gut shot? JJ two pair? I'm thinking "no" and I suspect the others are also thinking "no", so when you DO bet ... it would take a very special kind of opponent to call. Only terrible players will play against someone known to have with trip aces.
The problem probably isn't this hand its probably (I suspect anyway) a lack of aggression with other hands.
The biggest problem here is: "9 hours .. I only remember ONE HAND." If you can't remember hands it means you aren't following the action well enough. While focus and discipline helps, so does experience. Consider practicing this at home with your Holdem simulator.
- Louie
Avoid references to "apply angular momentum torgue and axial vector pressure to a conical inclined-plane directed at the rear of a stationary mammalian canine". Consider "&^%&$#&*#" instead :)
Since it's a tight game, slowplaying is definitely the right play. On the turn and the river, where the price of calling doubles, is where you try to get your money in this situation.If you are in early position and you know that a couple of the players left love to bet by representing something that they don't have, a check raise might not be a bad idea.
1 middle limper, I raise w/ 99 on the button, heads up.
Flop = Jd,Tc,9d
check, I bet, call
Turn = 7d
Check, I bet, raise, I re-raise, call
River = Qd
Check, I check, He has AJ
I'm not sure about my re-raise on the turn. I thought this player was creative enough to check/raise with a draw or pair with a draw. I also thought he might have had 2 pair and put me on AA etc. If so, I wanted to get his money in the pot now. If he had a made hand, I figured I still had the best draw. Was my 3-bet on the turn too aggressive?
The 9 on the flop was a spade. The turn brought 2 diamonds not 3. Sorry.
I like your reraise on the turn a lot.
The key is that he checked the flop but needs and 8 for a straight. Of the hands he can limp with and then check on the flop, very few of them have an 8 (several would give him an open-ender plus a pair, pocket 8's or 89s, for example, and those are generally betting hands head-up). In fact, in light of his check on the flop one of his most likely straights would be one he flopped to 87s, and the offsuit 7 on the turn makes that less likely.
On the other hand, the 79TJ board gives him check-raising opportunties with several types of hands you can beat. Also, he might have slowplayed top 2. Against a typical moderately aggressive player, I think the 3-bet is just right. (But if 3 diamonds were on board I would have just called).
So long as you are not putting post-rationalizing characterizations on the player, there are many more hands he'll raise with worse than yours than those that feature a straight; and even if he DOES have a straight you have a very good draw at him.
Most players will just call even if they know they likely have the best hand. I think its a matter of "heart".
The only hand that outdrew you on the river is a stiff K which is unlikely given his check-raise; so I would bet it out for value especially since it APPEARS you have no reasonable hand at all except KQ.
- Louie
- Louie
Here's a play that I thought was right at the time I did it, but now I seriously doubt was correct. In fact, I know I was incorrect, but I can't quite convince myself that fold was the best option despite the result.
5-10 game. I'm in the BB with K6o. 5 limpers and me see the flop. the flop is 225. I check, checked all the way to the guy one off the button (who is now the button de facto), who bets. It's one bet to me with now $37 in the pot. I throw $5 in too. Now, before everyone's jaw drops in utter horror and disbelief, let me explain a few things.
First, the players who limped in aren't extremely tricky. If they had a 2 or a 5, they would have bet. I really am not fearing one of them setting me up for a check raise.
Secondly, and more importantly, this guy (who had just sat down less than a minute ago) had just gotten off the final table at a small tournament that had been playing there. I had to give him credit for knowing how to play the game, at the very least. He's probably going to be playing better than average quality hands and he certainly would know when to make his move to steal the pot.
That's what I feel he's doing here. I mean, what can he have that he would want to play with? 56s? A2s? So I call him. Everyone folds and it's heads up.
Then, when the turn produces the second 5, I check raise him (again, with nothing.) He calls. At this point I'm fairly certain I'm beat (well, duh)...but with what? What can he possibly have? Any five and he would have re-raised me for sure. A 2 might have produced a re-raise from him as well. And if he has a two...why was he playing it, even in late position? I'm in the big blind and can have anything, especially after limping in.
So, at this point it's too late to turn around. I bet the river, he calls. Turns over Q2 suited and takes the pot.
A lot of you will be smacking your heads against the keyboard at my play. Why didn't you fold? You had nothing. Because I was near certain he was bluffing as well. If that's true, why not check raise the flop? Good question. I think that's what I should have done. I raise, drive everyone out, he reraises, and I fold. I save myself a lot of money that way, and I know then that I'm beat.
What does everyone else think?
Dan
Dan,
At this limit you need a bit of a weapon to be the sheriff, even when you think a crime is being committed. In other words, you need something in order to defend against what you think is a steal bet because of the other players yet to act and the fact he may not be stealing but betting a half decent hand such as a medium overpair.
If this guy can play, then he does not necessarily have a deuce but he certainly has a hand better than yours and so would other potential callers (decent players rarely make pure steals at low limit). So let others check him out and save this type of play (and yes it should have been a check raise) for the times you have decent outs.
Regards,
Rick
Don't you have anything better to do over lunch?
If he is a solid player the chances of him raising in the cut off seat with an Ace or a medium pair is reasonably high; his "just" call indicates probably low cards. (I said "solid" not "tight".)
Against a reasonable stealer, I think the chances K high is the "best" hand (such as it is) is pretty high.
Disregard Louie
If he's good and realizes you're on a re-steal whenyou checkraise the flop and it's head's up, he'd call your check-raise knowing you had to lead at the turn and raise your turn bet. If he has an ace he'll reraise your flop checkraise.
chris
If there is any steal in the player stealling at a 225 flop after everyone passes is irrestible; so the chances he's stealling is high. Calling is better than folding. You are in the BB and can easily have a 2 or 5 so raising looks real believable, and is more profitable than calling since you cannot handle any overcalls and he may check the turn.
Phew, everybody else folded.
Turn is a 5 and you check-raise. Now think, what hand are you representing? If you had a 5 you would have had a brain dead raise on the flop and if you had a 2 (hehehe) you probably wouldn't like it much any more and would call. Your raise looks too suspicious and expect a player to at least call with any Ace or pair. After just calling, figure to bet out the turn regardless.
Unless your club lets players play without posting: Oops, you forgot this player has taken a late position blind and can just as easily have a 2 or 5 as you which weakens your "good cards" stuff.
I don't have a problem with your ideas here, just your execution.
- Louie
Did you proudly announce "2 pair with a KING!" when called?
There's no posting at this casino unless you actually miss your blind. He sat down after the button passed him and this was his first hand, paying full price.
A check raise on the flop would have been better because if he was bluffing as well I probably get the pot right there. If he wasn't, I save money by finding out right then. Either way, I stop everyone else at the table from jumping in on a draw.
But assume that I had a 5. Let's say I had 5-8. Would I check raise the flop with this hand? I really can't say that I would. But when the second 5 comes around, I'm all over it.
So now thinking this over, I'm a bit confused. If I actually had a 5, how I played the hand was probably correct. But given that I was bluffing, how I played the hand was undeniably wrong...even though I was trying to represent the 5. How is this possible?
Oh, and I did get a good laugh from some people when I proudly displayed my crap...but all things considered I'd rather have had the money.
Dan
If you believe you would have played 85 the same way you did, then it was NOT "undeniably" wrong unless there is NO hand he'll call the turn raise with and not pay off the river.
3-6 HE. 4 calling stations to my left (generally loose passive, sometimes maniacal) and 4 decent players to my right (2 tight aggressive, 2 tight passive). Then there's me. Open for debate :)
A5 Clubs in the BB. Fold. 5 callers (3 calling stations, 1 TP, 1 TA - TA=well-dressed older gentleman is key to this hand) I rap the table.
Flop = 5c 9c Qo I check - Planning to check raise for the 1/2 priced card on the turn if I miss (this is one strategy Jones discusses that I agree with, use selectively, and have had success with).
check bet 2 callers. Older TA raises. I reraise. All call except of Tight Passive Woman to right of TA. TA reraises. All call.
At this point I put TA on overcards, Q good kicker or flush draw. He would have raised preflop with JJ or better, AK, AQ. (Watched his play for about an hour). I believed I had correctly eliminated a big pair, but KQ, KJ, QJ, Q10 were all possible. As was the club draw.
Turn: 10c. I bet out. 2 callers. TA raises. I reraise. 1 caller folds. Other calls, TA calls.
River: 10x Here's where I got nervous. Even though I put him on a flush, especially with the turn raise, I believed he could also hold Q10 for the boat. Checked to TA. He bets. I call. 2 Loose Passives Fold.
He flips over Q9c. I take it down with the nut flush.
Did I play this correctly? Opinions, Flames, Comments welcome and encouraged.
Thanks, Tim
.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I'm sorry. 6c NOT 5c on flop.
Thanks again Tim
I'm confused, and have not read Lee Jones book.
Does he advocate check-raising in order to get a free card? How is this going to work? After you check-raise, you will then be checking the turn. Your check will often motivate the original bettor to bet again. I doubt this play will work often enough to be worthwhile.
Please explain if I'm wrong.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Jones advocates this play specifically at LL for getting the free card on the turn. He postualates that the average LL player, when check raised into on the flop, will often times be so scared of being check raised again, that he will check along with you. It has worked for me many times so far, and again - I use this play selectively.
Is that clear? If not, let me know.
Thanks, Tim
That is not the play that Jones is talking about. He discusses check-raising a lot on the flop will lead other players to give you a free card on the flop in future HANDS, not future rounds in the same hand. In other words if you check raise a lot on the flop your opponents will remember this on future hands and will be less likely to bet after you have checked allowing you to receive a free card. It does not refer to getting a free card on the turn during the same hand.
There are numerous mistakes in your play if this hand, the one that sticks out in my mind are the hands you put your opponent on (two overcards???? for example).
check raise check is a strange sequence. i looked into it towards the beginning of the theory forum. i would appreciate it if you looked it up in the archives and commented. the orginal post was fron wed nov 17, 99.
basically, it is irrational to both not check raise check for a free card because the guy will bet and not double check raise for value because the guy will check behind you. i think certain situations make one profitable and certain situations favor the other.
except for a few situations that were discussed in the thread (mostly in the sub thread with john feeney), i don't have a good handle on it but i am sure there are times when check raise check is correct for one reason or another and i (and most likely others) am (are) losing profit because of our failure to use that tactic.
scott
Two hands, 4-8 HE
1) SB with 75d, five limpers to T.J. in cut-off seat, who raises, button folds, I call, all call. Flop is 3d, 6c, 3h. I check, all check to T.J., he bets, I call, three others call. Turn is 6s, I check, all check to T.J., TJ bets, I fold, three call. River is 4c, all check to TJ who turns over his hand. To me this was a fairly routine call, call, fold. Comments from critics welcome.
2) SB with Kc10d, five limpers, I call, BB checks. Flop is Qd, Jc, 7h. I bet, all call to button, who raises, I call, all call. Turn is 9c, I bet, three callers (one fold) to seat before button, she raises, button folds, I call, all call. River is 9h. I check, all check to turn-raiser. She bets, I call, all call.
I didn't re-raise the turn because I assumed I was tied and didn't want to lose anyone, i.e., there are enough callers drawing dead to justify not charging the one or perhaps two drawing live. In short, I reasoned that raising could cost me money; I'd lose the dead hands who would have called one bet and I'd only be called by K10, or a very live draw.
Flames welcome. thx spitball
1) I personally wouldn't call a raise with 75s for the reason that too often you catch just enough of the flop to cost you more money or you miss it all together. And you're in the worst position if you don't flop a made hand - Fold and wait for the button. After that though you played it right IMO.
2)I would have raised on the turn. The pot is pretty big (27 sb after the cut-off raised to you on the turn). When I see a big pot I think more how I can drag this now rather than how can I build it more. The problem with building is that you let hands hang around that could catch a re-draw(You think the guy with J9 will call a single raise; how about a double raise?). And that always sucks!
Not exactly flames, Just my thoughts.
The Grinder
Thankyou for responding. In the second hand, the players were so weak that even A9 is hanging around for the river if I DON'T re-raise, but J9 is going nowhere, no matter how many bets on the turn. It was an odd situation. spitball
Spitball wrote: >1) SB with 75d, five limpers to T.J. in cut-off seat, >who raises, button folds, I call, all call. Flop is >3d, 6c, 3h. I check, all check to T.J., he bets, I >call, three others call. Turn is 6s, I check, all >check to T.J., TJ bets, I fold, three call. River is >4c, all check to TJ who turns over his hand. To me >this was a fairly routine call, call, fold. Comments >from critics welcome.
OK. You asked for it.
This hand was a routine fold preflop. If no one had raised, then a low suited one-gapper like this is playable for half a bet. I don't care if all 10 players are in, and God himself told you that no one will reraise, you can't put in 1.5 bets with this hand preflop. If you do, expect to lose more than you win with it.
Let's assume that someone put a gun to your head and made you call preflop (but then let you play the rest of the hand as you wished). Your call on the flop is marginal at best, despite the huge pot odds. You need a 4 to win, and are highly unlikely to win with anything else other than running 5s or 7s (which I will discount for this analysis). Once TJ calls, you're getting 17:1 odds on your call, which looks good for a 11:1 gutshot draw. But, this flop has check-raise written all over it, at least in many games out there. Maybe you know that doesn't apply to your game, but consider it. Next, What if you're already drawing dead? Someone could have 66, 33, or 36 (If you're playing 75, why can't they play 36?). Next, what if the 4 you need makes a full for someone (34 or 44). Next, even if you catch a 4 on the turn or river, someone with a hand like A3, 35, etc. may catch their kicker and beat you anyway. This all adds up to you needing odds even better than 17:1, IMO.
>2) SB with Kc10d, five limpers, I call, BB checks. >Flop is Qd, Jc, 7h. I bet, all call to button, who >raises, I call, all call. Turn is 9c, I bet, three >callers (one fold) to seat before button, she raises, >button folds, I call, all call. River is 9h. I check, >all check to turn-raiser. She bets, I call, all call.
Call preflop is fine, no raise, so half a bet is worth it. Bet on the flop is good, since it appears they all call no matter what. You're 2:1 to improve to a straight, and this is a good value bet, since it appears you will always get at least this many callers in your game. To bet out again on the turn is good. No one should be sure you have KT here, as you would have played AQo the same way, as well as KQ, and other hands, right?
>I didn't re-raise the turn because I assumed I was >tied and didn't want to lose anyone, i.e., there are >enough callers drawing dead to justify not charging >the one or perhaps two drawing live. In short, I >reasoned that raising could cost me money; I'd lose >the dead hands who would have called one bet >and I'd only be called by K10, or a very live draw.
7 players preflop, all call the flop bet, plus the button raise. When you bet the turn, only 1 player folds to the bet. I don't think you need to worry about losing the dead hands.
I count 21 small bets before the turn is dealt. Once the button raises and it's back on you, there are more than 16 big bets in the pot. Even if you raise, you will not lose anyone who thinks they have any hope, which probably includes people with hands like K8s, T7, etc. You certainly won't lose the players with AK, AT, or flush draws. However, you will make them pay to draw out on you. Except for the flushes, or someone with trips, NOBODY has a good shot at beating you. This is a big pot. Make them pay.
Think of it this way. Do you want to get 2 more bets each from 2-3 players, or 1 more bet each from 4-5 players? It seems like you make more with the 2 bet scenario, and you might eliminate somebody who had a 1-4 card draw to beat you (like AT or AK). The prospect of making the same or more money, coupled with the possibility of increasing your chances of winning, makes a raise pretty much mandatory.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thankyou for responding Greg. I don't agree with your pre-flop assessment of whether or not to call a late raise with 75s in the SB. This was a very soft and passive game. Had there been more danger of re-raises behind me I would have mucked. Your analysis of the flop is very compelling however and I should have considered many more factors than I did at the time. I admit that I was somewhat influenced by the knowledge that the winning hand previous to this deal, a set of fours, had not been properly mixed into the deck by the dealer. I'd followed the fours while he shuffled and was certain they were within 30 cards of the top of the deck.
As for hand two, again, a strong argument for re-raising. I hate to blow away potential callers and end up splitting with the only remaining hand. In the future, I'll leave these kinds of considerations for the river. Again, I failed to fully consider the implications of NOT trying to force the issue, e.g., a K on the river would have led to a three way chop. As it was, the river bettor turned over 8 10, BB also had 8 10, everyone else mucked, and I scooped. spitball
Hand 1): SOMEONE has a hand bigger than the Pair of 7s you hope to make so at best you have a gut draw. You are only getting 10:1 to call the turn; even with a likely additional call the chances of you losing this pot is pretty high even if you DO make it (its double paired and all). Unless the button will lay down his JJs and a raise bluff is in order, easy fold on the turn.
Hand 2) Flop worked out just fine, eh? At least one of the callers is drawing slim to beat your hand, either with 2 pair or a gut draws. These people are getting 15:1 to call and should. I guess I don't know if forcing this person to face a double bet overshadows the likely one or two extra drawing dead calls you can expect. I guess I agree with you until proven otherwise. Gotta pay this one off.
- Louie
Thankyou for your comments Louis. How did you know button had JJ? T.J. flipped his pair, O. turned over her Q's, and B then showed her A's which scooped.
In the second hand, I scooped as two players turned over 8 10 and the rest mucked. spitball
No problem with the play on hand 1. I think you can call a raise here if six other limpers are in and there is little threat of a reraise. However, you have to be able to play this hand well post flop to make a profit.
Hand 2 I have to disagree with the lack of a reraise on the turn. There is very little chance that someone will put in one bet cold but not two more cold with this kind of board. Is Q-J or Q-9 going to fold here for one more bet but not two more? What about two clubs? A set isn't folding either. The only hands folding here are A-Q or A-J, who might recognize one raise for a strong hand but two for a powerhouse. Chances that A-Q being out there in an unraised pot probably aren't large. Some hands are drawing for a split pot, such as J-10, K-J, Q-10, or K-Q. Why not charge these hands the max, since they are still striving to get to where you are currently?
Thankyou for responding Hetron. You make a strong argument for re-raising the turn. spitball
If there are no openers before you on the button, what would you consider the minimum hands to raise with?
Assume the blind players to have a 'typical' ability just to minimize adjustments for their specific style and ability.
Mathematically, the two blinds have completely average hands (barring information to the contrary). Since you are interested in the maximum of their two hands, you can only expect to have a better hand than both of them if you have a hand in the top 25% of all hands.
6-12 game in the Bay Area. I'm new to the game, don't know much about the players. Looks like the crowd is slightly tougher than your average bear. I started off the session by playing a couple of very substandard hands to establish a loose image. One of them actually won (go figure), so it only cost me two or three bets. The customers are most likely convinced that I'm very loose and prone to bluff.
I am in the BB with K-10 clubs. Middle position player (MP) limps in pre-flop, button calls, small blind calls (SB is 2/3 of BB), and I join the party. The flop comes out 3 clubs, 9 clubs, and a red 10. I have top pair w/a good kicker, and a flush draw (glory!). SB checks, I bet, MP calls, button calls, SB folds.
Turn brings out another club (a rag), giving me a flush. I check, looking sad. MP bets out triumphantly, button calls pretty quick, I raise behind (drum roll). MP thinks and calls, and so does the button.
The river brings out another club. No straight flush is possible, but I am scared of an Ace of clubs being out there, since they may very well have been re-drawing on me on the turn. I think and check, MP checks, and the button checks too. I show down a flush, they throw their hands away. I can see by their looks that they called my check-raise with nothing more than top pair.
The question is: should I have bet on the river for value? Given my loose image, at least one of them would have called. Oh, the dilemma...
I would venture to say that you def. should have raised. There are so many other reasons these guys could have stayed this long other than having the single card nut flush draw. But against better players a raise might not be as solid since you are more likely to get called with only a better hand - i.e. the club ace.
4/8/8 structured at Sam's (LV). $2 to call,Tough table, all good players, as usual. Not many preflop raises which don't mean business. Lot's of trapping from players entering early with no raise. I decide to limp in 2nd with 6c6s, 1 call behind, no raise. SB,BB,UTG,me, and 3rd caller. Flop is Kc 6d 2c. I have a set. SB checks, BB bets. I put him on two pair or a flush draw, he whouldn't bet K, weak kicker here. UTG calls, my thought is to raise immediatly. But I decide a raise will not chase out a flush draw here (especially if it was ahead of me ), I decide to wait to see what the turn brings and call. Is it always a mistake to slowplay a set with a flush draw only possible on the flop, I couldn't envision a str8 draw too. Caller behind calls, so does SB. Now I'm thinking at least 1 flush draw is out. Turn brings 10c. Checked around. (did I miss a bet to represent the flush?) River is 7d. SB bets, BB, utg and myself call. SB shows 22 (set), BB had K6 two pair, UTG had AK. I win a small pot. If I had played this fast I might have won a lot of money on the flop but would have had to slow down on the turn. Should I always play sets fast on the flop with only flush draws out ? SB was obviously thinking just like myself.
I know some will disagree with my table accessment since AK didn't raise nor 2,2, but like I said, lots of trapping on the turn.
Lets not talk "always". Lets not bother talking about trying to make the flush or straight draws fold. This rarely happens without a paired board and rightfully so (OK, it happens more in your small blind game).
The ONLY player getting the right odds to call is the flush draw; you want EVERYBODY else IN (this isn't a T96 flop). 22 has one out. AK needs runner A-K or A-A (and maybe c-c) to win. K6 has one out. This is routinely the case with sets.
You should be thinking "how can I make the biggest pot I can?". I am confident that the in-your-sleep strategy of flailing away until you're "obviously" beat and then paying it off with your set is darn almost as good as the best how-to-play-a-set strategy.
Flail away. One obvious exception is if its bet and raised on your right and you'd rather not make it 3-bets to the field.
I would like to point out that this situation is about as good as it gets with sets and really isn't a good "case" to support my point.
If this is the best you can do with a set you shouldn't even be THINKING about playing small pairs unless there are already LOTS of players in.
With all these whimps in the game you should loosen up considerably in late position.
- Louie
I thought I would hear from you Louie, your opinion is valued even if it has a bite. Let me qualify this a little more. Of course you are right ! However, what if I was trying to maintain a win and did not wish to create a possibly large variance with only the current nuts ? This situation provided excellant possibilities for reraises from multiple players, I would have LIKED going to war on the flop. What I am saying is that with no indication of this possible activity, calling my single raise would still provide correct odds for the flush draw to call, where a turn raise might damage those odds. If I had known my game had turned soft as you discribe it, I would have started flailing like you suggest I do. My question basically; is there ever a flop type worth slowplaying a set, is it all about your present image, (loose play fast, tight play slow )? Or, is it just cut in stone like it appears, irregardless of chip status, game status, flop type or whether I can fold it.
Keeping the pot small, I epected that if the turn brought a non-club, check,check,UTG bet,I raise cutting down the odds for the only draw I'm worried about. Turn comes a club and I might be able to save money already won, by the river. Just trying to cut down any -variance before quiting. Is my logic THAT faulty ? Everyone knew UTG had AK. I would have exected 2,2 to check raise, so flush draws are the most logical calls outside of UTG. Do you insult everyone or just those with bad nicknames ? Flame away !
What do you mean "BITE"?!!!
For me, lowering EV a lot to reduce my varience a lot is an unworthwhile objective. Your actions did accomplish this objective...
(1) The flush draw is likely to call the turn anyway even if you manage to reduce the odds with a raise to make it a "mistake". If so, the only varience gain you get is one less sb if the flush makes it on the turn. You DO get close to your objective if the flush will (correctly) fold with a turn raise so long as you keep the pot small. You also gain if YOU shouldn't draw to your full house against the made flush.
(2) Clearly in THIS hand you cost yourself MEGA $$ by accomplishing your objective. Usually it will cost much less.
(3) Quitting immediately will accomplish your objective.
A while back I did some math and determined you are better off EV wise getting the flush draw to CORRECTLY pay the flop AND the turn then slow playing and encouraging the draw to CORRECTLY fold the turn since the pot is small. This may not be the case if you get the other guy to make a MISTAKE on the turn.
Since I play a pretty aggressive game I'd HATE to let them see me slow play since I bet so many other real marginal hands. I can see these "slow play" situations: (1) When against aggressive types who are much more likely to bet next round (if I check this round) than call me this round. (2) When the better/raiser is on my right and I think others will call if I call but fold if I raise. (3) When the pre-flop raiser is very likely to bet if I check and bet the turn if I call the flop. (4) With top set short handed against a player likely to fold the flop.
It bodes well that you correctly put the other player's on the actual hands they had. I would not have interpretted their actions that way.
- Louie
Email me about your second-to-last sentence.
Louie, I meant to say your response has a "bite", not that it does "bite". "2nd to last sentence." It bothers me when I say a game is tough, then you say it's full of wimps. A lot of people know how to play correctly but when they are in a game together they deviate from straight forward play to disguise their hand. I'm not sure this makes them weak. "if this is the best you can do with your set" is another quote that bothers me in that the question was intended to search for the optimum way to play this flop type (only 1 draw, but 4 callers, K high). I admit raising would have made more money in that the SB would have reraised, perhaps knocking out the draws when I reraise again. Then again, the Nut flush draw or the other hands may have keep calling, and I'd have to decide whether to pay at the river with an unimproved set draw.
You don't want to slowplay a set unless the situation is absolutely perfect. With an apparent flush draw on board, bet and raise at every opportunity, including when the 3rd club comes on the turn, especially after two players have already checked.
Thanks, 3 cheers for "always" ! Could you describe "absolutly perfect"? I'm not sure how many times I have bet or raised top set into a rainbow with no draws only to have everyone fold. This seems contrary to "get as much money in the pot as you can".
S & M give an example of "absolutely perfect" (almost) in their section on Slowplaying in HPFAP (21st century edition, page 73): flop is J-6-2 rainbow and you have a set of jacks. An overcard on 4th street can give someone a 2nd best hand. Yet, they point out that this is not "absolutely" perfect, since someone could pick up a flush or straight draw on the turn and then beat you on the end, so even here you might not want to slowplay is the pot is large.
Thanks, my flop of Kc6d2c was far from perfcet and I regret not raising. My opponents didn't display much agression on the flop and a 1 raise from me would still offer currect odds for the flush draw. I beleive we were all waiting to trap on the turn with a non-club. When it came we all froze because everyone thought that the draw was the only resonable holding. I guess we are all wimps. I normally play everything fast but was trying to hold on till the blind returned before leaving, without throwing back chips.
I know that feeling of knowing I'm going home in a few hands, just don't do anything stupid. But that holds for getting involved with trash. Once you flop a set, go get 'em. The temptation is to play conservative, thinking it's better to win a small one than lose a big one.
Good luck.
$2 $5 blinds I have $900 in the small blind and I see two red kings I raise the pot $50. Big blind $900 (very loose and weak) calls as does under the gun limper $1500 (selectively very agressive and somewhat loose). Flop comes 5 10 10 offsuit. I bet out $100 BB smooth calls and utg raises $270. I muck my kings. Any comments?
I think, you played the hand well, you might have saved the bet on the flop though. But after you bet out and got a call and a raise, you were almost sure beat. I think, the fold was correct, unless you played against 2 maniacs.
Regards
m.a.
Hard to believe your being able to save a bet on the flop if you check, though with this type flop it is reasonable to check once. To get away from your hand scot-free, it would have to go bet-raise back to you after you check, as checking and then folding to a simple bet is too wimpy.
Hard to find anything wrong with folding a hand that is likely beat in two places. Looks like the guy who raised is hoping the big blind has a 10, and holds A-10 or pocket fives. If he has the balls to be bluffing here, he deserves the pot if he gets away with it.
Thanks for your comments. The hand played out as follows: The BB called the raise and a offsuit seven came on the turn. The BB bet all in and the UTG called. The river brought a total blank and the BB showed a 10 5 suited and took this big pot. Of course the UTG flashed a 10 prior to mucking his hand. He later told me that he out kicked the 10 5 (lets hope so). On another note, Bob I want you to know that I have read all of your books at least once and I love them, thank-you!
.
I got a lotta lip about the way Iplayed a hand about three months ago and I didn't give it much thought then but it's recently been grating on me. I play a somewhat tighter game now but I'd like to think that I'd play this situation the same when it comes up again. Would like some input.
10-20-40 Hold'em. Full table. I'm in the small blind with 56 of diamonds. UTG and everyone (seriously, everyone but the button was in this hand) calls to one off the button. One off button raises, I call, and now BB re-raises, everyone in between calls and one off button caps it. (This is in Texas). We got 9 players in a capped pot. Flop comes Jd - 6h - 2h. I bet, hoping it'll be raised by BB (He has a tendancy to raise with AK in this spot no matter how big the pot is), well that doesn't work, BB calls, two middle limpers call and the button raises, I call as does everyone else. Turn comes 2d.
So the board is Jd -6h- 2h- 2d. A decent card for me. Noone can conceivably have a 2 here except me, but whether I had it or not no one is gonna give me credit for it. I check and it's checked around to button. He bets and I raise. I raise because I'm positive BB has AK or AQ, one of the middle position limpers is fairly weak player who bets when she she likes her hand and folds when she doesn't,the other middle position limper is a crazy Arab who I don't really wonder or worry about what he has, and the Button is just as liable to bet a flush/straight draw as he is with AA,KK, or Jacks full. Obviously, he more apt to bet with jacks full than AA or KK because he doesn't have to worry about over cards. Anyway, through that amalgam of reasoning I checkraise. BB folds, middle position limper shows 88 and folds(yes!)and even the arab mucks. The button just calls, with a generally unhappy demeanor. So now I'm convinced I have the best hand.
The river makes the board of Jd - 6h - 2h - 2d - 7s.
I check not because I'm afraid of getting raised but because a worse hand is not going to call and a better hand is not going to fold. Button checks it down and tables AK of hearts. I turn over 56 and drag a big pot.
For the rest of the night I got lip from button better (but it didn't stop him from playing draws as if they were the made nuts) and nasty looks from the lady who dumped her better pair. Anyway, I think this is good, aggressive play with a reasonable chance to win the pot. These people sneared at my play. I think it's debatable, but overall I think it's a high variance, money making way to play. Not every hand mind you but when the situation is right.
Any input/insight would be appreciated.
chris
BTW, a couple weeks later me and about 4 others are playing a $500 dollar buy-in freeze out. Me and above button are in a two way pot. I have an ace in the bb and he acts behind me. Flop comes raggedy with two spades. I check, he checks behind me. Turn comes offsuit pairing middle flop card. I check and he bets 175 dollars. I know he doesn't have trips or top pair, most likely he on a flush draw. I call the 175 and raise it 350, almost all my chips. He can only call about 250. River blanks and I table my ace. He mucks, with his jaw dropped. Again, playing the player.
also, I lost that freeze out when i smooth called in late position with 88, flop came 7 - 4- 2. BB checked I went all in and button called. He rolled A7, I showed 88 and he caught a 7 on the river. When I have to lose I'd rather it be like that.
Gary Carson would love the way you played this hand. Jim Brier would have a heart attack. But I think Gary is right. (I am allowed to say that as long as Gary didn't actually write it.)
"Gary Carson would love the way you played this hand. Jim Brier would have a heart attack."
Me, I'm just confused!
Vince.
BTW - David, this guy claims to REGULARLY win $600 in this game. Go figure.
Hey, Vince, 15 BB's is not an unusually large win. At the 4-8 games in Houston and Louisiana it's pretty easy to take $300 out of a game in 4 or 5 hours. At 10-20-40 I do allright but not as well relative to the bet size. If you've never played in Houston you ought to. Of course, if you need the nuts to cap it then you probably ought not to.
chris
Chris,
I agree 15 BB's is not unusually large. I just question REGULARLY! In the words of my unsolicited mentor, David, the Almighty, Sklansky if one can regularly win a large amount at a level they should move up because they are just wasting their time. Kind of like playing 3-6 and REGULARLY winning 2 or 3 big bets only a lot worse if you are winning 15 BB's at a level.
Vince.
BTW - "if you need the nuts to cap it then you probably ought not to." If this is an indirect refernce to testicle size for one to play in Houston in a 10-20-40 Holdem Game forget it. I have yet to find a game anywhere at mid level that I would be afraid to sit in. Bring them long horns on!
Vince,
not a reference to testicle size. A reference to relative hand valuation and an inference to how far you need to go with hands when you "know" you're good.
Are you suggesting that a win of 2 or 3 BB's is walking away time? Or do you mean 2 or 3 BB's an hour. I just meant that I regularly took $600 out of the game. $600 = 10 hour session X 1.5 BB/hour. Regularly means playing in the game four times a months and winning 2/3 of the time.
I doubt that any regular contributor to this forum would be afraid to sit in any game that they could afford. But there are games that just don't suit a particular style. This game is a particularly wild, particularly aggressive game. Fairly sound players that occassionally get out of line. Some players have told me that it's a tough game to beat; I've either been long term lucky (regularly beating it for close to a year) or have a style that is suited to taking advantage of the game. On the other hand, a game full of rocks is bad for me. The best I do in those games is slowly bleed chips, the worst I do is quickly bleed chips.
chris
"reference to testicle size"
Meant as a joke. I don't use smiley faces, sorry.
"winning 2/3 of the time"
Sorry Chris, I'm used to winning better than 90% of my sessions. I considered that regularly. My wins are not very big and my sessions are usually not very long. But I do have my moments.
"do you mean 2 or 3 BB's an hour. "
Sorry again. I did indeed mean per hour. I misspoke.
"This game is a particularly wild, "
Again misspoke. Not my kind of Game. This is a game for "Dangerous Dan" Send me the address and I'll let Dan know.
Vince.
BTW - $600/10hr = 1.5 BB/hr 2/3 of the time. What are your losses like the other third?
There are times when I break even and there are times when I lose my whole buy in ($500). but on losing nights I usual can keep it to less than $300. Because this limit (10-20-40)is higher than my usual play (4-8, 5-10-20, and 10-20)I play much tighter preflop but I am still aggressive post-flop, esp. the turn.
I need to work on balancing my turn and river play; i.e. less aggressive on the turn and more aggressive on the river. I think this is a natural carry over from lower limit hold'em where people will overvalue their hands and you can trap people drawing to one card straights and such for multiple bets on the turn. Also, I'm shell shocked from people checkraising my top pair/top kicker when their K2 offsuit hits a deuce on the river for two pair. So I know I need to work on these areas at the higher low limit games.
chris
You regularly win $600 at your 10-20-40 sessions. What's the most you've ever won?
$600 is only 3-4 medium size pots in this game. The most I've ever won was $3800, but that was a 3 day session that started on Wednesday night at this game, took some players from this game Thursday morning and started a potlimit hold'em game that lasted until Friday afternoon and then hit 3-6-12 games at Players.
I'll tell you want you really want to know. My biggest loss was playing 20-40 shorthanded. I'd won about $650 from the 3-6-12 tables in less than 4 hours. I was walking out to my car. I stopped at the coffee shop for some gum and decided what the hell I'll play with my "winnings". Well, I lost the $650 I'd won and the $1200 I brought with me before dawn. That was a long road back to Houston. But it was also one of the best gambling lessons I ever got.
chris
What I really wanted to know was how you could win at least $600 per session two out of every three 10-20-40 sessions and only have a maximum 10-20-40 session win of $800 (as of two weeks ago). Statistically, this didn't seem very likely.
wow...
I don't quite know what to say but this story just really impressed me...
Just shows me that I'm really still a newbie in the poker world.
Thanks for a great story, ~DjTj
My suggestion is you confine your posts to one hand at a time...
This hand shows the value in sometimes throwing in an extra bet to confront the field with a double bet when there is a chance you can beat the bettor. But note that the hnd that did it had a pair, which was the deciding factor in winning the pot.
Wife judt got done giving me CPR :-)
Actually I like the way you played this hand why your table gave you lip is beyond me. You made a lot of moves or mistakes at the right time and it worked. How did you fair the rest of the night.
Other players hate it when they are raised out of a pot cause they can't take the heat. They give you the evil eye for quite a while.
Nice read on the players. Well done! This kind of opportunity doesn't come up very often. You were obviously attuned to the game and played it very well.
lucky
Yes, but he did it by increasing his chances. If he was wrong about the raiser then he loses. He must blow out other hands to allow him to beat the one other player. If he calls, he loses and would have been "unlucky".
This is true but to play small suited connectors in a capped pot is - EV in the long run .This time it worked out.
Well, thank you for all the posts. I beat this game regularly for about $600. That night I was "en feugo" and took close to $2000 out of the room. I don't play this aggressively every hand but I wont shirk my responsibility to take more than my fair share of pots. The only reason I played it like I did was because I thought there was a reasonable chance I could win it. The turn card was just about perfect for me. Any diamond or 6 gives me the probable best hand if, this is key, if I am behind at all. Obviously, my chance of having the best hand go up if it's a two-way contest.
I played with these people two or three times a week for long sessions, sometimes 14-16 hour sessions. I felt very comfortable making decisions based on what I thought they were holding,rather than the overall strength of my own hand. I wouldn't call these players totally weak but they were aggressive and predictable. Using their own aggression against them is important. Notice that if the button hadn't bet the turn I wouldn't have been able to raise him and push the others out. But if he or the other players in the hand choose not to bet I get a free card to draw to fill up or snag a diamond flush on the river. So, really, in this situation the button can't do much right.
I got suckered into playing small suited connectors but with 9 people it doesn't matter, the flop's gonna have to hit you and the turn and river will also need to be friendly. I called two small bets in the sb, then the BB reraised and the button capped it. So I was put on the payment plan. A side note: These people have seen me play AA, KK,QQ, JJ and so on this exactsame way. Maybe that helped when I checkraised the turn.
chris
Personally, I loved your play here, Chris. Yes, you got trapped into putting in 4 bets pre-flop with suited connectors, but who among us can honestly say they would not have called out of the SB with a 9-man field. Your check-raise on the turn was a textbook example of putting pressure on the calling stations for one additional bet when it gave you a better chance of winning the pot. Works for me.
I also liked how this hand was played (and I have the standard deviation to prove it). "Turn comes 2d...A decent card for me. No one can conceivably have a 2 here except me, but whether I had it or not no one is gonna give me credit for it." True, I can't imagine anyone thinking you have a deuce. Betting out on the the flop smells of a jack. So jacks are the hand to beat.
I think a river bet is in order. Too much money in the pot to leave the outcome to destiny. So what if it costs you an additional bet or two, it's a relatively tiny price for a shot at "getting the better hand to fold".
Mr. Pragmatist,
I know what you're saying here. But I know this player, he's much more likely to take a stab at the pot with a bluff on the end. I remember giving him that I'm gonna call look when I checked to him on the river. Didn't reach for my chips or anything that obvious, just that eyeball lock that communicates what you want it to. (I know major screw up. Is it Sklansky that points out that these communications prevent your opponents from making those bluffs that you can actually beat? Or is it Caro?)
chris
"I know major screw up. "
Potentially losing one big bet is not a MAJOR screw up. Faggetaboutit!
Vince.
The way I read your post was that your heads up opponent would call you with anything that could beat your pair. I think this hand shows how valuable reading hands really is.
Yesterday i played AA in a way, I´ve never played them before. Fact is, i could have won much more in that hand, but was it just bad luck that things didn´t work out the way I wanted them to be, or was it just a stupid play?
Loose passive 10/20, I´m in the SB, 5 calls to me, I decide to just call because a raise won´t get anybody to fold (i´m not a big favorite against 6 players, especially when the pot is big - nobody won´t fold until the river) so I decided to make a trap play on the flop.
Flop comes Q73 rainbow. I check, BB checks, UTG bets, next raises, everybody else folds to me. Now I changed my plan to play for a check-raise on the turn, (UTG and the other player are kind of braindead and don´t care, wheather i cold call 2 bets + UTG won´t muck a hand like top pair with no kicker, even if he has to call 2 big bets on the turn). BB folds, UTG calls.
Turn is a 9, now there are 2 diamonds on the board. I check (planing to raise), but both other players check too. Damned.
River is the 2c, I bet, both call and muck their hands after I showed my aces.
Stupid play or just bad luck?
M.A.
You took a risk in an effort to get more money in the pot and it failed - that happens...
Did you watch the two players as the turn card came out? Before trying a check-raise, its probably a good idea to look for some indication that someone else will bet - you may have been able to see this coming...
It seemed like they were both playing some sort of longshot draws - maybe second or bottom pairs with overcards - sometimes Aces just don't meet with any hand good enough to pay them off - you got a bit of money on the flop - be happy.
~DjTj
You always give up immediate value by failing to raise with aces preflop, regardless of how many people are in the pot. Not raising a multiway pot with two big cards until the turn makes sense, but this gambit is partly justified by the frequency with which you'll miss the flop. With aces your overlay is just too large.
To justify not raising, someone should be representing a strong hand that is vulnerable to aces (like a big pocket pair), and your raise must strongly suggest a big pair. Neither of these factors was present, as your opponents are just as likely to put you on something like a small pair or JTs in this situation (assuming that you raise with more than big pairs in the SB).
Having not raised preflop, you should have stuck with the original game plan and 3-bet this fairly safe flop. In retrospect though, given that no one could bet the turn, your slow play after the flop probably cost you only a few small bets and might have actually made you money. The biggest mistake was not raising before the flop.
MA wrote:
"(i´m not a big favorite against 6 players, especially when the pot is big - nobody won´t fold until the river) "
Since when? Your a big favorite against ANY number of players when you hold coneheads. Your an even bigger favorite if the pot is big BECAUSE nobody will fold until the river, and many of them will be drawing virtually dead.
Seems like a complete waste of a big hand.
Sean
Somewhat tightish afternoon game with some older people. I raise an UTG limper with my pocket 88. A tough player calls in the big blind, so does the limper.
Flop comes J76 rainbow. The big blind sunuvabitch bets, UTG calls and I raise. BB reraises, the limper does Rodin's Thinker, then folds and I call.
The turn is a deuce. BB bets out and I raise his ass to apply Fekali enema. He calls.
River is another deuce. He checks and I check behind.
Who's the fish here?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Sounds like it's you. Unless BB has 67 and you sucked out on the river. Seems like he has a jack, unless his head is harder than italian marble.
chris
is this a trick question?
is this a trick question?Nyet
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I say, on this hand, you fish. You say "nyet." I say, "da".
It seems like you had fun with it though.
The fish was the UTG limper who apparently folded pocket TT (I'm not sure, but he was very unhapy at the showdown).
BB showed A7. He thought I was pushing AK again.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
"Somewhat tightish afternoon game with some older people. I raise an UTG limper with my pocket 88. A tough player calls in the big blind, so does the limper."
I wouldn't raise here if it won't isolate him. And I might not want to isolate the limper unless he's a passive player. How will you respond when he bluffs an overcard on the flop? I'd rather face a couple of players for one bet than three players for two bets - you won't win unimproved and you destroy the implied odds of your hands.
"Flop comes J76 rainbow. The big blind sunuvabitch bets, UTG calls and I raise. BB reraises, the limper does Rodin's Thinker, then folds and I call."
You should have folded the first time. And since you have 88, he almost can't have a draw. He called a raise preflop, so he doesn't have J2o and isn't folding.
Note that the situation being 3-way instead of heads-up changes everything. Heads-up *to the flop* I would often be this aggressive. With a caller on the flop, your 88 belongs in the muck immediately.
"The turn is a deuce. BB bets out and I raise his ass to apply Fekali enema. He calls."
Wasting another big bet. Unless he's totally weak-tight he won't fold top pair on the river here.
"River is another deuce. He checks and I check behind."
"Who's the fish here?"
The important thing is that you got way too aggressive in a situation where you couldn't win the pot that way. He clearly has a hand, and is a good enough player not to lay it down that easily.
Heads-up I would often play this aggressively with 88 here. But this is a very different situation, and the fact that he called a non-steal raise preflop, and gave this much action on a board with no likely draws should signal trouble. If he's a tough player, he's not going to bet with nothing into an UTG limper and a preflop raiser on that board.
Well thought out Dan
One too many Red Bulls?
Hey Izmet! What's with the enema thing? I will be at the Concord on the 16th of March. Is this something I have to watch out for?
Vince.
BTW - 8,8 UTG - Tight Game - No Raise or U may need the enema to get the shoe out.
Neither of you is a fish!
He had best hand with 76 until you hit the river.
If I'm wrong then he had Jxs 2 pair on the flop and is afraid of an overpair now.
In both cases he'll check the river afraid of the overpair (Jack in the first case).
You do have a way with the lingo Izmet. :) I haven't read the other responses yet but, having Rodin'ed it a bit, here's this sunuvabitch's take. Actually, this is a hand where I *really* think I'd need more information. The default play against typical opponents (including typical tough ones) really should be just to fold to the initial bet and call. But under some specialized circumstances (e.g., you have good reason to believe the bettor's bet indicates something less than top pair [which it often would, but here you want a little extra reason to believe it, since the combined possibilities that he has you beat now or will make his straight draw are a real problem], and you know the caller would raise with top pair, and doubt he'd slowplay something like a set or two pair...) your first raise could be right.
Then you've got to interpret his reraise. Is he a player who will reraise here with only a draw? How about second pair or an in-between pair like 99? Against typical players (even typical tough players), though, it starts looking bad for you.
But once you call his reraise on the flop, if you decide you're going to take it to the river, then your raise on the turn is okay - not mandatory, as a reraise from him does cut off your small chance to draw out, but okay. I do like your check on the end. :)
Against typical players who are not extremely aggressive move makers, I'd have to say you overplayed it a bit. I've certainly been guilty of similarly misplaced enemas. But against just the right player(s), if factors like image were right for it at the time, then you can make a case for the way you played it. Now lemme go see if I plagiarized anyone.
I asked: Is he a player who will reraise here with only a draw? How about second pair or an in-between pair like 99?
Of course if he has the in-between pair, he beats you.
hi john feeney
/
by humoring jimbo, you only condone his drinking.
we don't want to send that message, now, do we?
scott
I feel that I owe you guys an explanation.
A drunk asian girl wandered into my room, and held me against my will while she typed a slew of posts on the forum. You fell victim to her schemes because she recognized your name from the time we went to the commerce and didn't come back for over 24 hours.
.
20/40: I play very tight preflop. I want to mix it up some, but I have the tendency to over do it. I want to incorporate some random mix to my play. I’m thinking about raising In early position only if no one has entered the pot and I’m viewed by my opponents as a tight player. Can I use random cards I selected before I played to achieve the desired effect? If so how many? If I were to raise with Ac5c-9s8s only, would I be on track to a good preflop strategy?
Do I read this that you are looking for SOME non-premium hands to raise with early? This only makes sense in tight games. In loose games where you expect to get called, all additional hands should be from the top down (AQs, TT, KQs, ...).
Lets say you raise with AA,KK,QQ,JJ and AKs, AKo; that's 40 hands. If you want an additional 10% (4) that's one particular (low ranked) suited hand; if 20% that's two.
So you need to decide ahead of time WHICH two suited hands you are going to raise with UTG. One way to do that is to remember the last two low suited hands you FOLDED on the river. So if last round you played 87d in late position, flopped a straight draw and missed, then one of your raising hands is 87s UTG.
If you "correctly" raise with more stuff (AQ, TT, etc.) the number of additional raising hands increases rapidly.
If you raise UTG and a tight player calls its probably with an Ace; so weak raises with an Ace aren't such a good idea: 87s is much better than A7s against AQ. Suited connectors give you much more confidence with semi-bluffing in this tight game than would small pairs, even if small pairs are more likely to win a show-down heads-up: you're better off bluffing with a gut-shot than an under-pair since your pair is dead if called. Pairs are better if you tend not to be very aggressive AND neither do the likely opponents, allowing your little pair to win a lot of uncontested show-downs.
This whole notion makes for a great excuse to raise with any old cheese early at any time. Not that I've ever had this problem ....
- Louie
Here is a scenario where I lost but thought I played it correct.
I have AA. I raise, player to my left calls, another player reraises, I call (maybe should have reraised) and player to my left caps. 4 players capped.
Flop is J high. I bet, player to my left raises and 1 other caller. I call. Turn is a blank. I now judge that player on left has either KK QQ or less likely JJ since he capped (nice cap preflop - it thru me off). I plan to bet expecting that he will raise and drive out the draws. Thats what happened and he wins with trip J's. (I check called the river).
What mistakes did I make?
If he doesn't raise preflop then I consider folding on the turn but probably save only 1 bet by not betting first.
It was 5/10. 4 decent players.
What draw can the third player have after 3-Betting the solid player raising in early position? Surely not 98s gut shot? the third player has a pair or may have a Jack hopefully AJ, and is drawing slim. Also, even KK would have a hard time raising the turn since he's shown such strength and you are obviously not an idiot. Very well played except you should check raise the turn with your very likely winner.
Notice the larger pot you get to lose by just calling the 3-bet, hehehe, rather than 4-betting and telling them you have AA or KK. Usually, you will get to WIN these larger pots with AA.
It sure looks like BOTH opponents have AA(1), KK(6), QQ(6), JJ(3), or AJ(6). That's not REAL favorable that neither has JJ.
"...then I consider folding on the turn..." Its a tough laydown with AA when short handed and there is really only one hand the opponent can have. You have to be REAL SURE this guy isn't going to take a shot at YOU before you can consider doing it.
- Louie
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/
Player's Guide
A New Guide to the Starting Hands
in Texas Hold'em Poker.
Sklansky was the first poker author to have both ranked all of the starting 2-card hands, and then grouped them with recommendations about how to play each group.
David "Einstein" Sklansky (a nickname attributed to him in Doyle Brunson's book, Super/System) has been a professional poker player and poker theoretician for decades, and his advice is widely respected.
As for the starting hold'em hands, did he get it right?
Any thought about this ??
MJ
The author ran an ad hoc pseudo-simulation (not a full simulation of playing out the hands and not no fold'em either) and presumed that his results were absolutely correct, and therefore that any differences pointed to errors in Sklansky's rankings. Sklansky's rankings were intended to be general purpose and hence are suboptimal for any particular situation, including the particular situation of an ad hoc pseudo-simulation. The rankings were actually remarkably similar anyway.
The stuff about the roller coaster rankings for suited connectors (e.g., 76s being better than 98s in many situations) is also observable in Turbo Texas Hold'em, so the author's ad hoc pseudo-simulation could be detecting some real effects. I suggest reading it, taking it all with a huge grain of salt, and seeing if you get any insights from it.
-Abdul
This report comes up every now and then. Below is a repeat of my comments which I made a while back.
Comments on the Taylor Starting Hand Report
As promised, here are my comments on "The New Guide to Starting Hands" by Dick Taylor. As you will see there are many errors in his assumptions that lead to many errors in his advice. The comments follow below. (This will also probably be posted permanently in our essay area in the hopes that this confusion will not happen again)
1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors and small pairs.
2. Hands are played based on favorable odds of finishing with the best hand. How large a pot or how many bets you can lose is not considered. This will have the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KJ, which can easily make second best hands.
3. If a player does not yet have any information, that is no one has yet acted, he assumes that a certain number of small bets are in the pot. That is, raising is discounted. Again this has the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT.
4. Pot odds are considered only, not in conjunction with the number of players. That is, whether the previous players have raised or called is not considered. This means that hands like KJ which can easily make second best hands are over-valued because the amount of punishment they sometimes take is not represented.
5. After the flop, players only continue when they have either a made hand or a one card draw to a straight or flush. This reduces the value of hands like AK and AQ, especially if they are suited. (Two overcards with a three flush is frequently a hand you should play.) In other words, hands that have some additional semi-bluffing value, or that may still be best, especially short-handed, are ignored.
6. Position is ignored. "Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold 'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here." Thus hands like KT which are particularly vulnerable to pressure by players acting later are elevated.
7. The broad spectrum of hold 'em table condition is not covered, even though claims to the contrary are made. The reason for this is that the betting action is not considered. Only a vague notion of the number of players in the pot.
8. Aggression seems to only be thought of in terms of winning the pot. The idea of occasionally building a big pot and then enticing others to continue when you get a favorable flop is ignored. This will have the effect of lowering the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors and small pairs.
9. Taylor states that in a very tight game that AA and KK are the only starting hands that you should raise for value. This conclusion is probably a function of the idea that players only make play or fold decisions regardless of the previous action. This is obviously not the case.
10. The conclusions about hand sensitivity to the number of players in the pot does not take into account size of the pot and the number of additional bets a hand may win or lose on the later streets. For example, on the river a hand like KK becomes more of a payoff hand in a large multi-way pot, but it tends to collect additional bets when played short-handed.
11. Hands like AQs do better in multi-way pots than Taylor gives them credit for because of additional bets that they can collect before they complete their hand. For example, in most situations, if you flop a flush draw with one of these hands you want to raise many opponents. In the Taylor play/fold criterion, this is not represented.
12. Taylor points out that hands like AQs and KQs "are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown." Again he fails to recognize that they occasionally will win a giant pot.
13. In the recommendation to play KTs up front in tough games instead of JTs, Taylor does not account for the fact that KTs can more easily make a second best hand (by flopping top pair with a king) and fails to account for the type of pressure that tough players can put on this hand.
14. Size of blinds and betting structure is not accounted for. For example, in today's modern two blind structure, as compared to the old one blind structure where the "one" blind was half the size of today's big blind, the value of suited hands, particularly suited connectors has gone up.
15. When advice is given on which hands to play, position and other players betting action is ignored. For example, Taylor's Professional Play List has you playing the top 24% of all starting hands. While there are spots where it can be correct to play more hands than this (see HPFAP), routinely calling raises with most of these hands is suicide.
16. In The Savvy Gambler's Play List Taylor points out that 22 and 33 are never worth playing. He fails to realize that these are hands which if you do not flop a set, you usually immediately fold without having it cost you very much. But when you flop a set they are highly profitable. Thus they should be rated higher than their winning percentage indicates.
17. Taylor doesn't understand that when you hit the flop with a flush draw you may be charged many bets for the privilege of trying to make your flush. (Compare this to flopping a small set where you will now do the charging.) Thus, hands like Kxs are over-valued.
Conclusion: In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics, I have a lengthy discussion on what I call non-self weighting strategies. It is shown that in virtually all gambling situations where a positive expectation can be achieved, a non-self weighting approach is far superior to a self-weighting approach. This is exactly Taylor's problem. By using a self-weighting approach where size of pots, additional bets gained or lost, pressure by late position players, ability to semi-bluff, etc. is not considered he has come to conclusions that do not benefit those readers that he is trying to help.
Thanks Mason that about clears it up. Just though I would bring this "Guide" to light after I found it.
MJ
The best part about Dick Taylor's work is that it is rather easy to see what the assumptions were. This allows anyone to determine for themselves whether or not they feel that the simulation is of any value or not. Mason's critcisms are, for the most part, dead on the mark.
On the other hand, despite all of the criticisms that hold, the Dick Taylor's results are, as Abdul mentioned, astonishingly similar to the S&M hand rankings. This has to make you wonder quite a bit about the nature of simulation and how it relates to actual experience.
On the other side of the coin, rankings like S&M are *not* optimal rankings in the same sense as Dick Taylor's. But they aren't supposed to be either. They are meant to be general guidelines for a relativly wide range of table conditions. The only real problem with the S&M rankings is that it's hard to get a full disclosure regarding all the assumptions that went into the rankings.
Of course, in the end, it's all just nonsense anyways. As Mason hints to in his rebuttal, there are many things to consider when you decide to play a hand. This makes the concept of black and white rankings almost useless for a serious poker player.
Once you reach a certain point, you'll probably develop your own internal rankings based on each distinct hand and an amalgam of situations. AA is not the same as JJ no matter what any ranking says.
- Andrew
"On the other hand, despite all of the criticisms that hold, the Dick Taylor's results are, as Abdul mentioned, astonishingly similar to the S&M hand rankings. This has to make you wonder quite a bit about the nature of simulation and how it relates to actual experience."
They were not very similar. The very best hands were the same. After that they deviated substantially.
"Of course, in the end, it's all just nonsense anyways. As Mason hints to in his rebuttal, there are many things to consider when you decide to play a hand. This makes the concept of black and white rankings almost useless for a serious poker player."
Here's what we wrote on page 17 in HPFAP-21 addressing this:
"However, we want to state that by the time you reach expert status you shouldn't be thinking in terms of hand groups. At this point in your playing career your starting hand decisions should be based on the intrinsic value of each hand in each particular situation. But if you are just getting started playing, we know of no better approach."
They were not very similar. The very best hands were the same. After that they deviated substantially.
The first two "groups" were identical. The third group was the same except for one hand, over which a classic debate has formed. Which is the better hand KTs or the S&M JTs.
These first three groups should make up the greater part of the hands that you play. All told, the Taylor rankings agreed with 97% of these hands.
Group 4 hands are 50% identical, group 5 hands are 60% identical. Taken together, the two groups were 73% identical.
The first five groups should make up almost all of the hands you play outside the blinds.
Group 6 and 7 hands were wildly different. But then who plays 32s and 85s all that much anyways?
- Andrew
I guess I play a lot more hands than you do. Seems sort of strange since I'm constantly reading about how tight I play.
Mason,
Why is that? I must have read a hundred times that you are an extremely tight player but when I read about a hand you play very often you are in there with some pretty dicey cards. And you certainly know how to make the brave bet when it counts (remember 4c 4d?).
My theory (without knowing you personally) is that you have this somewhat persnickety image (please don't be insulted, that is what my wife calls me) and maybe people just figure you play to your personality rather than to your actual play. Does this make any sense?
Regards,
Rick
"I'm constantly reading about how tight I play. "
I believe what you have read is how tight you are. There is a difference you know. Sklansky is the one that is always saying that. Of course he is referring to the lack of gas money you provide to fuel his Jag. He is a nice guy, sometimes. So next time give him a dollar or two when he drives you to L.A.
Vince.
BTW - Zee is the one that eggs Sklansky on. He thinks your cheap too.
lol
- Andrew
"As for the starting hold'em hands, did he get it right? "
The ranking of staring holdem hands will always be controversial. Sklansky puts A,A is in the same Group as K,K; Q,Q,;J,J and A,K suited. The fact of the matter is that an arguement could be made putting each of these hands in a group of it's own. I'm not saying that each hand should have it's own group just that we could argue the merits of the groupings. Sklansky and Malmuth looked at each hand and attempted to group them in an order that not only indicated their hand strength but also included their money making strenght. If they were interested in hand strength only they would have ranked 2,2 over A,K.
Did they get the rankings right? In my opinion the hand rankings suit the purpose for which they were intended. They give the reader a base, a strong base, in becoming an advanced player. In fact they provided a base for an already advanced player to get better. therefore, I believe that they got'em right.
Are there other groupings that would work in teaching advanced concepts? Probably. I've seen quite a bit of discussion here concerning Abdul's starting hands. I've come to respect Abdul from his posting here. I believe he put a lot of thought and work into his starint hands. They will probably work as well as S&M's to teach advanced concepts. Are they better than S&M's. I doubt it, but maybe. It's not the point. Sklansky rankings work and can be trusted to advance your game.
Vince.
Well over a year ago there was a heated exchange over Taylor's rant ..err.. rankings involving some accurate but uncharacteristic impoliteness.
As far as Sklansky's rankings are conserned: OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT CORRECT. The value of hands changes depending on the situation and there is only one list. KQ is better than T9s on the button after everybody folds. And we can forever nit pick (does T9o REALLY come between 44 and 33 Mmmm?).
But so what. Its the best list out there (well, except of course for MINE!) and is well worth playing mindlessly. The considerable effort is needed to find miniscule improvements can better be spent on such things as learning the discipline to follow the pre-flop advise in the first place. One such improvement is that 74s is "obviously" better than 54. Doh!
- Louie
Playing $5-$10 at Paradise Poker just now, I lost a largish pot. I never liked where I was in the hand, and would appreciate comments about whether I could have correctly got out before the end, or whether the pot odds and implied odds compelled me to stay all the way.
The button is on Seat 3, and I am in Seat 5, posting the big blind. I have sat down only recently, and have little or no read on the players.
Dealing.. Dealt to st-george [As] Dealt to st-george [Kc]
splim : Fold steely : Raise ($10) Gilligan: Call ($10) yamiyami: Call ($10) beachboy: Fold jep06 : Fold all gone: Call ($10) bobcat : Call ($8) st-george: Call ($5)
As you can see, I picked up AKo, but by the time it got round to me in the big blind there was a raise from Seat 7 and four cold-callers.
Should I re-raise here?
I considered it, not only for value, but to get an idea of (raiser) steely's holding by seeing if he capped it. In the event, I decided to just call, because:
- AKo doesn't play too well in a 6-way pot.
- I had poor position
- If I missed the flop and checked, I would be correctly put on AK.
- I feared that steely had kings or aces, or indeed AK
*** FLOP *** : [4c] [Kd] [8c]
I liked the flop with its big, shiny king. Second to act, however, I checked, because:
- I was still scared of steely having AA, KK or AK
- I was unlikely to suffer from giving a free card
- I was sure there would be action behind me anyway
bobcat : Check st-george: Check steely : Bet ($5) Gilligan: Fold yamiyami: Raise ($10)
steely bet, as expected, and when yamiyami raised I put him on a flush draw.
all gone: Fold bobcat : Fold st-george: Call ($10) steely : Raise ($10) yamiyami: Call ($5) st-george: Call ($5)
I cold-called, and when steely re-raised I became fairly sure I was beaten at this point.
However, I still have top pair, top kicker - can I really sensibly lay it down here? Maybe steely has KQ, and also puts yamiyami on a flush draw only...
*** TURN *** : [Tc]
st-george: Check steely : Check yamiyami: Bet ($10) st-george: Call ($10) steely : Call ($10)
The flush card hits on the turn, and I check, as does steely. yamiyami bets out, suggesting that he has made his flush. However, I have the King of Clubs, and hence a draw to the second nut flush on the river, so I call.
steely calls also. This worries me, because I know that he put yamiyami on the flush draw. There are three possibilities for steely:
- he can't bring himself to lay down his top pair/overpair
- he flopped a set of kings and is re-drawing to the full house
- he has AA or AK, *including* the Ace of Clubs
Overall I think the third of these is the most likely, and I am drawing dead, but with over 13 big bets in the pot already, I can't lay it down here....can I??
*** RIVER *** : [2c]
The river is a club, putting a four-flush on board and giving me the 2nd nuts.
st-george: Check steely : Bet ($10) yamiyami: Call ($10) st-george: Call ($10)
With a heavy heart, I check to steely, almost sure that the 2nd nuts are no good
Indeed, he bets out, and yamiyami calls. I am again almost sure I'm beaten, but I still cling to the thought that steely has KQ and has only made the queen-high flush.
Whatever, the pot is laying me 15-to-1, and I can't lay down the 2nd nuts at this stage...can I??
*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $162 | Rake: $3 Board: [4c] [Kd] [8c] [Tc] [2c]
st-george lost $45 [As] [Kc] (a flush, king high)
steely bet $45, collected $162, net +$117 (showed hand)[Ah] [Ac] (a flush, ace high)
yamiyami lost $45 (showed hand)[Td] [Th] (three of a kind, tens)
As feared all along, steely shows AhAc for the nut flush. Surprisingly, yamiyami didn't make his flush on the turn - he made a set of tens, which means his raise on the flop was with a bare pair of tens.
So, how badly did I play this hand?
I don't think there was any question of folding pre-flop - to play the hand was obviously correct. While I was passive throughout the hand, there is no possibility that a greater level of aggression would have changed the result.
So, the question is could I have laid down the hand at any point. Although I believed that I was likely beaten throughout, I tend to think that pot odds - and the fact that at all times I either held a good hand or a good draw - mandated that I stay in.
I might have three-bet it before the flop to gain information, but even when steely capped it, he still could hold any of AA, KK or AK so it probably does not change anything.
What do you think - comments very much appreciated...
Mark
Mark A,
Calling in the big blind is fine with As Kc when you have an early raiser and six-way action. Then you wrote:
"If I missed the flop and checked, I would be correctly put on AK.".
If you had reraised or even flat called, it would often be correct to bet even if you missed (e.g., no ace, king, or big draw/made hand flops). But I digress.
"I feared that steely [the opponent's screen name] had kings or aces, or indeed AK."
I wouldn't fear such strong hands from the raiser since you have an ace and a king in your hand. For example, let's say the player is tight and predictable and he will only raise with AK, AQ, AJ, AA, KK, QQ, and JJ from early position. The chances that he has the weaker ace kicker is much greater than the same ace kicker and the chances he has an underpair are much greater than the chances he has a pair that dominates you (AA, KK). When you have the better ace you are much better. When he has the underpair he will be in bad shape when your pair flops and he doesn't hit his set. Overall, I would say you both make about the same money against the field; you normally only get in trouble relative to him when you pair and he hits a set. Anyway, most unknown raisers are not that tight (e.g., they would raise with KQ, TT, and 99) and to make a short story long, I think you fear the big hand from the raiser too much.
(BTW, it is worth working out the math on the above. Adbul, skp, John Feeney, Izmet, scott, Dan Hanson, Mason, even Vince (just kidding Vince - you got the math nailed) would know it off the top of their heads. I'm a little out of practice, lazy and dog tired but I think I have the general concept about right.)
On the flop of 4c Kd 8c it was close between betting and check raising for value. You are right that it will normally be bet. But you may be better off betting out from the blind. This is a scary bet to your five opponents and often you will get a feel for where you are by doing so. One problem with betting is that a fairly decent early raiser in a six way pot will lay down the underpair and usually raise with hands that are strong relative to you. This is where you want to know your players but you don't. Checking is OK but I might have made it a check reraise after the button raised putting the pressure on "steely". I'm not sure I'm right but I definitely would consider this (flame me at will).
On the turn I may have been more aggressive. Betting out or check raising either bettor is my play more often than not. You have the second nut flush draw and top pair, top kicker. The passive play accomplishes very little in the many cases where you are in fact the best.
On the river I like the check and call (don't even think about throwing it away). Betting the king high flush (with a four flush on board) is marginal. Based on the play of the hand, you will get raised by the hand that beats you (Ac) and you don't induce weaker flushes or busts to bet.
Anyway, that is my late night, very tired, hoping to bore myself to sleep, exhausted opinion. I do have a minor quibble. It would be a better question if you had not posted the results. I tried to pretend you had a chance in this hand when offering my analysis although it was apparent in the first line that you did not.
BTW, does Paradise Poker provide all this information (it seemed your hand description was a cut and paste from an email)? Planet Poker provides very limited information on requested hands and I would like to see them match this service.
Regards,
Rick
Should steely have checked the turn, even if he was pretty sure yami or st. george had clubs?
Scott,
If "steely" was relatively sure an opponent had a flush (using these screen names in a thread crack me up), I suppose he should check since he has outs. This would be per the advice of HPFAP21stCentury, page 139.
Of course, he would hate it if it got checked through. But all is not lost since he may partially get it back on the river because of the extra calls he may induce when he shows turn weakness. If it was bet and he did not catch his club on the river then he would have to make a choice whether to call based on his read of the players. I would generally pay off unless the opponent(s) just do not bluff.
This advice should not be followed blindly though. Let's say there was a straight draw in addition to the flush draw possible on the flop (let's make the flop Kd, 8c 7c). Now the turn comes a 6c which is suited and one that could have made the straight. IMHO, "steely" should go ahead and bet his aces with a flush redraw since he doesn't want to give free cards to a straight that may have missed (except for the small pair) and may not bet (e.g., 65).
Regards,
Rick
Thank you very much for your critique of my play, Rick. I appreciate the effort that you obviously went to in replying.
I have cut in a few comments below...
====================
Calling in the big blind is fine with As Kc when you have an early raiser and six-way action. Then you wrote:
"If I missed the flop and checked, I would be correctly put on AK.".
If you had reraised or even flat called, it would often be correct to bet even if you missed (e.g., no ace, king, or big draw/made hand flops). But I digress.
"I feared that steely [the opponent's screen name] had kings or aces, or indeed AK."
I wouldn't fear such strong hands from the raiser since you have an ace and a king in your hand. For example, let's say the player is tight and predictable and he will only raise with AK, AQ, AJ, AA, KK, QQ, and JJ from early position. The chances that he has the weaker ace kicker is much greater than the same ace kicker and the chances he has an underpair are much greater than the chances he has a pair that dominates you (AA, KK). When you have the better ace you are much better. When he has the underpair he will be in bad shape when your pair flops and he doesn't hit his set. Overall, I would say you both make about the same money against the field; you normally only get in trouble relative to him when you pair and he hits a set. Anyway, most unknown raisers are not that tight (e.g., they would raise with KQ, TT, and 99) and to make a short story long, I think you fear the big hand from the raiser too much.
====================
Yes, I agree with your analysis. $5-$10 isn't the tightest of games at Paradise and many will hit it with non-premium hands. Although he did happen to have a real hand this time, you can't put them on aces every time!
====================
(BTW, it is worth working out the math on the above. Adbul, skp, John Feeney, Izmet, scott, Dan Hanson, Mason, even Vince (just kidding Vince - you got the math nailed) would know it off the top of their heads. I'm a little out of practice, lazy and dog tired but I think I have the general concept about right.)
On the flop of 4c Kd 8c it was close between betting and check raising for value. You are right that it will normally be bet. But you may be better off betting out from the blind. This is a scary bet to your five opponents and often you will get a feel for where you are by doing so. One problem with betting is that a fairly decent early raiser in a six way pot will lay down the underpair and usually raise with hands that are strong relative to you. This is where you want to know your players but you don't.
====================
Exactly. This is undoubtedly the worst thing about online poker - playing in a vacuum. Even if the player isn't giving out clear tells, you almost can't help but gain something useful from his presence - just seeing him make the bet and the way he conducts himself.
====================
Checking is OK but I might have made it a check reraise after the button raised putting the pressure on "steely". I'm not sure I'm right but I definitely would consider this (flame me at will).
====================
I must confess to being inclined to disagree here. I can't justify a value-bet here. Information might be gained, but I only think this is worthwhile IF I can lay down my hand if 'steely' hits it again, but with top pair, top kicker I don't think I can pass.
====================
On the turn I may have been more aggressive. Betting out or check raising either bettor is my play more often than not. You have the second nut flush draw and top pair, top kicker. The passive play accomplishes very little in the many cases where you are in fact the best.
====================
I think you're right again. Being able to win it both ways certainly permits aggressive play
====================
On the river I like the check and call (don't even think about throwing it away). Betting the king high flush (with a four flush on board) is marginal. Based on the play of the hand, you will get raised by the hand that beats you (Ac) and you don't induce weaker flushes or busts to bet.
Anyway, that is my late night, very tired, hoping to bore myself to sleep, exhausted opinion. I do have a minor quibble. It would be a better question if you had not posted the results. I tried to pretend you had a chance in this hand when offering my analysis although it was apparent in the first line that you did not.
====================
Point taken - I will try to bear this in mind in future
====================
BTW, does Paradise Poker provide all this information (it seemed your hand description was a cut and paste from an email)? Planet Poker provides very limited information on requested hands and I would like to see them match this service.
====================
Indeed they do. The hand reports are totally comprehensive. How does Planet Poker fail in this regard?
Dear Forum,
Things have not been going well lately(A couple months) at the tables. I have been booking more losses then wins lately and it has caused me to be critical of my play. I feel like I have been playing well, but I hardly ever hear anybody admit that they lose because they play bad. I have been taking beat after beat. I am not going to give examples because no one really likes hearing them, but I am talking about 2 and 3 outers and having flopped sets outdrawn and so forth and not legitimate draws where they were getting the price to draw. Anyway, tonight I won $585 in a 15-30 Hold'em game playing from 1:00-3:00 a.m. On the drive home I started thinking and I usually am up after the first few hours but I always manage so give some back. I was catching some very good cards tonight and I made a couple of good bluffs.(I rarely bluff because people just usually call you down in limit play)I flopped top set twice and they both held up for nice pots and made a couple of overpairs hold up. I feel that I'm not losing my concentration after these few hours but my records indicate otherwise. Had the beats just not hit me yet or was I just catching the cards? Is the rake eating me up? It is $7 but I'm figuring that only affects me if there is not more money to bring to the table, but the other players pockets run deep.(Before you tell me to play at a lower rake which I know would help I live in Houston and that's the standard. I could drive 2 1/2 hours to Louisiana to play 10-20-40 at a $5 rake but after gas, time, food, and hotel this is a better alternative.) My bankroll is limited and I might be playing like it shows. I have tightened up my play a lot. I did the Sklansky starting hand rankings and graded horribly. It use to be a no-brainer for me to call in early position with Q-10 and K-J and tonight and I never think twice about mucking those hands now in early or middle position. I've been playing for 2 1/2 years and I want to win more. I'm always thinking when I'm up $100-200 after an hour if I should go or not and it's hard for me to leave when I'm one of the best players at the table. If I'm up and see 3 players better then me I usually go. Please give me some tips on how to book more winners.
Thanks in Advance,
R
Razor,
I'm a bit too tired to post much of a response but did you say a $7 rake per hand or per half hour? Seven dollars per hand is way, way, way too much. Good luck and hope you get some good advice or a cheaper place to play.
Regards,
Rick
Razor: I'm not sure if this is what you are asking, but I think your level of play possibly falls off as it gets later and you get tired. I KNOW this has happened to me -- it was a major leak in my game. I have had many sessions where if I started late (say 10 p.m.), I would win for 2-3 hours and then lose as it got later and I wore down a bit. A small lapse of concentration from fatigue is like a small amount of alcohol -- you may not think it's affecting you, but it is, and the next thing you know you wake up stuck $500 or in bed with a fat chick.
Good luck, and sorry you lost the Oilers. Whoever runs that game may be trying to rake enough money to buy the team back.
SW
"Please give me some tips on how to book more winners." --- quit the second you get ahead for the first time.
In the short run this may be a worthwhile objective; certainly I have "left a winner" just to help get over a bad run. In the long run, however, this is not a worthwhile objective. You should be trying to maximize your rate yaddy-yaddy; play when a favorite and leave when not yaddy ya.
Actually, my win rate is about the same as my loss rate, but my average win is higher than my average loss. To "book more winners" I could play much more conservatively.
I suggest you count your stack every two hours and keep close track. I suspect you are correct that you do better early than later. While it may or may not be concentration, it may also be energy levels or excitement you project which cowl's the opponents (at the start). But if you find that its the case except it and play less hours; or at least figure to change games every three hours or so.
- Louie
Low limit game online, table generally loose passive.
I'm 2 off the button and am delt 4s4d
Middle position (MP) limps, I limp along with Weak/Calling station (CS) the button (B) and both blinds (SB) and (BB).
We take the flop 6 handed.
*** FLOP *** : [2c] [Ts] [4c]
(SB) checks, (BB) bets, (MP) calls, I raise. (CS) and (B) both cold call, blinds drop.
We're down to four handed
*** TURN *** : [8h]
(MP) checks, I bet, (CS) calls, (B) raises. (MP) drops. I did consider 3 betting here but was confused by the buttons action here so I just called, as does (CS)
*** RIVER *** : [Qc]
I check, (CS) checks, (B) bets, I call, (CS) folds.
Question: should I have automatically 3-bet my set when raised on the turn? Admittingly, the raise by the button was unexpected. I thought two pair unlikely due to the texture of the board so I thought I might be up against a bigger set or a straight/flush draw. I figured to bet of a blank hit the river, but the third club fell so I just checked and called.
I will post the results in the next post.
The button showed 22 for a smaller set and I took the pot.
I posted a similiar situation where I backed off on a suprising re-raise.The consencious here was that set over set is so rare that you should keep firing.My next session I did just that and lost to top set.However,I'm under the impression that this was a statistical fluke.The resposnses I got were virtually unananous that super aggressive is tha way to go in the long run.
I like your "results" in separate post format.
Without reading your results: Even bad players don't like calling raises with under pocket pairs, so a set of 8s is very unlikely. So you only fear a set of 10s which is also unlikely. Any sort of "action" player can find LOTS of hands to raise with which will overshadow the 3 pairs of Tens he can have.
You should be confident you still have the better hand. To me that means 3-bet but some sort of call, hehehe, may also be in order.
Let me guess: he's got 9c8c or 9c7c.
- Louie
3-6 game. I'm on button with 9-7o. 4 limpers to me, I call (button drop of $3 counts as bet), SB, BB call. Flop is 2-7-9 rainbow. A couple of checks, a bet and call to me, I raise, SB, BB call, a reraise, call, others fold to me, I cap, SB, BB fold, reraiser and first caller call. Three of us see turn of Qd. They check to me, I bet, am raised by flop reraiser, both I and other player call. River is Js. Possible straight. Check by raiser, other player bets out. I have two middle pair. I am figuring reraiser for possible set of Qs. Other player likes to fish, and maybe caught a gutshot straight. I fold, raiser calls. First better mucks without showing and says "Good call", reraiser shows AA, and takes down a good sized pot. With the pot that big, should I have bet the river? I admit I had been taking a hammering all night, and was more timid than usual. Looking at the two overcards made me think I was beat. As always, I seek wisdom...
You definitely should have at least called on the river. I would still have raised here. There are many hands which are bettable which you beat, such as A-Q, K-Q, A-A, K-K, A-J, etc.
-CJ
In this situation I'm not sure if I'd bet but I would definitley have called with a pot that big, you're hand doesn't have to win very often for this call to be profitable. In a LL game its difficult to put anyone on a hand so its hard to argue with the way you played the hand but you absolutley should have called the bet on the river.
The player may have had T8 for a regular straight draw. Set Queens unrealistic since he has no particular reason to fear #3 made a straight. Its a crying call but a call none-the-less.
The question is whether #1 has you beat. If you fear he does and believe you should still call, then almost always raise since he's so unlikely to call with two big pair.
"Saving a bet" should be a distant consern in big pots. Just because the call is "probably" bad doesn't mean its a bad call.
- Louie
My guess is that #1 would call with 2 big pair even if our hero raised the river. I've seen players lay down two pair when there isn't a four flush/strai8 on the board, but those players are few and far between.
You didn't have a chance to bet the river. You were bet into. Hope this helps.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Was Lonestar upset with you because your student drew out on her. Won't she tawk to her widdy biddy boy toy. Is that why you are being sarcastic with your response here? "Hope that Helps" indeed. Well my analyticle dynamo you, yes U, made a mistake with this one. There is enough material in this fellows question and the hand described to fill a 2+2 Sklansky book. A book about the chintzee size of the TOP, that is.
A 3-6 game no less. Why Badger must be on all fours ready to jump on this one. I wonder if this fellow is a 2 bb or 3 bb winner. He called with a 9,7o. Button button who got the button. 9-7o that's who. Good odds 7 players see the flop. Following me so far. 9,7o - 7 callers. Implied odds. Yeah you get it! After the dust settles on the flop I count 14 bets. Big bets. 14. Hero has capped with top 2. Good so far huh!
Turn - Dreaded over card! Check, check - Bet - raise - call - call. 20 big bets now. To the river but wait what is our hero thinking. Flop 2-7-9 turn Q. Raiser must have what a set of deuces. No wiait til the river because hero called.
River - Js - Board 9,7,4,Q,J no flush. Raiser checks! Caller bets! 21 bets in the pot. Hero - Thinks I must be beat! Folds. Raiser calls and wins with A,A.
Hero (by the way my use of "Hero" is not meant to be derogatory in anyway) asks the quetions should I bet the River? Abdul tells him that he was bet into. something he already knew and was really asking if he should call or maybe he was asking if he should raise. Well Abdul missed the boat on this one. This wuestion is what this forum is all about. Of course mighty Oz would not address this question. It is beneath him. He hasn't the time to elaborate. Mason to his credit may give a rock solid answer and I would have expected Abdul to at least be kind. But I guess Lonestar was riding him again last night.
O.K, Specs,
Forget about this hand. Whether or not you called is not material. The best thing that could have happened with this hand happened. That best thing was posting it here on the forum. Anyone that gives you an analytical answer that claims you did the right thing or tries to explain why you did the wrong thing needs help themselves. At least Abdul recognized the problem even if he chose sarcasm as a way of responding.
You can take this advice anyway you like or you can leave it right here or just don't read it. My advice will, however, be the correct response to your post. You wanted wisdom and wisdom is what you are gonna get.
What we have here is "failure to Communicate". Somewhere along the line you "got loser". Poker is about winning! Looking for ways to win! "Two overcards made me think I was beat" Two overcards didn't make you do anything. Your mind made you think you were beat. I gather from your description of the hand that you have a fundamental understanding of how to play poker. What your problem is and don't feel alone I have a similar problem as do a lot of our fellow 2+2 posters. They probably don't even know they have this problem so if they read this they to will benefit from the rantings of this old fart.
Specs, you were not prepared! I bet this is the case with you most of the time. You were not ready to win. not ready to even play! Not ready period! Wisdom says be prepared before you play. Keep alert. Pay attention and focus. Make sure you have an A game and play it.
Specs, don't take all this to heart. You see I am so glad that you posted this hand here so that I could yell about it! No not at you or Abdul, at me! You see I play a higher level than you but a lot of times I am just not as prepared to play as I must be. And consequently I miss a lot. When I do I hate myself and venting seems to help. You let me vent. However, I will say that I would have called the River. I'm never that unprepared.
Vince
Vince did a good job of rambling. Louie did a good job of responding to what the poster meant to ask, otherwise I would have responded to that issue. I did a good job of helping the poster with his terminology, lest he confuse others in future posts and get bad answers as a result. For example, Vince said that the poster called with 97o on the button before the flop, and implied that this was bad. However, the poster did not call with 97o on the button! He might even now claim that he did, but he did not. Vince is giving horrible advice by implying that the poster should muck the 97o preflop. Hope this helps.
-Abdul
Rigid terminology helps discussions a lot. I'm all for it. As far as I understand the said situation: the poster checked preflop on the button, not called. His $3 "call" was forced (raked blind).
An unforced call here would indeed be horrible in a raked game.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
"Vince is giving horrible advice by implying that the poster should muck the 97o preflop. "
I did no such thing! I like the call. your just mad because I answered the way you should have so you are trying to take it out on me instead of kicking yourself for missing such a fine opportunity. No I did not imply nor consider 97o a bad play in the this situation. I made the remark only as a discussion point to start off what I found to be an interesting post. The most interesting thing I found, as I stated, was that the question, should I bet the river was not important at all. What was important was that there was a fundamental problem with this players understanding of what is needed to win at poker. I thought I made that clear. Guess not. But at least I got Abdul to take notice.
vince.
Since you are playing a small limit game I'm going to assume that you are not very experienced at poker. The reason I say this is that one very common error that inexperienced players make is that they do not take into account the size of the pot, or at least don't take it into account enough. Given the size of this pot your hand only has to be good about 6 percent of the time for your call to be correct. You should make this call every time even if you know that you will lose most of the time that you make it.
Thanks for all the responses. Sorry about the terminology, especially on the forced bet on the button. Is it still a "check" if it is a forced bet? Anyway, I think the main thing is that I was not on my A game. It was late (around 1:30 am) after 7 hours of play. Earlier in the evening, in several similar situations, I called, only to be beat everytime. I was feeling beat up on, and weak, and not thinking clearly. Oh well, at least I learned something, and the lesson will stick with me for a while.
"The following concept is extremely important to understand if you wish to play poker well. If you flip a coin and it lands on heads 4,123 times in a row on the 4,124th flip, the chance of it turning up heads is still 50-50. If you have lost with aces 15 times in a row, this does not mean aces constitutes a bad hand the 16th time you are dealt them." (Roy Cooke, REAL POKER: THE COOKE COLLECTION, 1999, p. 208.)
Sorry for the really basic question here but I am coming to the conclusion that the Beginner's Questions Forum is not the place to ask a question if you really want it answered.
1. If I hold two hearts, what are my odds of two hearts hitting the flop?
2. If I hold 1 heart, what are the odds of 3 hearts hitting the flop?
Thanks for any help.
Jon
1. Flop a made flush to suited pocket cards:
118 to 1 (or .84%)
2. Flop a four+ flush to suited pocket cards:
7.5 to 1 (or 11.8%); this includes the .84% of the time when you will flop a made flush
s
I had been playing heads up against a pretty tough, aggressive opponent when the following hand occurred. Due to the way our short session had gone, I think he percevied me as a bit out of line, but not a complete maniac.
I am in the SB (act first before the flop and last thereafter). I have 9c9h and raise his BB. He reraises, I call and we take a flop of:
Ts8h3c.
He bets and I raise. He calls.
The turn is the 7 of hearts, giving me a open ender to supplement my pair.
He bets and I call.
The river is the 9 of diamonds, giving me a set but putting a four straight on board.
He checks and I decide to bet, even though both of us had done our fair share of check-raising on the end (both for value and as bluffs).
He calls and mucks when I show my set of nines.
I thought this hand had close decisions on all streets, as I could even see an argument for four-betting preflop since I will have position throughout the hand.
Of course, the opponent's style is the key factor when heads-up, but I'd only played with the guy for about 40 minutes and didn't have a solid line on him.
Michael 7,
How can you bet after he checks behind you on the river?
Regards,
Rick
I think I stated this above, but as usual you wre probably in a hurry when you read it;-)
When you are heads-up, the SB has the "button", and acts first before the flop, but last after the flop. I was in the SB. I raised before the flop. He reraised. I called.
He bet the flop. I raised. He called.
He bet the turn. I called.
He checked the river. I bet. He called.
This betting sequence was consistent with the rules of orrder for heads-up play.
What Rules of Order are you talking about??? In any HE game I have ever played in, the SB is the SB, period, and must always act first in any subsequent action. Where do you play where this is reversed and the SB gets to act last when heads-up with someone? Sounds goofy to me, sorry.
This was not a full ring that was folded around to the small blind. It was a two-handed game. Even in a two handed game, someone has to have the button. The small blind has the button. The small blind obviously has to act first before the flop since he only has half a bet in the pot. After the flop, he acts last since he has the button.
Next hand, the order and blinds are reversed. It works pretty well. Think about how much action you would give from the SB if the BB had the button.
I have never seen it played any differently when heads-up at the end of a tournament, or in two-handed ring play.
Sorry if I confused anyone here.
I probably would have raised on the flop as well. When he bets into you on 4th I think your call is in order as he probably has you beat. He was probably going for a check raise on the turn but when that scary card came he didn't want to take a chance of giving you a free one. On the end your bet makes sense to me. What if a blank came on the end and he bet into you, would you have called?
Sorry Michael,
When I saw 10/20 I assumed it was a full ring game and zoned out on the first sentence. And yeah, my friend was waiting at the door as we were on the way to a movie (Cider House Rules - good flick). I wanted to answer the post when I got back and thought you made a typo. My guess is this was an online game since most card rooms break up games at this limit when it is this short-handed.
"I am in the SB (act first before the flop and last thereafter). I have 9c9h and raise his BB. He reraises, I call…"
I'll put in one more raise here (which would cap it online at Planet Poker). Your hand should be better than his average re-raising hand but not so good that you want to slow down.
… and we take a flop of: Ts 8h 3c. He bets and I raise. He calls."
I like your flop play although just calling with the intention of raising if a baby comes on the turn is not so bad.
"The turn is the 7 of hearts, giving me a open ender to supplement my pair. He bets and I call."
I would raise here. If you get reraised it screams big hand. Either way, the play on the river becomes simpler.
"The river is the 9 of diamonds, giving me a set but putting a four straight on board. He checks and I decide to bet, even though both of us had done our fair share of check-raising on the end (both for value and as bluffs)."
I like the bet a lot. Players tend to bet out with four straights if they have it fearing that you would check behind unless you had one yourself.
"I thought this hand had close decisions on all streets, as I could even see an argument for four-betting preflop since I will have position throughout the hand.""
Heads up pre flop a pair of nines is very strong but vulnerable hand. I assume he would reraise in the big blind with a lot less so why not four-bet it? I think the close decisions were on the turn and river.
"Of course, the opponent's style is the key factor when heads-up, but I'd only played with the guy for about 40 minutes and didn't have a solid line on him."
If this was online, it does take a lot longer to get a line on their play. You don't have any visual cues as to their mood and so on. Anyway, sorry again for the misunderstanding.
Rick
I am playing in a loose passive 2/4 Hold'em game on Planet Poker. I am on the button with AJo. 6 people see the flop for $2. Flop comes Kc Qc Td. I flop the nut straight, but with no clubs. Betting goes check, check, bet, call, call, I raise, BB folds, UTG calls 2 bets, the other 3 also call 1 bet. I put the original bettor on a king, and figure there has to be at least 1 flush draw. The ugly 8c came on the turn. UTG now bets, call, fold, call, and I fold. Was this a good fold, or a weak play? I was thinking maybe a raise would have been a better play to see what UTG did. Would that have been a better play? How about just calling? Thanks in advance to any and all comments.
Rocketman,
I think it was a good fold since the UTG player was betting into a flop raiser and a large field on the turn. If he didn't have the flush, someone else did. Even if there is a slight chance your straight is still good, it can still get crippled on on the river (by another club coming or the board pairing).
Regards,
Rick
Okay, here are the questions I pose to the minds of this forum. The new edition of HPFAP has a really good section on short handed play. It contains a very good explanation of what hands you have to defend the big blind with against an aggressive player. But here are some questions I don't see covered, that I'd appreciate any thoughts on.
1. On the button what range of hands should you raise with against a typical player? It's a lot of hands, right? But is it possible to make a rough list as the authors do for defending the big blind?
2. How would you then vary that list against a big blind who nearly always calls. What about one who reraises a lot?
3. When playing heads up online it looks to me like players who get on a little roll start raising with more hands and pushing harder. Is this a known effective strategy? Is it mainly a psychological ploy of trying to beat down the opponent so that he is more passive and folds more? Or am I just imagining that they do this? (Since I can't see their cards I have to guess.)
Thanks for any responses. I appreciate this forum, and get a lot out of reading it!
With all of those questions I am asking specifically about heads up play. Thanks.
After spending a modest ammount of hours against the master of heads-up play Abdul Jalib M'hall, I'm confident enought to recommend the following. I am assuming you have the small blind on the button. The small blind is half the big blind.
On the button what range of hands should you raise with against a typical player?
Always open with a raise. There is no point in limping when you have position. Minimum should be Xxs/Q2o/J5o/54o. A notch tighter won't hurt.
2. How would you then vary that list against a big blind who nearly always calls. What about one who reraises a lot?
Tighten up a bit, as you can't steal. You'll come across players who fold too much, but compensate by jamming a lot preflop. You must play tighter yourself, as your suboptimal folding won't be punished. You need better hands against preflop reraiser.
3. When playing heads up online it looks to me like players who get on a little roll start raising with more hands and pushing harder.
It's a natural tendency against a losing player. Makes him do brutal mistakes of bad laydowns.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
So, we're in a situation like $15-$30 with a $10 small blind on the button and a $15 big blind out of position.
My wife, who doesn't listen to me, favors open-limping quite a bit. My argument for raising is as follows. Suppose neither of you can look at your hand before the flop. Then you should raise on the button, because although the hands will average out the same, you've got position, which is worth between 1/4 and 1/3 of a small bet, and your positional edge also increases the larger the pot gets. Your opponent in the big blind should always call when he can't see his cards either, because he has got odds to suck out on you. Seeing your hands does not change this much, because you both likely hold cheese, though the worst hands like 32 and 72 have such a low chance of winning heads up that you don't mind mucking them. Finally, by always raising when you play you make yourself more difficult to read.
Relative to an optimal player, if you're against a player who nearly always calls in the big blind, you should play/raise even more hands. You can also of course play more hands against a player who folds too often. Against inexperienced players you often have the best of both worlds - they call too much preflop and fold too much postflop, so you can play a lot more hands. However, for reasons I explained in a recent post on rec.gambling.poker, you don't want to start playing/raising every hand.
If you're against a player who too often 3-bets, you should tighten up a bit. You're getting a bigger payoff on your big hands, but your marginal hands, like say 86, will get punished if you play them.
You can go on long rolls just at random in heads up play, but these streaks almost always have an emotional impact on both players, which can cause the streaks to be extended past what random luck would dictate. Also, most players don't know how to play heads up, and they know they don't know, so when they start getting pounded they will likely flail around at random trying new strategies.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Would your arguement for always raising be the same in both a raked game and a time game? What if the first rake was at $40?
What do you base the 1/3 to 1/4 of a small bet advantage you attribute to position? I don't disagree, just curious. Intuitively I give position an advantage somewhat on a sliding scale though. I take it your estimate is for two evenly matched opponents.
"Always raising" is unquestionably the most difficult read. Causes large swings sometimes, though. Would you aggree? Also "always raising" implies that you play at least as well as your opponent after the flop if not slightly better. True?
I like your strategy variations based on opponent style. I suppose one would need to adapt a varying stye against an optimal opponent or perhaps play your best game and make him find a way to beat you. The latter strategy putting the onus on the opponent and making it more likely that he will make a mistake. What do you think?
"Long rolls" almost always have an emotional impact. I think you are to conservative in your estimate here.
Great post! When I see Lonestar I will politely ask that she perhaps at least consider trying out your advice now and then. If she finds that it works, I'll say, "You can always claim that it was her that gave the advice to the great Abdul." After all isn't that what love is all about? Never having to say your husband was right.
Vince.
Wow. This is great. I have the chance to refute two of the three best poker minds (not including two plus two authors) in the country. Suppose the big bind will ALWAYS call your raise but will only raise himself with very good hands. Clearly you should not raise this guy with hands that are too much worse than average unless he also plays badly after the flop. On the other hand there are probably no two cards that are worth folding given your position, pot odds, and little risk of a preflop raise. So against players of this sort of ilk, merely limping is often the best play...just as the apparently best mind of the three, Tanya, already evidently tried to explain to them.
The big blind will reraise only with fairly good hands if you always raise when you play (and hence you muck many of your weak hands), but if you just call, he'll be much more liberal in his raises. That's the realistic assumption to make here.
The "it depends" stuff is often misleading. If your opponent plays this way that he never would, then you should do such-n-such. However, if you play that way, your opponent will adapt and not play that way that he never would have in the first place, in which case your "it depends" conclusion is doubly wrong.
My philosophy is to know the play against the optimal opponent. When you should deviate from optimal strategy, it will be bloody obvious.
So, David, how would you play against an optimal opponent? Would you sometimes limp on the button?
My intuition is that, versus an optimal opponent, limping with some hands would be correct in a 1/3 small blind structure (e.g., $2 small blind vs. $6 big blind in $6-$12) but not a 2/3 small blind structure and maybe it's kind of a neutral decision for a 1/2 small blind structure (though I lean against limping there.) I'm not at all sure, though, so I'm all ears as to what David has to say once he gets out of "it depends" mode.
If you do ever limp, you have to pay a ton of attention to balance, lest you give away too much information. I think I would suggest something like limping with AA, KK, AK, T9, 87s, etc., and also your implied odds junk hands like 32s, 54, 86, etc.; I would suggest not normally reraising if raised but frequently raising the flop if bet into. This way, when you raise on the flop, your opponent would have no idea whether it was a slowplayed AA or a 54 that limped and picked up bottom pair or an open-ended straight draw.
-Abdul
"I have the chance to refute two of the three best poker minds"
David,
Who are the other two?
Vince.
My husband basically stated my strategy in his follow-up post but to clarify, I generally open limp with the weakest and the strongest hands that I play heads up. The ability to confuse your opponent and make him play incorrectly is achieved quite readily when you open limp, call his raise, and then play very hard after the flop. Showing down AA in this spot does a great deal to convince your opponent that he has no idea what you are doing. Couple this with spanking your opponent soundly in a heads up match and you quickly see a player becoming very frustrated and playing very poorly against you. Your weakest hands become stronger as your opponent has no idea where you are in the hand.
Sidenote: All of my heads up play thus far has been in a 1/2 or 1/3 small blind structure. I would favor raising more liberally in a 2/3 small blind structure game.
Regards, LoneStar
S
If the blind on the button is 2/3 of the big blind you should raise more often than with a smaller blind. On the other hand it would never be correct to fold, so you should also limp more often. Against typical opponents it is probably correct to raise with about 65% of your hands and call with the other 35% with maybe 10% being good hands. With a smaller blind you should probably raise with about 60%, call with 20% and fold 20%. These are just estimates off the top of my head.
Folding 20% seems fairly steep, since you're losing half a sb every five times you've got the small blind. But, I haven't given the issue much thought so I can't say for sure. I think if you open raise too often from the small blind any astute opponent will realize this and make you pay for it. And, since you won't often have the luxury of playing heads up against a total fish (since most real weak opponents won't play heads up), I can't see where detailing the 'optimum strategy against a poor player' has much value.
Thanks for all the well thought out responses. I really appreciate Mr. Sklansky taking the time to answer. I got a lot out of the other responses too. The discsussion got me thinking about some important aspects of these questions. I hope I never play any of you heads-up!
Your in the Big Blind with JJ.(4-8 game,Blinds,1/2).All fold to 1 off button who raises(this player frequently steals),button folds,SB re-raises(never played against him,he's on a rush with great cards and is getting more aggressive).Do you play the hand? If so,flop three small unsuited rags,the pre-flop raiser likes to re-raise on the flop.How do you play it?
I'd cap it pre-flop and then bet out on the flop.
It's a cold day in hell when I fold pocket jacks to two bets. In this case, you're looking at a probable steal-resteal, cap it at once to teach boys some manners.
Bet out regardless of the flop. If raised threeway on overcard(s) flop, think twice before continuing. Look for reasons to bail at once. If headsup, you can't release the hand regardless of the board, but you can go meek and check-call to the river. Against competent players, that is. You should know better for your particular players.
No overcards on the board? Ram 'n jam away!
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
As Izmet said, you've just got to cap it here, since you a) probably have the best hand, and b) may get the original stealer to muck, thereby getting 2sb's of dead money in the pot and a probable 1 overcard hand (i.e., an overcard to your pair) in the muck. Also, you could but position. When the board comes all undercards you should just keep banging at it until both of em scream uncle.
"Do you play the hand?" Definintely. I prefer a call to a re-raise. J-J has to try to eliminate A-K, A-Q, or K-Q on the flop. By calling, the pre-flop re-raiser will most likely bet the flop no matter what hits. When it's 3 rags, you now raise, eliminating the cut-off. From there, you keep betting unless SB shows you the error of your ways.
I have noticed that over the past couple of weeks or so, I have been getting little or no action after my preflop raises in HE. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, as I am trying to thin the field somewhat to give my premium hands a better chance to hold up, but it's been getting ridiculous at times. Last night we were playing 4-8 Dealer's Choice, with the most popular selection being Omaha/8 (about 75%) with a sprinkling of HE and Omaha High taking up the balance.
I know it has been discussed on the forum before that a lot of players suggest that the best game to play on your button is Omaha High, but I usually go with the flow and select Omaha/8, generally because most of the players in this game are sooooo bad at it. You honestly would have to see some of the starting hands and plays to really appreciate how loose this game is, guys. Anyway, just for a change of pace, on this particular hand, I decide to play HE on my button.
I pick up 7d6d. Five limpers to me, and I decide to throw in a curve. I raise. SB folds, but the BB and all the others call. Seven of us take the flop of Qh-8c-5h. I could have hit this flop harder, but it's not a complete bust. I like the open-ender, but I dont; like the hearts, and I don't like the fact an offsuit Nine could make someone a higher str8. However, after all the sheep check to me, I go ahead and bet, if for no other reason than I might be able to buy a free turn card. I get 5 callers, only 1 person folds.
Turn card is the 5c. No help, and another flush draw hits the board. When they all check to me again, I just can't see the sense in trying to keep pushing with this many callers, and I take the free card.
River comes the 9h, completing my str8, but also the (possible) heart flush and higher str8. However, when they all check to me one more time, I go ahead and bet out, figuring that someone will look me up, thinking I'm trying to steal. Sure enough, one guy calls, and my 9-high str8 is good. He had an 8 in his hand.
Now I'm not posting this just to chirp about some sort of offbeat play that got lucky. Well, maybe just a bit. What was interesting was that as I was scooping in the decent sized pot, one of the regulars at the other end of the table muttered to another regular beside him, "Did you see Dunc raise with 76? I thought he was a tight player!" Hopefully this might plant a little seed of doubt in their minds the next time I raise, and I might start getting paid off a little more when I do have the Group 1 and 2 stuff.
Tuesday I raised 45s UTG for the same reason. Flop came As 3c 7s. I bet, two callers. Turn Jh, I bet, was raised, third player folded, I called. River was 6c, I checked, he bet, I got in the check-raise. Silence at the table when I turned over nut straight. Guy says "I thought you raised before the flop?!" spitball
thata boy keep them guessing was this a 4-8 , or 10-20 game you did this
it cant be 10 20
I like the way you played this hand. Raising in that situation is not all that unusual, although I wouldn't do it too often....
Here's one I hope gets a little interest. 1-4/8/8 game. I'm SB w/Ad,4d. 5 callers no raises. ($10 before flop) Flop = 10d9d7d. I bet, solid player raises, all fold to button who calls. I call. Turn = 10s. I bet, solid player raises again, button reraises. What do I do, call, fold, reraise ? Button is an unknown with lots of chips. Results later.
No interest I guess. Here's the results: I have the nut flush, I fold the turn to a reraise when a 10 pairs the board (3 players). Here is my thinking. Solid player may have been raising JJ or A10 on the flop but not JJ on the turn. ( no preflop raises ) "Unknown" is not afraid of nut flush and reraises. I figure him for being full now, if so I'm dead. River is a blank. check, call by solid player. Solid show A,10, unknown shows 10,9 for full. This is the first time I have folded and nut flush before the river, but I'm wondering what conventional wisdom says to do. Is this a premature fold ? I realize he may have had a low flush, but I thought he would only call if so. Comments Welcome.
Good fold. I can't imagine a decent player calling a double bet on that flop without trips or two pair. By the way, you didn't flop the nuts. There's a straight flush possible.
I didn't read the results, but my take is the strong player as either a made flush (smaller than yours :), but more likely something like J10 with the Jd,i dont see how he could have a straight. The button might very well have 10-9 :( especially with no raise pre flop. Then again you don't know him, so I would probably check call all the way just in case he only has trips.
Now I'll read the result just to see how wrong i am.
You missed a bet on the flop.
Now you are stuck calling on turn and river. I suspect you are looking at a smaller fluh but he could have flopped a set now with a full house/straight flush/quads monster possible I'd be caucious here.
He may just have a straight flush draw. Solid player is probably on a flush.
You can't fold the nut flush here.
A full house wins is my guess.
No consideration to the str8flush ! I may have intentionally missed a RAISE on the flop, but it would not have eliminated anyone. Besides, I've been told to slow play a nut flush, but with the str8flush draw out maybe I should have raised. This looked like a full house, all the way, from "unknown" and was.
I have put together a little questionnaire on pre-flop play below, on some of the close calls come up quite regularly.
Please assume that you have just 'sat down' in a $10-$20 holdem game *online*. You therefore have no read on the players, none of whose names you recognise. Therefore, the decisions must be made purely on the merits of the cards.
I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions in the spaces provided (one word will do - generally call, raise or fold) and either post them, or email the answers to me at st_george99@hotmail.com
After a few days, I shall collate the results and post them here.
Many Thanks
Mark
You have...
(1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far.
(4) AJs under the gun.
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets.
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far
(9) QJs under the gun
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
(1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far. Muck/80% of the time (2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far. call weak passive raise/big flop or set come out shooting. (3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far. call most of the time (4) AJs under the gun. call - raise with a passive bunch (5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets call most of the time. (6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets. call it is still a drawing hand. (7) A9o on the button. One limper so far call/muck to tight player and can't call raises here. (8) 22 on the button. One limper so far call no set no bet (9) QJs under the gun call/raise 25% in right company (10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise? "always" is a bad term in poker but you raise this hand UTG MOST of the time if not all the time.
Problem with online poker - and I don't usually answer online questions - is you dan't get a read on the players I couldn't see a situation when I could get mixed up in this GAME.
The starting hand comments are based on average table personalities in LIVE games.
With the 8) 22 I probably fold to one limper but not 2 or more - missed the one limper bit - and nonraising types in the blinds I probably call looking for the set on the flop.
I see little difference between 22 and 66 in this situation as set over set is so rare and will often see flops looking for a set.
It's tough to provide correct answers for unknown opponents, as some of them are heavily game/limpers dependent. Some early limpers you just shouldn't mess with, while you could seriusly hurt the limping fish in the same situation. If I sat down in an unknown game I'd usually shed conservativism and try to make an immediate impact on the game. I want to be noticed. I want them to whisper to their neighbours on the showdown: "He's a fish..." or "He's dangerous, did you see that?" or "He plays good...". I'm likely to get one of those comments depending on the showdown outcome, doesn't really matter which one.
(1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
Call. Implied odds extremely good. Folding is a serious mistake here. Fold to a raise only. If best on showdown, say "I wanted to raise, but the dealer was too fast...". Oh, you were asking about online games. Disregard that. Type "Is the dealer human, or are they using some software program here?"
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
Raise. Will win more than fair share, should not provide blinds with a cheap shot. Bet any flop if checked to you, think twice if raised three-way. Headsup, only the fish lay down a nice pocket pair like that. On a scary board headsup, you should throw a raise somewhere, probably on the turn. Fold to a reraise. Never check behind, except on the river.
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far.
Reraise, get headsup. Calling a singleton middle raiser is usually a mistake, as there is a reasonably small chance of being against an overpair. By flat calling, you are giving up EV, and will be able to buy a doughnut with winnings to reward yourself for smart & cautious play. You'll be paying for lots of doughnuts when I'm in the game. You have position, don't you? If you don't raise here, you open up yourself to all kind of problems.
(4) AJs under the gun.
Limp. If you raise, you usually get a call from AQ or better only, while the weak aces will fold, a no-no if there ever was one. You usually get the most money when against dominated hands. Against multiple callers behind and a late raiser, reraise for value. You have a multiway monster. Weak players will drop like flies on the flop, as you are representing aces.
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets.
Can't lay down pocket TT against unknown entity. Reraise for value and Haloween effect - scare the shit out of both of them. If the first raise were UTG, you must flat call, as you could easily be in trouble. If you lay it down, I promise not to mock your choice.
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets.
Whatever. Don't fold, Allah forbid. A flat call is ok, as you easily recoup the lost bet with a raise on the flop, where you should raise regardless of the board. Remember, he thinks you're on a steal and he decided to teach the new player at the table manners. Apply Fekali enema on the flop, waiting for the turn could be costly.
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far.
*Very* limper dependent. Must fold against tightish early limper. I raise against unknowns, as they are supposed to be weak with their limps, right? Never give the blinds an unnecessary free play.
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far.
Fold. Need multiple limpers for implied odds. Some people raise here, trying to get heads-up. Usually a mistake, as the BB is likely to call. Three-way baad, even in position.
(9) QJs under the gun.
Raise in $10-20 online, as the games tend to be tightish. Any folded ace is a coup, stealing the blinds an occassion for a quiet thanksgiving prayer to your God of choice. If it comes back re-re-raised, fold.
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
Limp-reraise against unknowns, especially online. Have fun seeing them mumble under their breath.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
First, you must realize that when you have no information on the players you need to error on the conservative side. I have answered these questions with that in mind. This is also the way I would play these hands given no information.
1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
Call.
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
Call. Let the blinds in. Between your position and the number of opponents you will have the odds to play.
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far.
Fold. With a little bit of information indicating that this player is a loose raiser, you might reraise.
(4) AJs under the gun.
Usually just call.
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets
Go ahead and call. You should have enough implied odds to flop a set. If the flop comes small, you don't fold but it can be tricky to play.
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets.
Just call. Typical players, especially at this limit don't try to resteal out of the big blind.
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far.
Unless their position is late you should probably fold. If their position is late it is close between calling and raising.
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far
Fold.
(9) QJs under the gun
Usually call, occasionally raise.
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
You should pretty much always raise unless you have reason to believe there is a good chance no one will play.
So, Mason, when you say that you know what you are talking about, you really mean it! God I hate that!
Vince.
Mason's response here is a primer on how to play Holdem poker. O.K, folks, those of you that denounce the 2+2 authors, please if you will present your critique of Mason's recommendations. Oh and also please point me in the direction of someone else on the web that is more willing to share their thoughts. Thoughts, I hope you would agree, worth far more than the price of their books. I suppose that someone out there will find fault with Mason's play above, although I don't know how one could. Even if one could argue a point here and there one could never convince me that Mason is not being as open and honest about what he feels is the best way to play poker. Trust me if you follow his advice above and apply the concepts he uses to arrive at each decision you will find yourself a very advanced poker player, indeed. I am reluctant to use "winning poker player" because even Mason and the "Mighty Sklansky" himself cannot guarantee that you will win.
I discuss this in my book titled "How to Defeat Mason Malmuth."
-Abdul
Is Mason really that good! A whole book just dedicated to defeating Mason. WoW!
Vince
Years ago if you wanted to ask David and Mason question through Conjeco,you had to pay $$ now free.
MM wrote: >(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and >the button made it three bets > >Go ahead and call. You should have enough implied odds >to flop a set. If the flop comes small, you don't fold >but it can be tricky to play.
Calling is 2 more bets. You need to win back about 15 bets if flopping a set is your only win, since that relates to about how often you flop a set. There are about 7.5 bets in the pot now, assuming middle position calls (and he might cap it). I think this is pretty marginal, and that sometimes you'll flop a set and not win those extra necessary bets.
More troubling will be the times that the flop comes all small, and you have an overpair. It is going to be hard to play correctly from this point forward. There are so many players out there who don't need a big pair to 3-bet, that simply folding everytime you get this flop seems wrong. However, you will often lose because one of them does have the overpair, or one of them flopped a small set, or one of them catches an overcard on the turn or river. I think you will often lose money on this flop if you only count the postflop betting, so this isn't a good flop. If I knew the opponents, and could read them in person, I would be MUCH more inclined to call these raises preflop, since I then feel I could make up some ground postflop. Since the hypothetical is no prior knowledge and an online game (no tells), I think folding preflop is probably correct.
>(9) QJs under the gun > >Usually call, occasionally raise.
This one surprised me. I think the risk of domination behind is too great here. Most people will play AQ, AJ, KQ, and KJ every time it is dealt to them, so you will often be seeing the flop against at least one hand that has you in a bad spot. Plus, since you're first to act, and you have no idea how aggressive the game is running, you may be looking at an almost certain raise or 2 preflop, which this hand doesn't like, especially from early position. While I'm not very worried about the chances of making a flush and losing to a bigger flush, the fact that I am in early position means I may not be able to milk as much profit from my flush if I make it on the turn or river.
Overall, I think this hand is marginally profitable at best, and frequently unprofitable, from this position. I want to see the flop with everyone in for 1 bet, or heads-up against a big blind who's defending my button steal.
So, why am I wrong? Or am I right?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
So, why am I wrong? Or am I right?
I think you're right. I usually play this hand as fold/call, depending on the lineup. I want callers if I'm in, since I could be dominated and need odds for the draw. Tight lineups will cause me to fold this. Maybe I'm weak this way, but I really like position. I play *very* tight from UTG and just after. The games I play tend to be too loose to get any steal equity, and I value the info I get from raises more than I do the added bets I get in preflop.
I do call with it quite a bit though.
- Andrew
I think you're right on both hands. Frankly, I didn't have the guts to be the first to post this, as I know you (and now we) will be called a wimp.
But Mason's point about erring on the conservative side against unknown opponents is key. Q-J, suited or not, is a weak hand. Why get involved in early position? As for the T-T in the blind, it is indeed tricky to play in a pot that's been 3-betted pre-flop and again you're out of position. I think J-J is playable here, but T-T very risky.
Err on the side of conservatism in deciding which hands to play and on the side of aggression in deciding how to play them.
I'm a little short of time so I will just address the pair of tens question. The key to this hand is getting the implied odds for your set. Assuming it is not raised again you will be getting 7.5-to-2 on your initial call. For the set to be profitable you need a little more than double that. (This will account for the times that you make your set and still lose.) Will this happen?
Well my experience is as follows. The guy who made it three bets will automatically bet twice. If he has a big pair or makes top pair, you will frequently get him for two more double size bets. (That makes 3 and 1/2 big bets or 7 small bets.) The other player may also get caught in the same boat. This means that your implied odds are enough to go ahead and make this call, and you can do it with any pair including deuces.
So if your strategy was to always call for two bets out of the big blind and then fold no matter what the board if you don't make a set with any pair you should show a small profit.
Now suppose you end up with an overpair on the flop. Against most players you don't fold. Given the size of the pot, the chances that your hand is good, AND the chances that a ten now comes makes this another small profit play.
Mason,
Your post makes it clear why players like me really have to work harder away from the table in order to improve. This sort of hand is a "benchmark" type situation that comes up quite often and I should know this sort of thing cold. But I don't - yet.
One thing that just hit me in this situation is that the pre-flop raising (let's say we assume an overpair is probably out) actually improves your implied odds since there should be a lot of betting by your opponents when you flop a set. This defies conventional wisdom since you pay a pre flop price (the two or three extra bets to see the flop) when the mantra of "implied odds" hands is that you want to see the flop cheaply.
However, when you flop small cards you have a "scared hand". Now you wish you were all-in. I'm not sure that this flop adds that much to your EV.
Still, despite my current obsequiousness, I reserve the right to nit pick your assumptions at a later date ;-). But I had better do my homework first.
Regards,
Rick
Here's a hand that I played recently in a $20-$40 hold 'em game at The Mirage. I didn't flop a set but the situation is somewhat similar and I won over 20 bets.
I was first in with a raise two off the button with J9. The player on the button made it three bets with two aces, and the small blind called.
The flop came QT8 giving me the nut straight. It was checked to the three bettor, he bet, the small blind called, I raised, the player with the aces raised again, the small blind called both bets, and I just called. A blank hit of fourth street. We checked to the three bettor -- I knew the player and felt that he wouldn't reraise my check raise without a real hand -- he bet, the small blind called, I raised, the bettor called, and the small blind finally folded. On the river I got one more bet.
If you count I won 7 bets before the flop, 6 bets on the flop, 3 double size bets on the turn, and 1 double size bet on the river. Thats the equivalent of 21 small bets (not counting rake and tip). Notice that if I would have been in the big blind and called a double raise and then flopped a set of tens the result would have been the same. The implied odds are there.
MM wrote: >Now suppose you end up with an overpair on the flop. >Against most players you don't fold. Given the size of >the pot, the chances that your hand is good, AND the >chances that a ten now comes makes this another small >profit play.
I'm not very sure you make another small profit here.
I agree that when you flop a set, you will often win enough to cover the times you miss a set and fold on the flop.
However, when you flop an overpair, I'm not sure you make any money AFTER THE FLOP.
It may be that you often stick around, and make money as compared to folding on the flop, but all you're really doing is winning back a little of the 2 bets extra you paid preflop.
If you had folded preflop, let's call that even. If you call preflop, don't flop a set, and fold, let's call that -2. If you flop an overpair, and play on, I believe that most likely average a result that is between 0 and -2. That is, you will win back some of those 2 bets, so playing on is better than autofolding every time you fail to flop a set. However, you will not win money just counting the postflop betting. You will maybe lose 1 bet in postflop money, but win back 1.5 bets from the preflop pot that you contributed to, for a net gain of 0.5, minus the 2 bets you invested to play on, for a net loss of 1.5 bets. Again, this is better than autofolding, but not as good as folding preflop for a result of 0.
Well, OK. I guess I've talked myself into it now. I really was never sure at all. It appears we have 3 scenarios here.
1: You flop a set, and average a win of over 15 bets profit, thus getting more than 7.5:1 on the 2 bets you called preflop.
2: You flop an overpair, and lose something like 1.5 bets, or actually save a little of the 2 bets that you paid to see the flop.
3: You flop an underpair, and autofold unless no one bets. Essentially, you lose 2 bets here.
So, it appears that you actually need a little less than 7.5:1 when you do flop a set, because occasionally (when you flop an overpair) you will get back some of your investment.
OK Mason, you win. I was wrong.
Now, how about that other hand?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Lonestar makes a good case for folding QJs below. The two of you convinced me that it is probably right against unknown opponents..
Dunc Mills also thought that the TT was a fold. I thought is was close between all three options but you make a convincing argument for folding. Anyway, am I being too agreeable tonight or did I just have too smooth a day at the office :-).
Regards,
Rick
Interesting post. Given the nature of the questions, I'll pull a "RICK" and answer without peeking at the other responses.
1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
Easy call.
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
I generally would just call. An exception might be to raise when the blinds are tight and the other two limpers are very readable.
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far.
This is a situation where the maxim "(re)raise or fold" might apply.
(4) AJs under the gun.
Call.
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets
Call
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets.
I generally reraise. A call puts the other guy in the driver's seat and it may be tough to get him away from that seat on the flop. Don't forget that the bb may be putting you on a late position steal and may easily be 3 betting you with a hand that you dominate eg. A9. If I was an early position raiser and was 3 bet by the bb, I would just call as I now know that he's reraising a "legitimate" raiser and therefore must have a very good hand.
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far
I usually fold.
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far
Biggest leak in my game...I call or sometimes raise even though I am pretty sure that the best play would be to fold.
(9) QJs under the gun
Call
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
I raise 99% of the time. An exception is when I pick up AA in say the first 20 minutes of a game and I know that everyone is playing their "A" game and will fold to a raise way more often than at other times. THe last thing I want to do with AA is "steal" the blinds.
...if calling on the button with 2-2 is your biggest leak, in my opinion. But you weren't the first person to suggest this. Is your labelling this as a leak based on the assumption that there's a fairly large probability of a raise from the blinds? If such a raise is unlikely, it seems that the 7.5 to 1 odds of hitting a set on the flop alone are sufficient to plug the leak. Is there something I'm missing here?
When I say it's my biggest leak, what I mean is that I often indiscriminately play baby pocket pairs. For some reason, I have a completely irrational reaction when I fold a baby pair pre-flop and go on to flop a set. It flippin' drives me nuts! Contrast this to when I fold KJ to a raise from a solid player and go on to flop Broadway. I think nothing of it. I know that in the long folding pre-flop is the correct play. For some reason, the same rational thinking ain't there when I fold 33 to a raise and the flop comes A93.
On the 22, you have one limper. The best case secnario you can have is that sb calls and bb declines the option, giving you 3 opponents. Not enough to make 22 a profitable hand. Of course, if your 3 opponents are all very readable players, you may be able to play the hand for a profit based on position alone.
The situation could get a whole lot worse though if one of the blinds raises.
Thank God someone else suffers from this as well. For reasons I can't begin to explain, I have to rein in my emotions everytime I muck a pocket pair and go on to flop a set. I still remember my 'evolution' as a player, and the order in which I plugged my pre-flop leaks. First, I learned how to muck Axs. From there I learned how to muck ATo and QTo. KTo took a bit longer, KJ took longer still, and QJo stayed with me for about another five months. It took me about a year to learn how to muck hands like AJo, KQo and ATs for a raise, but thankfully I finally got over the hump.. Ah, but the damnable pocket pair. This is embarrassing to admit, but it took me almost a year before I could bear to part with ANY pocket pair in ANY position for 1 sb, or in late position for 2sb's. I don't know why, except there's something so, well... INVIGORATING about flopping a set. I don't know why, but it always puts me in a warm, fuzzy mood. Thankfully I've finally learned how to lay 'em down and rarely play them improperly pre-flop. But I still have my moments.. Anyway, it's nice to know I've got a fellow offender out there. :)
If playing any low pocket pair preflop all the time PreFlop is the worse thing you ever do at hold'em you're going to be a big winner.
GD wrote:
"This is embarrassing to admit, but it took me almost a year before I could bear to part with ANY pocket pair in ANY position for 1 sb, or in late position for 2sb's."
At least you have learned. I am just too damn thick to figure it out. I can't remember the last time I folded 22 UTG preflop. Probably because I have never done it (save for my trips to Vegas).
...and yes, I am embarassed to admit it. And the guys at Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous etc. have it wrong...self-awareness doesn't help one stinking bit:)
The very first time I played TH, it was at the Gold Coast some years ago. New game, very first hand. I have 66 on the button. Middle position raises. I fold, I'm terrified just being here. All fold except blinds. Flop = 668 w/2D. Check,check,middle bet,fold,fold. With a little staining of my neck I could see middle dishing AK. I played any pair, anywhere, anytime for a long long time. Some will tell you it's justified in a jackpot game.
It should bother you a little to fold the likely best hand to begin with just to watch how it would have become a monster, maybe the first for hours or days. Sets are hidden artillery, hard to come by and capable of getting bigger still. You're only going to get so many in your lifetime. You have to correctly throw away a bunch of small pairs to make up for the set you would have had, and they don't exactly grow on trees.
Not that I'm disagreeing. You have to throw a lot of small pairs away. But when one would have hit and you feel a twinge, this is why.
"I still remember my 'evolution' as a player, and the order in which I plugged my pre-flop leaks. First, I learned how to muck Axs. From there I learned how to muck ATo and QTo. KTo took a bit longer, KJ took longer still, and QJo stayed with me for about another five months. It took me about a year to learn how to muck hands like AJo, KQo and ATs for a raise, but thankfully I finally got over the hump.. Ah, but the damnable pocket pair. This is embarrassing to admit, but it took me almost a year...."
Man am I really lost now... I have not been playing long but have been reading and trying to follow the charts on opening hands. I've been thowing away most hands but playing pairs, ATo and the like in late positions and when I was sure there would be not raise. After reading GD post do I need to toss these hands too? Have I miss understood Sklansky and Mason? Can some one give a new chart of positions and playable hands?
Joe,
With the smallest pairs, you usually have to flop a set or better to win. Now that is 7.5 to 1 against. Because of implied odds (future bets you figure to collect when you hit), you certainly do not need eight opponents to make the call worthwhile. But as a general rule in late position, two callers in a time game where the small blind is at least half the big blind is about right. Now you will usually pick up the small blind giving you four to one pot odds which translates to the necessary post flop action you want when you hit. But since it is close, waiting for three limpers would only be a small mistake. At the same time, skp may be making only a small mistake by calling one limper if his opponents provide a lot of post flop action when he flops the set.
BTW, in a loose, passive game, you can call one early limper from early position (or even limp UTG) figuring that your call will attract several opponents behind you. But it is easy to make this a bad call even though the game has changed to tight aggressive so be careful.
Here is another small pair problem. Let's say that three or four have folded and you have a very small pair with only two or three left to act. Now you have a problem. If you call, you may only attract one other caller. Worse yet is to be raised by a player behind and have the big blind call. Now you have two opponents and it cost you two bets to see the flop. This is about the worst situation possible for a small pair.
In general, try to get past charts when thinking about hand values before the flop. Hand values change dramatically depending on the type of opponents, the texture of the game, what has already happened, and what is likely to happen. Hope this helps rather than confuses you further.
Regards,
Rick
Mark A,
Good quiz. My guess is we could all elaborate further (except Sklansky who would leave it to others) but I will stick to short answers. Of course, I answered without peeking at the others.
1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far. - Call.
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far. - Easy call.
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far. - Reraise but fold would be my close second choice. Don't call.
(4) AJs under the gun. - Call.
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets - This is close between all three. The cap is three raises online so I would reraise (cap).
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets. - Usually reraise.
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far - Fold to an early limper, raise a late limper.
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far - Fold but I wouldn't argue with calling.
(9) QJs under the gun - Call
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise? - Usually raise, but limp about 1/8 of the time.
Regards,
Rick
Rick - you get an A, Oh! maybe an A+. No an A. Limp 1/8 of the time. Come on! And reraising a BB - be careful! Fold is a better play with 88. TT is not a cap hand against 2 opponents. Call is better. Calling with A,Js UTG is the usual play but raising is not out of the question.
Vince.
Vince,
I got six minutes to reply before I gotta jump in the shower and get ready for work but I need something to do while I woof down my coffee.
"A. Limp 1/8 of the time. Come on!" - - Well, I would be limp reraising a la Abdul which I would also do with AKs some of the time and maybe some other hands depending on the size of the field.
"And reraising a BB - be careful! Fold is a better play with 88" - - Heh, I said that is my close second choice. Don't I get extra credit?
"TT is not a cap hand against 2 opponents. Call is better." - - But Vince, here in California a cap is just one more bet so why not? In Las Vegas I call (or even fold agaisnt the mid afternoon, mid-week, rocks).
"Calling with A,Js UTG is the usual play but raising is not out of the question." - - I agree.
Anyway, if I got so many wrong why did I get an A? Do you think I belong to today's generation where almost everyone gets an A and a trophy even for finishing last? Do you think I am a wimp? I'll take the B- I deserve like a man.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Watched Dan Harrington get knocked out just before the final table at the Commerce $2500 buy-in No limit tournament late last night. He is a class act all the way and pulled an "anti-Helmuth" when he got beat.
Vince, you said "and rearising a BB - be careful".
Are you referring to the example where hero raises with AK and is 3 bet by the bb? Are you suggesting just a call by AK at that point?
If so, what do you think about my post that a call rather than a reraise makes more sense if AK had raised from early position. After all, bb could be 3 betting a late position raiser with a variety of hands many of which AK would badly dominate. In heads-up situations, the flop is going to miss both players a large percentage of the time, so why not put in the last raise pre-flop and maintain the initiative throughout the hand on those occasions when the flop comes all rags.
What do you think?
Richard, I am honored that my responses pretty much mirrored yours, except for #5. I appear to be about the only one so far who has even considered folding pocket Ten's in this situation. For sure, in a live game where I have a good read on the players, this would often be a re-raise scenario, but with the parameters of this exercise, when I have just sat down in the game, and get 3-bet from the button, I would prefer to step aside and let these two fight it out. There will almost certainly be overcard(s) on the flop, or I might even be facing an overpair. Maybe it's wimpy to bail, but I just don't consider TT that great a hand in this situation - first to act after the flop into players I don't know anything about. I'm probably going to be guessing unless I flop a set, and I don't like that situation. They can have my blind for now; I expect to get it back sometime later in this session.
I agree, generally, with your opinion of TT here. Your position is bad, and TT is easily beaten. Knowing the players is citical for this one, I think. Having said that, I would probably call.
As I explain in my responses, you are well placed to bushwhack two other players who are impressed with their hands. I think your implied odds aren't bad for hitting your set. Also, even if I end up giving my money away here, I think I can get a better handle on these players if they aren't the only two in the hand. I can probably make sure that at least one of them shows his hand.
Eric
Dunc,
I wrote this after coming home from a 9/18 game where there was one total maniac and one part time maniac in the game. A pair of tens was an isolation hand in this game so it may have altered my thinking ;-).
Anyway, I did think it was close. You are right that this hand really requires "knowing your opponents" more than some of the others where the post flop play should be fairly straightforward. So, I wouldn't argue with your fold under these conditions.
BTW, I talked to a tough 15/30 player today about this hand along with a few others from this survey and he would fold if he was new to the game and didn't know his opponents or have much of a feel for them.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. The last person to call me Richard was my third grade teacher and that was a loooong time ago :-).
(1) 85s
Raise
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
Raise
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so
far.
I would Raise
(4) AJs under the gun.
Raise
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and
the button made it three bets
Re-Raise
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the
big blind made it three bets.
Cap it.
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far
Raise on the button of course.
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far
I Raise
(9) QJs under the gun
Raise
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or
pretty much always raise?
I would turn my cards face up and Raise
He makes a lot of sense.
Brett
Good questions. I am posting responses before reading the rest of the responses to this thread.
(1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far. => Call
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far. =>Call
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far. =>Reraise
(4) AJs under the gun. =>Raise
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets =>Reraise (the middle position raiser may have been on a semi-steal and also may fold AJ, the button may have been restealing or trying to get heads up and may have a smaller pocket pair. Your hand may be best and/or you may be able to represent a bigger pair than you have with the 4 bet.)
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets. =>Reraise. (The BB likely thinks you were stealing and may be raising with a weaker A or small pair.)
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far =>Raise
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far =>Fold (Raising is most likely going to make it three to the flop, assuming the limper and the BB call. If you don't flop a set - and you are not getting enough pot odds to try for your set - you most likely will get pushed off the hand even if it is best after the flop.)
(9) QJs under the gun =>Fold (Raise with one notch higher)
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise? =>Whichever you like. AA is so profitable that you can pretty much play them however you like.
LoneStar,
I like your thinking on most of your answers. I didn't have the energy to post my usual long winded rational when I put up my response on Saturday night but we seem to be in general agreement for what that is worth. You did have one interesting response that was counter to all others: You wrote:
9) QJs under the gun =>Fold (Raise with one notch higher)
You may be right but against typical opponents at this level, do you really think this hand is not worth at least a call? Is it high-card domination that you fear? Maybe Abdul will weigh in.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanks for the response. Yes, you are correct. This is precisely the kind of hand that I fear flopping top pair with and being dominated yet finding myself paying off on. Abdul's opinion concurs with mine in that you are in an unknown game with unknown opponents and there are likely some of the good players who know many of the other opponents. Abdul states that the other good players in the game may be able to push you off of the hand by, for instance, raising a habitual bluffer with your action following. The combined possibilities of being dominated and possibly being outplayed later make this hand one in which I would rather fold early and not have to make difficult decisions later in the hand. Sidenote: There are many other situations where I would limp or raise with this hand (later position, following a steal-raise, loose passive game where I can outplay opponents after the flop, etc.). This is just one spot where I prefer to fold and save my guns for a better fight.
Regards-
Lonestar,
I discussed this hand (QJs) with a very good 15/30 and 20/40 player this morning before you replied. He said he would play and come in for a raise but a lot of the reason was that he wanted to "balance his strategy" a little. He almost always enters UTG with a raise and wants to show a few more hands then just pairs better than eight's and AK, KQ, AQ, and AJ and the occasional curve ball. In isolation, he thought it is a slight to moderate loser unless you know your opponents very well and they are weak and predictable.
So given the parameters of the question (i.e., you are a new player against unknown opponents at the somewhat tight 10/20 games online), he thought the fold you favored was correct. On second thought, I tend to agree.
Regards,
Rick
(1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
Call... This hand has good-implied odds, and is easy to get away from if you miss the flop. I know I make money playing these hands for half a bet. Assuming the BB does not re-raise I am getting 9-1 on my investment
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
Raise you usually have the best of it against limpers as they rarely have a pair. Your raise may get a weak A to fold in the blinds. Bet again on the flop if it is checked to you!
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far.
Under the stipulation here that you have NO information about the raiser I fold.
(4) AJs under the gun.
Raise most of the time. If you are called you have serious reason to believe you are behind preflop and you learned this for an extra half a bet. If called play with caution on the flop... Seriously consider that you could be behind when an A hits.
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets
I could argue for fold (you are likely behind), call (you will gain information from the middle positions call or cap), or raise (you have a relatively strong hand and don't want to show weakness by letting the middle position player do the capping.). With no information I probably fold personally. I HATE to lose the first hand I play and I don't like this one out of position.
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets.
CAP CAP CAP!!! IF you don't you are going to give away to much information later when you DO cap with AA or KK. You have position here so you can make your tough decision on the flop! Also he could easily be three betting with less then your hand assuming you are on a steal.
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far
Fold, this hand screams second best.
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far
Fold, not enough action in the hand...
(9) QJs under the gun
I like to raise JTs and QJs they make a lot of good hands and it lends some deception to my premium pairs later on. I especially like to do it if I think anyone is paying attention. Since I just "sat" down at the table this would be one of those times! QJs can win a number of different ways
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
Here (with no information) I would raise and re-raise if given the chance.
Interesting exercise. I have been "off-line" for the weekend and by this time (3:00 p.m. Monday) there have been a good deal of responses from a lot of the regulars. I'm looking forward to see how my responses measure up to Rounder and skp, for example. I will qualify my response in that I have never played on-line, so I will answer as if I just walked into a brand new 10-20 game as a tourist and don't know anyone.
1. Call
2. If limpers were from early position, dump. If first one was #6 seat or later, I would raise about 50% of the time, and call the rest.
3. Fold.
4. Raise about 1/3 of the time, call otherwise.
5. Fold
6. Cap it.
7. Raise
8. Fold
9. If I am so new to the game as to not have any "read" on the game, I would fold. If I have played long enough to judge the game as loose/passive in nature, I would limp in.
10. Always raise. Easiest response of the set for me. My UTG raises aren't always big pairs, but I always raise AA UTG.
1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
Call, these days. I used to dump a lot of blinds, probably too many, so I am trying to losen up my blind play.
(2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
Early limpers: fold most of the time. Other limpers: probably raise 50%, call 50%.
(3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far.
I can get pretty agressive with middle pairs after a raiser. Not knowing the lineup, I would probably raise to isolate and see how the field reacts.
(4) AJs under the gun.
Fold
(5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets
Tough one. Even though I'm not getting immediate odds for a set (my most likely win), I figure that if I do get it, these guys will do the betting for me. Probably call, if only to gather information for later.
(6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it three bets.
Call. Either I am dominating the BB or I am in a bit of trouble. I don't want to change his opinion that I am on a steal raise. I want him to keep betting his Ax (say) if it hits.
(7) A9o on the button. One limper so far
Early limper: fold. Later limper: raise.
(8) 22 on the button. One limper so far
Fold.
(9) QJs under the gun
Fold.
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
Raise.
A friend and I have been debating a particular play. Hopefully, we can get some insight from the experts here. I've changed a few things just to make things simple.
In a 30-60 Bellagio game, I had Q-Q in SB. The button raised. He's a good player who can make some good moves and steals quite often. I reraised to get rid of BB and to get more money from the button.
Flop was 10-6-3, rainbow. I betted out and the button raised. I decided to just call. The turn was a J, and I checked and called. The river was a Q and I betted out and won the pot.
My friend thinks that I played my hand too timidly. He'd reraise on the flop fearing overcards. He'd again lead on the flop regardless of the card, and would then decide what to do if raised. I disagree believing that I'll lose a lot more to a better hand but would win a little less to a worse hand.
What do you think of my play on the flop and turn?
I think you definitely played too timidly.
On the flop, you should have re-raised in back to him.
Even if he re-raises you and you call on the flop, still bet out on the turn and call his raise.
There is no reason to believe you're beat here - maybe he has like AT or something and was on a steal he couldn't get away from - the odds are he has AK or KQ and you are a huge favorite.
~DjTj
His raising on the flop does not necessarily represent a better hand in this head-up spot if he is a tough player. Since the position disadvantage, I would either call the raise on the flop and then lead on the turn, or reraise him on the flop. If he just call my reraising on the flop, I lead on the turn, if he 4 bets me, I now would go check-calling. I believe the 1st play has a better balance of risk and reward than the 2nd.
regards,
jikun
Seems to me the odds of your opponent having anything better than a pair of queens in this case are slim. If he had AA or KK he would probably have called the flop and raised the turn. He could have been trying to mix up his play against you a little but it sounds most likely that he had opened with something like A-10. On the river you let him know you had at least a pair of queens because you had played so timidly and then bet out, so having played the way you did you should have just checked the river. He'd only call you with AA or KK, which your pretty sure he doesnt have, and hed pop you with AK, which you thought was a possible hand and would now be the nuts. The only way betting would be good for you is if he has a set of tens or J-10, Q-10. I think your friend was correct.
While I think the other recommendations are reasonable, I like your play up until the turn. Your call on the flop sets up the check-raise on the turn. Checking and calling is almost certainly not the right play. Betting out on the turn is a reasonable way to play the turn against a less aggressive player, but, if that's the case, I support the previous posters in recommending a reraise on the flop.
He steals quite often and you go into check call mode with an overpair? This seems _very_ timid.
I would probably actually try to checkraise the turn if any card besides an ace or king comes down. You don't like risking the free card but he will have a hard time calling with overcards which is good for you at this point.
David
I consider myself being not lucky with this hand, but I do see players in my 6-12 game winning quite amount of pots with it(maybe they don't show them as often when they lose). My question is in what situation a call can be profitable (if at all) when you are on the button with this hand and there are limper or limpers. Thanks in advance.
regards,
jikun
It's a dog of a hand and I wouldn't play it much.
What are you gonna do with it if you don't hit the flop super hard - like trips with an A kicker or a straight problem with A small like 5 on down is you can never have the nut straight, AA with no kicker is a loser too. Why would you want to play it?
Let the anything suited and A rag players lose their money with these hands - unless you are in that category and I don't think you are.
I am a little worried about your comment about not being lucky with this hand - it isn't luck it is a lousy hand and belongs in the muck.
Winning players don't play it - PERIOD.
I respectfully have to disagree here. I think Ax on the button is a good call if you know your field. If you are playing with a tight passive field this is a nightmare hand, however if you are playing with loose aggressives on the button and there is no raise this is a great hand. I think there are a lot of hands that make the grade some nights and should never be played other nights. The key here is playing the players more than playing the cards. Just my $.02.
Maybe we are not defining x well eneough let's say A8 on down. This is a real lousy hand that I want no part of it limpers or not. I just don't like playing poker like that. Long term this hand will cost you a bunch of money.
BigusDickus?,
You wrote: "However if you are playing with loose aggressive on the button and there is no raise this is a great hand."
With the better Ax type hands (A9 and A8) this a marginal hand on the button in the exact situation you describe. Against almost any other lineup and in any other situation (except stealing the blinds) it is unplayable as Rounder suggests.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for the comments guys. I admit I am still a little new to this game and that hand(generally A-7 or better) has been quite good to me. Maybe I have been above average lucky with it. I dunno, but situationally and against people you have a good read on I like this hand. Again thanks for the input.
I don't play this hand myself on the button, simply because I don't know how to play them with profit in the long-run. Once in a while I get a free play with this hand in the big blind, it seems to me there is always a better A out there when I flop an A (unlucky?). I think the main problem with this hand is that it can not take any heat on the flop when you flop an A with straight or flush possible. You simple don't know if you have the best hand or not, and it will cost some to find out. However, I do see players win big pots in loose 6-12 games, again they might be very lucky!
regards,
jikun
You can see some of these players stay to the river and catch an A to beat the field. Don't play it like this. If everyone checks the flop, maybe you're in business for a small pot. If you like small pots, go for it. If you get resistance you've been had. If you get a chronic bluffer or someone whom will bet 2nd pair on the turn with this flop, play along. That's the best I can do. I'm sure lots of people here can find leaks in this, go ahead, I'd like to hear the discussion. I think it depends on the game your reads and your self control. If you play it all the time you'll make lots of friends.
PS: "Depends",should precede any explanation of poker stratagy.
jikum,
When you get a free play in the blind, you should usually check this hand as Headcase infers above. Free cards rarely hurt you and you may get some sense of where you are based on the others betting (or lack of betting).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Don't forgot all the money the poor players lose with this hand. You usually don't see that.
If I have A8o or better I will generally call if two players have limped in front of me and the limpers aren't too strict with their starting hand requirements. If it's mucked to me, I'll raise. The important thing to remember here is that if you always mucked hands like this (i.e., A9o or lower) you wouldn't be losing much. If you're a winning player and not playing these hands, I'd be hard pressed to construct an argument that would make you consider playing them. Consersely, if you aren't yet a winning player it isn't because you aren't playing enough A8 offsuits.
I played 10/20 last night and was dealt this hand (Ax off) too many times. Frustrating when it would have won (maybe 3 times for small pots) because I folded all except 1 and spit that one with the A9. The real value is when you hit 2 pair or get a funny looking full house, now you can make some money or loose some money. With the right mix of players I play it only as a trap hand at the lower limits cheaply, but you have to lead bluffers to the water. I don't need the variance in 10/20, until I figure out what's going on, then only occasionally. You should figure out how well a player plays this hand and how often. IMHO
Headcase,
You wrote: "I played 10/20 last night and was dealt this hand (Ax off) too many times. Frustrating when it would have won (maybe 3 times for small pots)."
That is why this hand should be folded pre flop except when stealing the blinds. When it wins it wins small pots and when you get action you usually have the worst of it.
Regards,
Rick
jikun,
At 3-6 and 4-8 limits, I see many of my opponents play this hand absolutely terribly. First of all, some of them think it is worth a raise pre-flop! And then, if they flop an Ace, they just can't bear to fold a hand that has top pair / Aces. They pay off all the time to a better Ace - often, it's me they are paying.
The only time I would play this hand is if I were sure I was going to be heads-up against a hand I was sure didn't have a better Ace or a pocket pair ... in other words, I always throw it away.
Dick
2/4 Hold'em game on planet poker. I have AcKc UTG. I raise. Everybody folds except big blind, who calls. Flop comes Q63, 2 clubs. BB checks, I bet, he calls. A 6h comes on the turn and he now bets. Btw, BB is a weak loose player. I figured there was a very good chance of him having a 6, but I call. I also figure he will probably bet on the river and will be able to raise if the flush card comes. Anyway was this a good call? Results later.
No-Brainer
If you read BB as a weak loose player, his sudden betting out on the turn definitely indicates trip 6's. His check on the flop probably means he doesn't have a full house yet, so he's probably drawing to a 9-outer for a full house the river.
You only have a 9-outer for your flush - and 3 of those are no good, so it looks like you're a big dog to win this...
Suppose he only had 2-pair at this point - then he has 4 outs to a full house - you have 6 outs to a better two-pair and 9 outs to your flush - two of those are probably no good...So, you pretty much have 1/4 odds here - the pot is only 4 bets right now, so its even still a bit marginal...
If you assign any significat probability to him having trips right now, this is an easy easy fold...
Take advantage of the weak players by folding when you should!!
~DjTj
I agree whole-heartedly. All you have is a draw right now and having shown strength before the flop, his betting into you indicates that you are beat. Lay it down, I know it's hard, go ahead throw it in the muck. This guys chips aren't going to be hard to win so why give him action in bad spots?
You would have to be high to fold the nut flush draw. Sure if he has trip sixes you are losing a little on your call, but you can probably make this back if a club comes since he will probably bet into you _and_ pay off your raise. More importantly though, he could have as little as one pair, or more likely two pair, in which case your flush is good. If you hit an A or K, that's where the tough decision comes in IMHO.
I just didn't want to say it ! Odds not perfect, but implied odds are good, if, he has a good read. If not his odds are better. Any novice knows to bluff the turn when a baby card pairs (who else would have it), as you will now give him credit and fold ? Call then fold if you don't hit and he keeps coming. The fun doesn't start until you hit SOMETHING, is he full or not ? It's only 2/4, heck, I would probably raise. You have to find out if your reads are correct then you can move to 4/8. Good luck ..;>)
Well a club came on the river and he bet, I raised, and he made a crying call. He did have a 6. The more I think about it, I was probably about 99% sure he had a 6 simply because he was very passive. But I also think with implied odds it was probably at worst a zero expectation call on the turn. I also know I got a little lucky that the river didn't make him a full house. Thanks for the responses.
4.25 to 1 pot odds
9 flush cards, 8 good.
7 known cards (including 6 in opp's hand), 45 unknown.
drawing odds 8:37
or 1 : 4.625
Current advantage: opponent (but very slight).
Money earned if flush hits: two more big bets.
EV: positive.
Call? Yes.
Dan
I recently came across a situation that has stirred some controversy among the poker minds: how do you play a hand like JJ when there have been raises and you suspect a larger overpair. One camp (S&M) recommends folding if you haven't called yet, while Abdul et al. tend to favor re-raising (if I understood correctly).
Anyway here is a hand from a $5-10 game that now has a $10-20 kill.
I am in the cut-off seat with pocket jacks: JcJs. Three early limpers, extremely passive player (PP) to my immediate right raises. I have seen him raise pre-flop only once in the past 4 hours and then he showed AA. I put him on the same hand, or maybe KK or QQ but cannot exclude the possibility of something like AKs. I debate whether to fold my JJ but decide the hand is too good for that. I reraise to knock out the limper: blinds and all limpers except one fold. PP now re-raises and caps. At this point I am almost convinced he has AA. We take a 3 way flop with early limper (L)
Flop comes 2s4s8s
L checks, PP bets. I have a four flush and an overpair so I figure I can't fold. I raise hoping to get to the showdown cheaply. they both call. Turn is 6h. Check, check, I check. River is 2h for a board of 2s4s8s6h2h. They all check to me and I check as well turning over my pocket JJ. I am shocked when I see limper's holding: Qs9s for a flopped flush, PP had AA as suspected. I know the other guys played horribly, but did I have any business staying in the hand anyway? Should I have folded pre-flop (given my read on the player) or should I have mucked on the flop when I did not flop a set.
Thanks for any input, Azad
I think you will have a lot of success rembering JJ is not a big pair it is a med. pair. A huge trap hand and one that should be played more like 88 than QQ.
That said if you know you were facing AA you have to get out of the hand pre flop but certainly since you didn't hit the flop and no set here is not good.
DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH !
The fact that you had enough awareness, forsight and table control to stop the betting while you took off two more cards to hit says something about how (well) you play the game! But not the hand. If you would then fold to any bet on the turn or the river then I can't see too much fault in your play. Looks like a cheap card play that worked. I mean, REALLY worked because after the turn you were drawing abosutly dead. On the other hand I do agree with Rounder, "if you know he rides only American Airlines", why bother ? Who cares about (L), until he starts betting. IMHO
Why would you raise with JJ to 'knock out the limpers' if you think there is an AA or KK in the hand? In this situation you're going to need to hit those Jacks anyway to beat the Aces, and then you've got the others as well.
OH straights and flushes made with rags come to mind.
The 35 bb who gets a 467 flop or the 85 of hearts these are the trouble hands you may want to clear out.
Rounder,
Clearing out the hands you mention is secondary to seeing the flop cheaply and hoping to hit your set if you strongly suspect the overpair. See skp's post below.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I agree about seeing the flop cheaply but I like clearing out the smog of the blinds with a sb rather than catching the set and losing to a baby straight of flush on the end.
Regards, Mike
PS: I guess I got caught up in the post since I would probably fold here anyway as i sugested in my 1st post. If I play the hand I'm raising to clear out the smog if possible.
Why? Is the equity you gain from blasting out those really crappy hands enough to justify putting in an additional small bet preflop with about a 1 in 8 chance of hitting your set. If you hit your set there is a jack on the flop which really means you're scared of someone flopping an open ender against your set of jacks. I think you would be glad to have those people in the pot with that situation in addition to a probable re-raiser with the Aces. Why would you want to be heads up against Aces? Ever? In a limit game? Why? If you're heads up against Aces and flop a set are you getting enough action to justify playing a capped flop? No. If anything you hope someone flops a small two pair or turns a pair+straight draw. Then you get some action on your overwhelming favorite.
Look, I'm probably not in the hand anyway but if I were I almost always want to thin the field and hardly ever slow play. I want to reduce the "collective" outs that beat me. I would much rather be winning a lot more smaller pots than a few larger ones. It works for me.
It doesn't make any sense with all due respect. If you flop a set you have a huge hand that you want to have action. If it's going to be heads up against AA with JJ you should fold before the flop. The only time you should play JJ before the flop against a pair of aces in a limit game is if there are other callers there who will chase. It doesn't make any sense to hope for a 1 in 8 flop while putting in 3 bets before the flop. Is your total implied odds going to justify being a huge dog pre-flop. Why reraise and isolate with an inferior hand. Think of the other players in the pot like they are your implied odds. Reduce the money you put in pre-flop to minimize your losses when you miss and maximize the money you win when you hit. It's as simple as that. You will lose with your set once in a while but c'mon poker is not about one hand. I would only isolate if he would play AK or AQs the same way and even then if he won't release on the flop when he misses you are only a slight favorite to the river. You are making a huge mistake if you play this way....just one kid's opinion. You mentioned "it works for me" well try it my (and many other people's) and see how much better it is in the long run. I used to do the same thing as you because I HATE losing pots but you EV is higher my way.
I don't know how I got tangled up in this post but if you see my 1st post I'm not even in the f***ing hand anyway.
I treat JJ as a mid pair and don't usually.
As for tining the field I am always trying to thin the field at ever phase of the betting - I don't play many hands but the ones I do play I play very agressive. But, I know whan to get away from a hand.
With me in a hand it is pay or fold. I don't slow play much.
Like I siad it works for me and since you brought it up playing for 1 bb an hour is not what I call successful poker so maybe YOU better reassess your play.
Whoever said I play for 1 BB an hour. You are the one "always trying to limit the field" even with an inferior hand with 2 outs and you are the one being scared of getting outdrawn when you flop a set. Give me a break. When you flop a set you should be betting and raising for value with confidence, not being scared like a little girl of getting outdrawn when you are a huge favorite. BTW betting and raising for value with a set also has the added value of thinning the field. You are a complete fool if you 3 bet preflop against bigger pocket pairs trying to get heads up and then hoping to flop a set against 1 opponent. I don't see how calling preflop with a drawing hand is "slowplaying" as you seem to think. Slowplaying means you actually have the best hand and are playing it slow not having a longshot draw and just calling. You ought to change your handle from "Rounder" to "Chickenshit." "Oh no!! I flopped a set against 4 other players!! What do I do? I don't want to get outdrawn!! I should have 3 bet before the flop so the aces to my right could have 4 bet it that way I'll be heads up with an inferior hand!! I should just fold my set on the flop! I'm gonna lose anyways!! I should have put MORE money in the flop with a drawing hand with only 2 outs rather than trying to get in cheaply!! Oh my God!! What do I do? Oh my God they're all calling my raise!! I might win a huge pot with a monster hand but then again I might lose to an inside straight draw!! Maybe I've been getting lucky and flopping lots of lucky sets rather than actually playing correct poker!! I love the fact that with a set heads up I can raise on the turn or river and get that 1 extra big bet from 1 opponent. Great!! But of course I play for more than 1 big bet an hour unlike that Poker Prodigy fool who makes 2.6 BB/hour at 15-30! My name is Rounder cause I saw the movie!!"
Look jerk off - this is the last time I respond to one of your posts. If you want to talk about poker OK if you want to get personal and call names and make little sense then do it without responses from me.
Actually it makes a lot of sense, the sarcasm aside. And if you look at YOUR posts you will see that you were the first one to be rude in this particular thread.
If you strongly suspect that the raiser has an overpair, you certainly should not 3 bet it pre-flop and limit the field. Let the blinds in relatively cheap and you may have 6 or 7 opponents which is plenty for you to be in there with JJ and hoping to hit a set. This is so even if the raiser turns over his cards and shows AA.
The problem with JJ here is when you flop 3 lower cards. The hand seems too good to throw away for a single bet and yet given your initial read of the pre-flop raiser, your JJ is not much better than 33 - in either case you have to hit a set. Having said that, you made a good raise on the flop as you did have the Jack of spades and a raise here might get out a singleton Qs or Ks. Obviously, AA is not a very experienced player as he certainly ought to have bet the turn when a spade did not come off. Given the weakness of your opponents, sure sounds like you played the hand well except for the 3 bet pre-flop.
"I am in the cut-off seat with pocket jacks: JcJs. Three early limpers, extremely passive player (PP) to my immediate right raises. I have seen him raise pre-flop only once in the past 4 hours and then he showed AA"
Reraise with AA and muck everything else, even KK, even if you know he'll also raise with KK.
Call Pre-flop. Do you want to isolate a player who has you beat or has AKs? No. But you have odds to hit your set, esp. since button and blinds may join.
Given the flop, esp. if you had not had 3 bet, you should fold, as you are essentially drawing dead.
There is no way to continue if you feel the jacks are not the best pair. YOu have to assume that: no one has flopped a higher flush a flush card will come and no one has the Q,K or A. Since you know one player has 2 cards higher than both of yours, and you have 4 opponents, it is very likely that you are drawing dead.
I can only think of one player who might "only raise with aces" (and I don't know this for sure), yet this is the 2nd such thread about this kind of player. Do they really exist?
I would like to personally thank Lee Jones (I may have the wrong author) for producing lots of players who generally don't raise with AK.
After reading this excellent post by Abdul (below) describing the different games in vegas , I would like to get the expert opinions on the sutle changes and strategies that one must make to be succefull at these higher levels. The claim is that HFAP only can take you up to 30-60 levels but that you need much more to take you to the next level.
thanks in advance
Sme
From Abdul: This is a tour of the layers of poker society...
$300-$600+ Here the sharks are world class players, and the fish are whales like literally Persian princes or American billionaires. Sometimes $100-$200 pros follow whales into the game but they are shark bait. These games are almost always short-handed unless there is a whale, in which case professionals and their mothers may be flying into town to get onto a long waiting list. I've never played this high, so my knowledge is a bit lacking. This limit is home to the brother-sister duo of Howard Lederer and Annie Duke.
$100-$200 This is the domain of the tournament pros and the idle rich. Someone said that the more world series bracelets in the game, the better the game, and that's generally (but not quite always) true. They all golf by day and gamble heavily on it. Usually these games are short-handed. The real ring game professionals at this limit are extremely tough, e.g., Lenny Martin.
$60-$120 Largely the same culture as $100-$200, but a $300-$600 pro will sometimes demean himself by playing $100-$200, while you almost never see them in a $60-$120, whereas $30-$60 pros will often jump into a live $60-$120 but not a $100-$200. Overall, the average $60-$120 pro is a weaker player than the grinders down in $30-$60. Tells in $60-$120 are usually reverse tells. For example, in hold'em if a $60-$120 player checks his hole cards when a third of the suit hits, then he already has the flush most of the time. The fish at this limit sometimes have no idea how to play poker and will blow off a few thousand in an hour.
$30-$60 Here live the grinders that play day in and day out, 8+ hours per day. $30-$60 is the high water mark for most professionals, and it's not uncommon for a game to be all professionals, in which case you have to wonder about their sanity. It's also possible to have a game with only one or two pros in it, which just doesn't happen at higher limits. One thing that is striking about this limit is how darned aggressive it is compared to lower limits, though $60-$120 cranks it up to an even higher pitch. This is the last limit that S&M's Hold'em for Advanced Players is of much use. A lot of these players are extremely good, such as Roy Cooke.
http://www.remarq.com/read/pkrgmbl/q_mrD-yKkMGMAAAAA?idx=0&si=group&sg=rec%2Egambling%2Epoker&q=stratification&srn=FIRST
When Abdul says that HPFAP is not of much use for games above 30-60, he does not mean that statement literally. He merely means that slavishly following the advice in the book while playing most 60-120s will not be enough to beat it. But try playing in that game WITHOUT reading that book and see how you do.
Would you mind commenting on adjustments that a player wanting to jump to those levels need to make in order to be succefull?
thanks again
Sme
I think this is another book isn't it? But if David does address this one I'm all ears.
Three talents that become more important in the bigger games is reading hands, mixing up your play, and knowing when to raise to knock people out, especially on fourth st. Getting value out of marginal hands (which sometimes means betting and sometimes means inducing bluffs) and picking up small pots are other important aspects of bigger games as well.
Become a "whale", then you can relax and play it like it was 4/8/8 !!! Entertaining post.
Sme,
Where do you think $40-80 falls into your categorizing?
I've heard that $40-80 limit is easier than 30-60, especially at Hollywood Park Casino.
Thanks, Don
Carefully read my first post, ask Abdul
Sme
I was presenting mostly a Vegas perspective, but I've played even more hours in California.
In Vegas, the $40-$80 is feared extinct; some claim to have seen it just a few weeks ago, but no pictures or other evidence exists, so most scientists discount the eyewitness accounts. Before Bellagio was opened, the $40-$80 at Mirage was very similar to the $30-$60 at Bellagio now, meaning it was mostly top notch pros but not the tournament pros and short-handed specialists that inhabit the higher echelons.
In California, I played the $40-$80 almost exclusively for a couple of years at Hollywood Park, so I know that game well. A typical game is comprised something like 3 extremely weak professionals playing on one bankroll, 1 top notch pro, 2 props, 1 weak-tight fish, 1 maniacal fish, and you. Once Hollywood Park added the $60-$120 (after I moved to Vegas), all the top notch pros started playing that, butting heads futally against each other and leaving the $40-$80 extra juicy.
Basically the players at a given limit in California are the equivalent skill of the players at half that limit in Vegas. However, the fish in Vegas are much bigger than the fish in California. Some of the fish in Vegas are tourists with next to no poker experience. The fish in California have been playing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the last 20 years, so they are much more experienced than you and much more difficult to bag than Vegas tourists.
-Abdul
"The fish in California have been playing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the last 20 years,"
Abdul,
I see that you are not prone to exageration. Good boy.
vince.
I've heard almost everyone say that the Vegas games are tougher than the California games. My experience has been just the opposite. I would guess that the reason for this is that I live in California and play not just on weekends, but also mid-week, both day and night. I am usually in Vegas on vacation, during Holidays or on weekends, and there are a lot more fish in the game at those times than there would be mid-week during the day (I would think).
Interesting post!
I play a fair amount of 40/80 and sometimes 80/160 (at Commerce) as well as 30/60, 60/120, 100/200, and seldom 200/400 in Vegas. The differences I think is that the pros in California tend to be weaker than the ones in Vegas for obvious reasons because they are lurking for those whales. And those whales tend to swim around Vegas as some of them are high rollers who couldn't care dropping $10K just to play some poker.
In response to an earlier post, I think the main difference is that at the limits above 60/120, the hands typically end up being heads up or maybe 3 players. Also, I think a lot more bluffing goes on at 60/120 level and above as it is out right darn expensive to call a re-raise on the turn or river with a questionable hand.
David;
Did I not read in one of your books that the chances at least one player holds a pair when you do is about 50%? I assume this would be a 9 or 10 seat table.
There has been an messy thread following this very innocent question posted by Patrick. These probability threads really seem to go insane.
In addition, I would like to know the probability another player was dealt a higher pair than mine (99 for example).
Thanks
Big
You should learn how to do this question yourself.
n/t
Please, someone help. If you don't want to come right out and give an answer, at least try to develop a mental picture on how to go about solving this problem.
The question: Ten-handed table, you have a pair. What is the probability that one other player has a pair?
Oh yeah, and don't say it's 1/17 * 9, Nick.
There have been several valiant attempts to solve this on the General Theory forum by DjTj, dave, Niels, Grinder, Buzz, et al, but it seems the anwser still escapes us.
Perhaps it's 'Someone afraid to use their real name'
"Please, someone help . . ."
At least you know to ask for help.
"Oh yeah, and don't say it's 1/17 * 9, Nick. "
It's 1/17 * 9 - Nick
"There have been several valiant attempts to solve this on the General Theory forum by DjTj, dave, Niels, Grinder, Buzz, et al, but it seems the anwser still escapes us. "
Valiant? Give me a barf bucket.
David is right. Here's a head start: There are 6 ways to make a pair (4 choose 2). There are 16 ways for each non - pair. (4 *4) There's only one other pair of your rank.
There are 8 non-pair hands including your rank and one card higher (unless you have aces).
There are 8 non-pair hands including your rank and one card lower (unless you have deuces).
Post again if you'd like more help. Doing mental math is quite inportant to winning poker, and doing math on paper is a godd way to get good at that kind of reasoning.
Good luck.
Actually this question is incedibly difficult to answer PRECISELY because events are not completely independent. However if you assume they are, meaning that you assume each player is dealt from a seperate deck, finding the answer is rather trivial. The answer you get doing it this way will be very close to the right one. Hint: the math is basically the same as asking what are the chances that you will roll at least one eleven in craps given nine tries.
That's only if you put the eleven back in the dice after each roll. Right David?
Vince.
I agree that the events are not independent, but as long as the deal is random, why does that matter? I addressed this question in the thread on the general theory board, but never received a response.
The probablity of drawing an ace from a full deck of cards is 1/13. If one should happen to lose say, 7 of those cards (assume 7 randomly chosen cards wink out of existence), the chance of drawing an ace from the remaining 45 cards is still 1/13.
To answer the question of the probability that at least two players have pairs... The cards dealt to each player are chosen randomly from the deck, so the probability of any player pairing up when he receives his second card is 3/51 no matter how many cards have been dealt off the deck. It doesn't look too complicated to adjust this simple calculation to account for the condition that a certain player has already been dealt a pair.
but there is information about whether the 4th guy has a pair in whether the first 3 guy's have non pairs. imagine i dealt out 25 pairs. what would be the prob of the 26th guy getting a pair? or after 25 nonpairs? see?
i was going to post a solution even though it is boring and not relevant to poker, but when i saw how ugly it was i gave up. i was not going to devote more than 30 seconds.
as seems to be the custom, david is right.
scott
Here we again. First, a simple probability question is posted. Then oblique answers start coming in. Then more posts follow that try to make some fuzzy point by posing other, unrelated and confusing questions and conditions. Then more posts that call the original posters names. The original question of Patricks is long forgotten.
Like David said, the precision of an answer to a question like this is good enough if you disregard the condition of the first player holding a pair. And as each of the 9 opponents is dealt a none pair, this also has a minor but dismissable effect on remaining probabilities.
So the chance that at least one other player gets a pair is SIMPLY the sum of the chances any of them will get one. 8 or 9 (players) times 1/17, or about a 50% chance.
The chance you will roll 11 with dice is 2 out of 36 or 1/18. Roll 'em nine times and guess what you get for a total probability GRINDER?
It should be fairly easy to realize that if you deal out 17 hands, it is not a 100% chance that one has a pair.
Perhaps you missed Nick's post on the other board where he addressed this issue, pointing out that a probability of 1 is not the same as a probability of 100%.
*schloooommmpf* <--- sound of universe imploding
"probability of 1 is not the same as a probability of 100%." Rubbish. "per cent" means exactly "divided by 100" so "100 per cent" = 1.
Just because its posted doesn't mean its true.
- Louie
Sorry. It's really hard to communicate sarcasm in print. I thought the imploding universe would do it.
"Sorry. It's really hard to communicate sarcasm in print." Not really, I do it often. You need to add an obviously wrong absolute, like "Nobody has ever communicated sarcasm in print". Or suggest something obviously wrong like "..if so, feel free to create the maximum negativity".
I guess my problem is I don't recognize it often.
- Louie
"So the chance that at least one other player gets a pair is SIMPLY the sum of the chances any of them will get one. 8 or 9 (players) times 1/17, or about a 50% chance."
WRONG.
Here you go again changing the question to fit your argument. Your a real pisser. I find this crap interesting though, in fact that's kind of what got me interested in poker, the stats and probabilities are fun to work out. Nick I'm sorry if I offended you, this is all in fun, I'm sure you're an excellent poker player, and your probability skills won't hold you back I'm sure. But you simply can't be right about this one area of probability.
Are you saying that if I roll the dice 9 times, an 11 will show up 1/18*9? I know you are. So, 18 rolls means that there is 100% chance that you will roll an 11, and that means that there is NO CHANCE (0%, no way in hell) that you won't roll an eleven. Something seems fishy Nick. If you roll 36 times you have a 200% chance of rolling an 11?
The probability of you getting at least one 11 after 9 rolls seems to be about 54.3%. After 18 rolls, about 79%. After 100 rolls .9998, still not 100%
How about this? You flip a coin twice, do you have a 100% chance of getting a tail, go ahead and say yes Nick. Actually from what you have said, you have a 100% chance of getting a tail AND you have a 100% chance of getting a Head. Average and probability are not the same animal.
Correction-
I was looking at the wrong column when I said the probabilities of at least one eleven after :
9 rolls:.402 18 rolls:.643 100 rolls:.997
(17/18)^9 = no elevens --- (after 9 rolls)
1-(no elevens)=at least one eleven
sorry for the mistake.
No. As other posts pointed out its (16/17)**9, ignoring the fact these are not independant events. Your method of (1/17)*9 represents the AVERAGE number of players with a pair out against you, not whether at least one has a pair.
For 10 coin flips, the AVERAGE number of heads is (1/2)*10 (surprise, "5"), but there is still a chance that there are no heads at all.
Your method is accurate "enough" for far too FEW useful purposes, ESPECIALLY for determining apparent "close" decisions.
- Louie
The chances of YOU getting a pair the next two cards you are deal is: Your first card can be any card, the second can be any 3 of the remaining 51, or 1/17.
The chances of a single opponent having a pair might as well be 16/17. The chances of two is (16/17)**2. The chances 9 players don't have pairs is (16/17)**9. Will someone who knows how to use a slide rule please do that for me.
If you care about only 5 ranks of pairs (AA, KK, QQ, JJ, and TT) then the chances a single player does NOT have any of these pairs is (16/17)*(5/13); and that can be used in the above equation.
But these aren't independant events. If YOU have a pair there is a slightely higher density of pairs remaining in the deck; meaning someone ELSE is a little more likely. (your pair 22 takes 5 pairs out of the deck (there is only 1 22 pair left out of the original 6); but if you have no pair (32) it takes 3 pair of 3s AND 3 pair of 2s out of the deck). But if some opponents do NOT have pairs it reduces it. The more opponents the more this dependancy affects the results. Compared to the (16/17)**9 equation, I'd suppose overall the chances of nobody having a pair is LESS, but the chances of more than one having a pair is more.
- Louie
The very close but approximate answer is that the chances your nine opponents all are unpaired is 16/17 to the ninth power which is about 58%. Thus the chances that there is at least one pair out is about 42%. That answer is a lot different than simply multiplying 1/17 by 9 as some have suggested, which would give an answer of 53%. The reason of course is intersections. (With eight opponents it is about 39.5%) The reason this technique isn't perfect is because probabilities change slightly. Assume you have two sixes. Given that, the probability that your opponent has a pair is 48/50 x 3/49 (for a pair of non sixes) PLUS 2/50 x 1/49 (the probability that he has the other two sixes). This comes to 146/2450 or .059592 as opposed to 1/17 which is .058824. Furthermore as we continue to multiply probabilities of being unpaired, assuming the previous player was unpaired, it gets fiendishly complicated even while obviously not changing results much.
I have been participating in many heads up "matches" lately where my opponent and I would start out with 50 chips, with the person opposite dealer having the blind. the first person to clean the other out, wins the $100 that each person has put on the match. I have been in several situations, where I would flop good hands, and I would slowplay my opponent, but then most of the time I wouldnt win much out of the hand. Is it better to just come right out betting your hands heads up?? please help! Thank you! -Mike
When you are playing against an optimal or overly aggressive opponent, it's important and profitable to sometimes just "rope-a-dope" check-and-call with an invulnerable hand, especially when you're not even sure it's best. In this manner, you let your enemy defeat himself with his own strength.
On the other hand, it's important to bet-bet-bet/raise-raise-raise much of the time. Often the most straightforward play is the most deceptive. If you bet when you don't have anything but check when you do, you'll be very predictable.
So, you have to balance your strategy.
That's a tough task, but pay attention to who has the "initiative." If your opponent has the initiative and is betting into you, there is usually no harm in letting him continue when you have a hand like AJ with A92 rainbow on board. On the other hand, if you have the same hand and flop, but you had 3-bet preflop from the big blind, a check will look suspicious and likely won't induce your opponent to bluff. As somewhat implied by these examples, it's better to slowplay by calling with position than by checking without position.
-Abdul
It's ironic that someone just posted about higher limit games. I just played in a 30-60 game. I'm normally a 10-20/20-40 player. And while I wouldn't dream of beating up a 30-60 game, I'm a very solid/winning player at my levels and figured I could learn something without too much expense. What I saw, was a game from another planet!
The first thing I do when in a new game, is try to get a line on the players, ie- what, where, and how they play their hands, etc. The problem in this game, was that so few hands were ever getting shown down. Sometimes 2 full rounds would pass without a single hand getting shown! Needless to say, I found it very difficult to get a read on anybody.
The other thing, was that there were a LOT of attempted traps and slowplaying. Almost to the point of (at least it seemed this way to me) bad play... Flopped sets were being smooth called with a 2 suited flop all the way to the river and then raised! The same with small flushes and straights that were easily vulnerable to cheap cards. I have never seen so many limps and flat calls of 2 bets (pre-flop) with pocket aces in my life! There were also some amazing bets for value on the river. Sometimes with 3rd pair!
My question is, was this game SO tough that playing in this fashion was the only way to get any value for your hand? Or was this just a freakish strange game?
x
I'd bet you sat into a game where everyone knew each other's play fairly well. They didn't need to look anyone up but you. I felt the same way going into 10/20 regulars, everybody's playing games with the newbie and respect each other. I couldn't get a line on anyone, like playing in a fog. Happens at 4/8/8 too, don't you remember ? Just cost more to break in.
When you see this kind of action it is usually the sign of better players or the pits, from the number of uncalled last bets I am inclined to think it is the better players.
I have only played 30-60 for about a dozen hours or thereabouts so I am probably off my rocker but one of the reasons why I think sets are slowplayed in these games is that it is rare for people to show a flush in these games. That is, in a 4-8 game, many players will play any 2 suited cards and in any position. In a 30-60 game, Hands such as Q2s, J8s go in the muck. Even hands such as Axs or J,10s are probably in the muck from early position. Thus, flushes are unlikely in these games. It is predominantly a game of 1 pair/better kicker. When someone hits a set, it is a rare occurrence for him to lose the pot. Given the rarity of hitting a set and given the propensity with which players "pounce" on the pot when you check, it's little wonder that you see so much slowplaying in these games.
I folded this hand preflop but I'm going to ask for help as though I had played anyway. Thanks in advance for your comments. 10/20 last night. Maniac (M) in middle early has been raising with "little" a lot, raises. Solid older observant player(S) behind him calls. There's a call by a "Lady Regular" (LR) and I fold QJoff on the button. 1) mistake ? 2) How about suited ?
Lets say I played it. I call, SB calls , BB raises !. SB is a tourist visiting his friend the BB who moved to LV 3 mos. ago and is trying to play well for his friend( So I put him on AA or KK ). Of course M reraises, call,call 3) Do I call again or should I bail ? 4) If suited ? BB may raise again, (4 raises). $20 to call a $140 pot so far and all I've got is this button.
Lets say I call again. SB and BB call.$240 6 players.
FLOP = KJT rainbow. SB check, BB bet, M raise, S call LR call, 5) what do I do now with second pair and a open end Str8 with rainbow, $310 pot, $20 to call? Let's say I call for the odds. SB & BB call. $360
Turn = 2 ,SB,BB check, M bets,fold, fold. $20 to me.$380 pot. 6) Call,raise,fold ?
Let's say I call. SB & BB call, pot $420.
OK ,here's the kicker and the reason for all the questions.
River = J board is KJT2J rainbow. Checked to me. Of course now I would bet and win. SB = QT, BB = AA, M = AK, S = ?, LR= ? and me with a $480 pot.
Then I wake up, I fear my fold was correct! But I need reenforcement, that was the biggest pot of the session $@#% and I let AA escape with a big one, by watching. Comments ?
You made a good fold at the time don't look back at what came on board the fold was good and that is it.
Headcase,
You should fold with QJ offsuit pre flop. The players you normally have to worry about are the cold callers of the Maniac's pre flop raise. This tends to indicate more high card strength than you have and you do not have enough draws with QJ offsuit to compensate. In essence, it is a trouble hand.
I played in a game Saturday night where a maniac was doing a lot of crazy raising during every betting round. I kept in mind that although his raises were usually weak, the other normally mediocre players in the hand were calling with a little better than average high card hands or pairs since they knew it would be expensive to play weak draws and such. In retrospect, I am not even sure that it was that good a game.
Would being suited make the hand playable? I think the stock answer is yes but I am not that sure that this is correct. Being suited does not add any high card strength and this type of lineup (usually, only the big blind will also call) will make it expensive to draw to a flush. You will have a small overlay at best and you still will not like it much when you flop a pair (although you can handle or apply more pressure since you will often have the draw or back door draw).
That being said assume you are suited and call. It turns out to be a six-way four-bet pot. You wrote:
"FLOP = KJT rainbow. SB check, BB bet, M raise, S call LR call, 5) what do I do now with second pair and a open end Str8 with rainbow, $310 pot, $20 to call?"
You have a one card open ender and a middle pair. I like the call on the flop since you can't drive out anyone with a raise (except maybe the small blind) and you are probably not close to having the best pair.
" Let's say I call for the odds. SB & BB call. $360 Turn = 2 ,SB,BB check, M bets,fold, fold. $20 to me.$380 pot. 6) Call,raise,fold ?"
Raise now. There is a much better chance your raise will drive the other players out leaving you head-up with the maniac. You want this with all that dead money.
With a river jack, you love it now that the field is narrowed. But you were not suited so you were not there to reap the rewards.
"Then I wake up, I fear my fold was correct! But I need reinforcement, that was the biggest pot of the session $@#% and I let AA escape with a big one, by watching."
I've been lucky and never had a dream about a poker hand. But your pre flop fold with QJ offsuit was correct. I'm sure we would both want more opinions as to whether or not being suited would have made the pre-flop call correct. And I like the turn raise if I had been in there. Hope this help and sweeter dreams.
Regards,
Rick
Nice explanation by Rick. I definitely would fold with QJo unless I was the BB and I was pretty sure I could get in for 1 more bet max. I might play in the SB depending on the make up of the game.
Played in 5-10 HE Friday with a total 2 manaics 2 and 3 places to my left. They played EVERY hand. I raised in good position every time, and won everytime. I raised once UTG with AA. Both manaics raised preflop. The flop was AKxo. I check. They both raised! I just called (should have raised). Turn was an Ace! I check (should have bet?); they both raise! I cap. The next guy tries to raise again, but can't because it's capped. What is going on?
The river is a J. bet, they both raise. I cap. I win. The lady (#2) does not show her hand. The young guy shows K,Jo. I figure the lady for AK. Won a lot in a short time then left for a stud table. I am not a very good HE player, but a game like that may meke me read more and practice.
if you had a pair of aces, one flopped and another turned, for quad aces, and you figured the other player was holding an ace.
sorry, pre flop i figured her for AK
I've had tons of HE dreams. Believe me, Rick, if you've never had one your a very lucky man.. But on to the hand. The pre-flop fold was, I think, totally correct. However, on the flop I think our man has to muck. Consider: 310 in the pot, 20 to call; roughly 14.5:1 odds on the call. However, it may get reraised by the BB (who just has to have a hand that hit this board, since he three bet it preflop) or the SB, and your draw, while 'to the nuts', could easily result in a split pot. Further, if you do hit it, you're not going to get any excessive action from anyone who doesn't have a Q. This means you really have no implied odds, which means a fold is probably in order (IMO).
You didn't "let" the AA player win the hand. It's an AA's God given right to win the hand. That's how it should be, that's how it will be. At least, that's how you feel when you get those golden coneheads.
That being said...Look back on the hand and see how much of a dog you were the whole way. AA vs. QJ. Big dog.
Flop KJT. Woof! AA still beats it. You hit two pair on the turn and AA smacks you with a straight. You get the straight, with 6 chances, and you're gonna end up splitting it with the other Q out there.
In fact, every card that you can get on the turn to help you, including the Jack, the AA still has redraws to beat you on the river. But guess what? This was your dream hand and you got the jack. Even the sun shines on a dog's ass once in awhile.
Bad fold? Not really. But..on the other hand...against the people you described that were ALREADY in the hand when it got to you it might have been a bad fold. By the time the REAL hand came in in the BB, you would have already been committed to seeing the flop. At that point there's no way to shake you loose and you claim a goodly pot. Hoorah.
Dan
If it were suited I'd definitely at least call with and give serious consideration to 3-betting. I like raising if the blinds might drop and the maniac might 4-bet, possibly knocking out the limpers, or if the limpers will give me credit for a better hand if an ace or king flops and I raise. Of course I don't love QJs head-up, but with position and 5 1/2 dead small bets, sure!
Unsuited? I can just see AJ, KQ, or AQ in one of the limpers' hands. Since it'll be too easy for them to push me off the best hand, and too expensive to play second best hand, I'd fold preflop. (Flop comes Qxx, maniac bets, a limper raises, the blinds can still check-raise? Yuck).
As for what would have happened, you would have had an easy hand to play. Of course you'll see the turn with 10 outs. Of course you'll bet your open set on the river.
Chris,
Good post as usual. One question. Assuming he was suited and called all bets before the flop and on the flop, do you like my idea of raising on the turn given the action described?
Regards,
Rick
Absolutely. The thing I like least about raising the flop after raising preflop is that means the BB would have called two cold and then bet into a raiser. (But who knows, maybe the preflop raise would have knocked the blinds out). There's also some chance that a straight will only be good for half the pot, and a slight chance that a jack won't be any good. His biggest downside is that some of his outs are undoubtedly in the hands of others, but that could increase his chance of being paid if he hits. The raise also increases his chance of taking the pot on the river if rags fall. So getting at least 3-way and possibly 4-way action with an open-ender to the nuts and a pair to boot, I think the raise is mandatory.
Didn't read the other posts. The key to this decision is whether "S" is willing to (correctly) 3-bet the M with hands he would (correctly) not normally 3-bet. If S is aggressive and WOULD (correctly) 3-bet M with KJ then QJs is definately in the hunt; consider a weak 3-bet. QJo is prompoted from an easy fold to a very marginal call; lets say OK call since you have the button.
Once you call, even seeing AA should probably not stop you from calling again since the odds are so much better than the first call.
You are unlikely to get the BB with a better hand to fold, so call the flop; but 3-betting is not "bad".
On the turn your hand is certainly worth a call and the pot is so big that getting the paranoid BB to fold a better hand doesn't have to work often for you to routinely raise; especially since there is a very reasonable (though not really likely) chance you have M beat. Pairs+draws are very good semi-bluff turn raise hands in big pots, so long as the pair MIGHT have the better beat. Who knows, even QT might fold her straight draw saving you half the pot.
- Louie
Thanks all, seems like everytime I play bigger games and fold the trouble hands late, I wish I hadn't, when five players make a big pot that I would have won. I was just wandering if trouble hands are still considered trouble in a situation where you know there may be 5-6 callers and you have the button ?
Against many opponents you need to have the best hand or a quality draw; meaning semi-suited connectors or pairs. KJ is not going to make a straight or trip Jacks often enough to warrant going after AK and 4 other opponents, and one pair isn't going to win that often since you will often already be beat but won't know it until the pot gets big.
I think the key in the bigger games is they raise more aggressively, so if a few such players "just" call then your trouble hand probably IS the "best" hand and is worth playing.
- Louie
I’m playing Blackjack for High stakes, but many times I venture into the poker pit to play some 6-12 TH. I have to recognize that I’m a mediocre poker player.
Now, .., my question to you guys is this: I’m looking for some software or some kind of training aid that helps me read the board faster. I have the Wilson’s TH program, but it does not have a training module that can be used for practicing the reading of the board, it only let you play the game or run high speed simulations .. .etc ..etc .. I would like to have a program that put 5 cards on the screen and you have to figure out the best possible hand (the “nuts”), or what is the second best possible hand. . .etc ..
Or the only choice is to deal myself 5 cards on the table and try to figure out all those things? How you guys have trained yourselves? .. Or it comes with experience?
Thank you for your responses.
Regards,
Go Get’m all!
I think practicing w/ a deck is good enough. I used try a few excercises:
a) deal a flop a turn and river, and note what is the best hand on the flop trun and river and what people could be drawing at...
b) deal 10 2 card hands and then deal a flop and try and simulate the action.
I think these would be might be easier w/a computer but they aren't that time consuming to do by hand.
a few authors recomeend doing a) until you alwyas know what the nuts is.
Here are some mnemonic devices you can use to see what hands are possible:
paired board= full house probable best hand, quads best possible. If you have top set full house, you can only be beaten by quads. If you have top two pair that turns into a full house, you can only be tied, not beaten.
three of a suit, unpaired board= no full house or quads possible. Look for a flush, usually ace-high flush is the nuts (unless the rare straight flush is possible).
less than 3 of any one suit on board, unpaired board, 3 cards within 5 ranks of each other= look if there are three cards that are within 5 card ranks of each other, making a straight the highest possible hand.
If no straight is possible either, the best hand is top set. Top set is the minimum nut hand in holdem.
Hope this helps.
hetron wrote: "paired board= full house probable best hand, quads best possible."
With paired boards such as 9s9h6h/5h/2d, a straight flush is the best possible hand--not quads.
hetron wrote: "paired board . . . If you have top two pair that turns into a full house, you can only be tied, not beaten."
If you hold QsJs and the board shows QhJd2h/5s/Jc, you can lose to QdQc.
If you hold QsJs and the board shows QhJd2h/2c/Qd, you can lose to 2s2d.
If you hold QsJs and the board shows QdJh2c/Th/Qh, you can lose to AhKh, Kh9h, and 9h8h.
Right on, Mark.
Board that pairs twice=top pair-on-board's quads.
What I should have said is, if you have top two pair, no other pair on board, and no straight flush possible, and the TOP card pairs, you can only be tied, not beaten.
If the bottom of the two pair, pairs up on board, you can be beaten by top set as Mark pointed out.
In all cases, if three of a suit, all within five ranks of each other are on board, you can lose to a straight flush, though this is so rare you shouldn't even worry about this usually unless you are raised a few times. Four connected suited cards on board usually requires some more caution, though this happens quite rarely as well.
I think you can easily shuffle and then deal out 10 sequences one at a time of 5 cards each, then shuffle. But perhaps you want the program to check your answer.... I don't know of any program that will TELL you what the nuts are for any given 5 cards. But its not that hard:
1) Cannot be quads or full unless there is a pair on board. (2) Cannot be a flush unless there are 3 to a suit on board (3) there must be 3 cards "close" to make a straight (4) There is almost always a possible straight if there is no pair on board. (5) Straight flushes are hard to spot at first glance but are so rare it doesn't matter. (6) sets are always possible.
So you really just need to practice seeing the straights. I hate to admit it but I regularly "voice" the straights in my head seeing if I can't tag 3 cards on the board; so if the board is KT863 I'll say (starting from the low card) "3-4-5-6-7" nope, "6-7-8-9-T" yup, "8-9-T-J-Q" nope.
You really need to know (1) Is quads or full possible (2) Is a flush possible (3) What are ALL the possible straights. Its easy to tell if you have top full house or not or the nut flush, but if you have a straight you may not see the bigger one: lets not raise 5 times with 43 board A25JK.
- Louie
Thanks to all of you guys, .. but one more please ..
Thanks a lot for the help, now I have a clear picture of how to do my training. Don’t get to hard on my if you see me sitting on your table somewhere in Vegas.
I have another question: How can you figure out in TH the EV, the Average Bet per hand, and the approximate total $ action per hour in a typical game. (6-12 TH with 8-9 players, aprox 45 rounds per hour from which I may play 33% of the hands)
Not exact numbers, but what’s the rule of figuring all those things? Or should a get a book? . .if Yes! .. What Book? I want to be able to figure out my EV over the long run in TH
Thanks again! .. and may all of you have good games!
Go Get’m all
I would worry about mastering your first question's answers, then consider reconstructing the 2nd. Mason's "Poker Essays 1 & 2" might have some information you can begin to use. My question is how do you know you will play 1/3 of your hands, why not 1/2 or 1/4, all of which might be too much. Good luck !
A recent inexperienced player was shamelessly flamed for his understandable but "incorrect" terminology. I think the following terms are generally accepted in the world of casino poker:
<< (I just made up "charge" and "betting orbit", perhaps there are better words...)
Some controversial notes: (1) you cannot "call" a "check" and (2) your options in the blind when nobody else has raised are "bet" or "check", not "raise" nor "call" and (3) in many home games "bet" usually means just "put money in the pot" and can mean "BET", "RAISE", or "CALL".
If anybody EVER uses any of these terms "incorrectly" other's are free to decrease the signal/noise ratio on the forum and blame it all on the "offender".
I hope this helps.
- Louie
Next week we'll talk the difference between "rude", "depreciating humor" and "playfully sarcastic". :)
Louie, I think you might have been referring to responses to my recent post. BTW, instead of "inexperienced", I perferred the term "experience challenged." PC forever, Specs
"experience challenged." That's a phrase not a term. But I guess reality and facts are PinC, eh?
"PC Challenged" Louie :)
I still vote for the word scrub to be added into poker lingo. I love that word! It means someone who can't play their cards correctly.
Some vernacular uses:
When you sit down at a table, look for the scrubs.
If you look around the table and can't find any scrubs, chances are you're the scrub.
The sharks feed on both fishes and scrubs.
Some advanced uses:
Playing 83o in hopes of hitting an 8 is scrubtastic.
Try not to scrub out of a tournament
Scrubbing your bankroll away to other scrubs is a piece of bull scrub.
Scrubbily yours, Dan
I usually play 6-12 hold 'em at Hollywood Park. A post below got me thinking about a hand I once played. it was your typical 6-12 table when UTG limps, solid player raises, fold, average player three bets. I look down and see JcJh. I fold figuring one of them has an overpair to my Jacks or at the very least AK. To my surprise two players behind me and both blinds call three bets. Flop comes J99 and I would have taken down a very huge pot. oh well.
My question is, what is the worst hand that I should call three bets cold with from a decent player? I thought the lay down was correct but I could be wrong.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
If you're getting 5-way action or better, I'd say 55 or 44. If not, I'd say QQ or better unless you know the 3-bettor wouldn't do so without a big pair, in which case you'd need AA, KK or AK.
In a 10-20 game I would have folded. In a 2-4 or 3-6 I would have played. The 5-10 is a toss-up. Consider this, if you always play JJ in that position and under those circumstances, you will loose more than you win. I believe that fold in the 6-12 game was correct. Just consider your outs and the other outs. The JJ is a risky bet. In a 2-4 game, you can take the chance because of implied odds and the expectation of all those who will remain in the pot when you get the long shot nuts. the pot will be very big with relatively low risk. In the larger limit games, you are likely to see people fade after the flop. The only ones staying will have AA,KK,QQ etc
Against a good player you can lay down just about anything and not lose much. It really depends on the # of players and your position.
8 players calling 3 bets cold (I've never seen this) makes lower suited connectors a call. You've hit a spot where a lot of the big cards are out and they are all drawing against each other.
If he's on your right and there's only the raiser and him then why not fold just about anything but KK And AA. What do you think he has?
These may seem conficting. In one case you call (or raise) with 67 suited. In the other you fold with AK.
I not saying fold AK in this position each time but each situation is different.
Hey Truc, given up on Magic?
I'd call there, what's the worst thing they can do...cap it? at that point YOU cap it. Then you see the flop and bail if it sucks. Sure people get AA KK and QQ but not that often so you cant assume just from raises that those hands are out. If the flop is blanks or has a J and isnt uniform you are probably golden.
You would have wrecked them with this hand....assuming AA or KK or QQ not out and/or an A, K, or Q didnt fall by the river.
Although you are risking $30-40 here preflop, you can pick up many times that if you hit, you are getting close to the 7-1 odds you need to go for your set.
Best of luck in the world of wacky LA poker.
-Jim Allen, former-Hitman
Question : Your having a good game going when the seat next to you opens and in comes a known "Straddle Monster" She straddles my Big Blind all night. I had no free rides in the blinds the rest of the night of course. This is the only table going for this limit 5-10 (riverboat laws ect..) Should I go for seat change?
Thanks,
MJ
FYI: Live Straddle = A bouble Big blind bet UTG (BEFORE ANY CARDS ARE DELT.) What do these people think "Hey I am in the worst position for this hand, I guess I will throw in and extra big bet to make matters worse" ...Yeah that's the ticket!!....LOL
PPs: Yes she went broke in about 3 hrs -4 1/2 racks.
On this same area of question, what is the consensus about whether you'd prefer to have a straddler in the game, assuming s/he's not ruining your blinds?
My (limited) experience with straddlers in loose-passive 3-6 games is that it tends to upset the tranquility of the game and causes other to tighten up, especially since the straddler inevitably raises himself. Even the most pronounced calling stations recognize the prospect of paying $7 instead of $2 to see the flop.
To anybody here who thinks that other people straddling is a good thing, do you ever do so once or twice to "get the ball rolling?"
I've only seen two people strattle in my limited hold'em experience. The first was the epitome of an absolute maniac. He would raise on everything. I mean EVERYTHING! 72o. BAM! In goes the money. When he didn't raise, the entire table would joke that he must have pocket Aces. So, naturally wanting to throw more of his money away, he loved to strattle (except when he forgot. He was drinking a bit too). This guy was two ahead of me so I lost my small blind all night. And no, I didn't like it...but that's just because I never got the cards to punish him properly. If I had something, I would have loved more money in my pocket. He's got that much invested, I
The second guy I saw strattle was doing it every so often on a whim. He also once threw in a bet UTG "in the dark." Litterally. The cards hadn't been dealt yet! I don't know if this was an intimidation factor or what, but I had to try hard to keep from laughing.
But the problem with both these cases is that the players who were strattling were so bad that the mere act of the strattle was considered bad just by association. Everyone at the table could recognize this. So no one else did it. Strangely, it also tightened the table up a bit as well despite them knowing how bad the players were.
Dan
I have a habit of moving to my immediate left anytime a seat opens up there. (Unless I'm in my favorite seat already, which is 9 or 10 where I can see all the players) By moving to my left, new (unknown)player is on my right, if he's good that's where I want him. If he's bad I don't mine it so much either. If he's a staddler I get first shot at him when he starts that crap. On his right with no where to go I just tighten up my requirements and watch him like a hawk (inconspicously) for tells to let me know his next move. If he's holding chips usually he won't raise, etc. If he won't look at his cards until after me, then I really tighten up, leave or move. Nothing aggravates me more than a good player who wants to straddle me each time and won't give me anything to chew on. Hum, maybe I should try it.
I prefer to have the straddler on my left, especially if they're overaggressive postflop. The games I've played in will not allow you to isolate the straddler preflop. They just will not let that happen. So being on the straddler's left has no real advantage in this game. But being on the straddler's immediate right is very good. Betting into the straddler so he'll raise it. Check-raising the straddler with a very good hand essentially check-raises the entire table or (better yet) because you're in the blind you're read as check and fold and it's capped by the time it gets back toyou.
Of course, if the cards are running bad or you're off your game, the straddler may aggravate an already aggravated person but ifthat's the case you should probably get up anyway. All things being equal, a straddler on my left is going to create some profitable opportunities because it creates an atmosphere where more players are going to make more mistakes and these mistakes will be pawned off to the effect of the "crazy, gambling straddler".
chris
"Nothing aggravates me more than a good player who wants to straddle..."
I don't remember a whole lot of "good players" straddling lately...I'd love to see the "bad players" in this game.
Go to the Excalibur .
Besides the stated affect it may have to tighten up an otherwise "tranquil" game, having the straddler is good even if she's to your left. It is BETTER if the straddle isn't on your blind so Yes, take a better seat.
If the straddler is a maniac as well, then having her on your left gives you affective last position on every betting round since you will always check. If she's NOT a maniac but just aggressive (and therefore dangerous in the big pots) you want her on your right.
- Louie
Louie- Do you really think it's that bad to have a straddler on your immediate left?
It does give you better implied odds on your blind assuming it promotes action from other players. For instance, I would not call even a straddle w/QJo. But from the blind it's an easy call. Do I have this wrong?
The best thing for you to do if you sit to the left of the big blind with a hand like QJo is probably reraise since you more than likely have a better hand, plus anyone that can call 3 bets cold more than likely has a monster...in this case you can proceed with caution....anyone agree
Mike
No, I don't agree. QJo in early position for 3 bets ... I'd rather have Ax.
It's almost like a semi bluff. You probably don't have the best hand but could improve. It fails as a semi-bluff because the straddler will not fold.
I didn't say it was that bad, just said it would be better if otherwise. What I should have said is that if the game is otherwise passive and you can get free rides in the blind, THAT's worth quite a bit and worth moving seats for. A straddler on your left takes away all those below average hands (that are worth less than a bet) that have NO chance since you aren't going to call.
In your example, even though its a profitable call in the BB with QJ, you'd still prefer to see the flop for free; taking "infinite" odds.
- Louie
Patience is a virtue. Wait for your big hand and go get em. The other night, 6-12 game, straddle to my big blind. First response--****, Looked at hand--Hello ACES! Two after straddle raises to 18, one other caller, I cap. Straddle and others call. I bet all the way out and rake a nice pot. Granted, this doesn't happen all the time, but one good one will make up for a lot of throw-ins. By the way that hand ended the straddling for the night. Keep the faith and play the good ones.
Here's a solution. When it's you're turn for the BB, just get up from the table..now the straddler has to post the BB and can't straddle.. Granted you give up the puck when you re-enter the game but at least you don't get straddled.
If there were a straddler at my table, I'd TRY to sit next them - on their right. Clearly a straddle is not a percentage play on the part of the straddler. It's nothing more than an uninformed raise, which is many times going to be a raise with cheese. I like straddlers because it works in may favor, as protection against players coming in with draw cards when I have the upper tier stuff. If I really like my cards I can re-raise and then the straddler has something to think about, as does anybody else who came in. Or I can slow play my cards while actually getting two/three bet action for them.
I suppose if you have a game that is well tuned to your style and a straddler starts up his act it might be seen as a spoiler. But if you consider yourself a smarter player than the rest, shouldn't any distortion of the conditions of play work in your favor? In other words, as things get more complicated the weaker players are the ones most apt to make a mistake.
Big
If you sit on their right then you are big blind or late position when he straddles. You can't protect your good cards because anyone playing is already in for 2 bets. A raise at this point indicates a lot of strength. I think the value in this position mostly comes preflop by getting extra money in early.
After the flop, your position is just it's normal value (which is good of course).
Once the pot is large it becomes even more important to play very well. A bad fold gives up a lot. However, drawing dead is no fun either.
No I'd hammer her with average hands she is as blind as you - fold junk and punish her butt with decent hands.
I was in the game that started this thread and I loved that straddler! Of course, I was about three seats to her left, and with anything decent I could raise it up and make it really expensive for any marginal hands to come in. You can really thin the field this way with weaker hands than normal. Therefore, I'd have tried for a seat change for sure to try and get on the straddler's left so that you can not only punish her for her stupidity of a double bet in the worst position, but also make it tough for anyone else to compete with you. I've been in a couple games with straddlin' fools and been lucky enough to have been on their left and have done pretty well. One consolation, if you can't get a seat change, don't worry, the straddler will be out of chips soon enough. As a side note, in that game the straddler really LOOSENED up the game - there were people in there calling and raising on all kinds of crap, capping it before the flop and making some huge pots - very few of which the stradller won, even though she felt obliged to stay in there betting!
I was about three seats to her left, and with anything decent I could raise it up and make it really expensive for any marginal hands to come in.
And that you were and so was everyone else. As you know I was on a bad run of cards and could not do a thing. I just had to ride it out till she went broke and then the table was very loose/passive and thats where I made my cash. Not as much as you "Mr Straddle Buster"...LOL
Best of it !!
MJ
I saw these posts on R.G.P. and thought they were interesting. I would be very interested in what people here think of the discussion.
First, "iammojay@aol.comnospam (Iammojay) posted:
"I just ran a simulation on my new software here. I placed 10 opponents of differying toughness/skill into a simulation. The rake was $3 plus $1 toke for all hands in a 10/20 game. As I understand it, this is a low rake level. The seat position never changed, but the hand distribution was set as random.
The thing that scares me is that after 100,000 hands, nobody was winning. The "best" player was the one down the least amount of money. Now, this just doesn't seem right to me, because this is suggesting that in the long run, assuming I play some players better and some players worse than I, I will lose money, as will everyone else at the table. This is contradicted time and again by the thousands of professionals in Vegas and other cities.
But, when I total up the rakes+tokes on my simulation, I get $4 per hand. Am I missing something? I dislike the discussion about "The Truth about Poker" and I disagree with it, except my simulation seems to suggest I should not be so optimitistic about my long run chances to break even or even pull down a few bucks.
Mojay"
Mike Caro responded:
"Mojay --
This is precisely the result you would expect. Nobody listens to me when I say this.
In a typical table of varying skills with few players being extra weak and nobody being professional level, nobody beats the rake. Being better than your opponents isn't enough. You need to be better than your opponents by enough to overcome the rake.
It's not that hard to win if you have significant skills, but you won't win if you are only $6 an hour better than your typical opponents. And, believe me, getting a $6-an-hour edge takes dedication. If you played 40 hours a week for a year in your basement, you'd win $12,480 on average. That's an accomplishment you should be proud of. Take your identical game to the casino and you'll lose about $10,000 on average for a year (rake and tips counted). You should be proud of that result, too., But once you get to that point, you still have a long way to go.
You have to play your best game all the time -- and your best game must be significantly impressive.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro"
I don't like $4/every hand since many hands don't qualify to rake.
I am not impressed with the playing skills of "programmed" simulator profiles. To prove it, why don't YOU sit down and play in you simulator for a week and see how far ahead YOU are; I'd bet you already play better than all the profiles.
- Louie
My experience is that in Las Vegas about 70 percent of the regulars -- not all the players -- win something at the $10-$20 limit. Now most of these are only small winners, but they do this in a game with a $3 rake. So how is this so?
Well Louie gives you a couple of reasons. But there is another reason. It is the fact that a small number of people who sit down play absolutely terribly, and they will lose more than enough to pay for eveyone's rake, tips, and even leave a little left over.
These players are easy to spot. They play a high percentage of the hands that are dealt to them, and they frequently go to the river.
If you have any trouble believing me take a few hundred dollars to a $10-$20 game and play like this and see how long your money will last. In most cases it will be gone fairly quickly. I estimate that a player like this will average losing between $100 and $150 per hour. (While an expert who plays this limit will win in the $25-$30 per hour range.) The total house rake at $3 per hand will only come to about $60 per hour. (This is because the house doesn't take the maximum rake every hand.) Thus from this player alone there will be $40 to $90 per hour to split up among the remaining players -- some of this will go to tips.
So how common are these players. They are probably much more common than most of you think. At the $20-$40 limit where I am currently spending most of my time, I rarely play in a game that doesn't feature at least one of them.
Of course, I have the luxury to bounce between stud and hold 'em. But in some of the big cardrooms in the US which will feature multiple games at this limit, you should have no trouble finding games that are fairly profitable providing that you have mastered the appropriate poker skills and are playing at this $10-$20 level.
Mason,
I believe you are absolutely correct on this from what I have seen of the Mirage/Bellagio scene. The large pool of drop in player/tourists who fill those two or three seats per table will in fact lose at the rate you mention. But they only drop in a few times a year so they hardly notice it and the occasional win they book keeps them coming back as long as they have a good time.
Here in California it is a bit different. We don't have tourists (that come to the card rooms) and I believe our worse players are not quite as bad as the ones in Las Vegas. On the other hand, with the large population base, we have quite a few idle retired/semi rich types who can afford to play several hours per week or so and lose between $20 to $50 an hour at the middle limits. It is a different dynamic, but in the end the top players will do well.
Regards,
Rick
This is almost spooky, but i did the exact same thing when i received my poker program a month ago...and i disbelieved the results so much , i too added up the rakes/tokes and "balanced the sheet."
then, i changed a single player and made him see every flop, reduced his aggressiveness before the flop [i've seen a couple players who quite literally see every flip] and lo!, we have nine players showing a profit and the hourly loss is right about the amount MM stated.
I would be interested in delving a bit deeper into this. Just how "good" should a low or mid-limit game up to say 15-30 be for it to be worth net 1 big bet profit per hour to a typical pro? Say the pro is not an "top" player but a good, solid player. How "good" should the game be to be worth net 1 small bet per hour to the same pro? At what point is the game hardly worth sitting in ?(I suspect the answer might surprise a lot of pros) Is it generally necessary to have at least one "VERY live" player in the game to make it worth much? Are most pros just spinning their wheels when the mid or low-limit game they are in contains no super fish, even if they feel they are a bit better than most of the players at the table? What percentage of profit over the years really comes from those "super" games versus the "pretty good" games? Granted these questions may be hard to quantify, but I would be interested even in the general feelings or analyses of serious pros and experts on this.
I have some doubts about the needs for a super fish, but I have seen many top players make reference to it. Part of my doubt comes from the fact that I do very well against weak wish-they-were types and this is where most of my attention goes. For me, I'd rather see 3 of these than one big fish.
- Louie
Good point, Louie. I too like playing against weak players who are trying but are very readable , passive or otherwise easy to beat. You are right, it is not necessary to have a super fish to have a very good game. So let me rephrase the question a bit: How much of a pro's profit comes from ANY type of game in which he can really lay over one or more players, versus the type of game where he feels he is "somewhat" better than most or all of the field? I have noticed a significant difference in win rates, from small or even negative when I am in a game where I feel like I have an edge but not a huge one, versus the type of game where I know I am WAY over one or more players. Of course this stands to reason, but I have noticed a HUGE difference in relative results and I am wondering to what degree others may have noticed a similar effect. And very often the game that I only rate as "fairly good" turns out to be far less profitable than I had expected on average--in my experience a truly great table is "usually" a gold mine, while a "fairly good" table is FAR less valuable. I am just wondering to what extent others have found this to be so, and over the course of a year, if the bulk of one's profit might not come from these "high edge" games, even if the bulk of one's time is spent in relatively "low edge" games. I am also wondering how good a game needs to be to offset the rake/tokes long-term--does a marginally good 10-20 game really qualify?
I think your observations are accurate. Another factor to consider is that a lot of players will tilt when they start losing. Sometimes a game that doesn't look all that great can become a lot better when this happens.
Or if a "solid" player, such as yourself, deliberately draws slim figuring if you get there they'll go berserk.
I'm a learning player who tried 15-30 for the 1st time. I think I may belong back at the 6-12 and hope you will be kind when you responders tell me where to go. I am in the BB w/K6s. Solid player in middle calls, tight-unimaginative next seat calls and fold to the button who raises. I protect. Flop is rainbow K73 w/1 of my suit. Check to button who bets, all call. Turn is a 3 of the 4th suit. I bet and all fold. The results were great, gave me a very short but + session but I fear that my first two calls may expose leaks in my game that should send me down to a lower level but I think the bet on the turn was OK. Help please.
should fold preflop.
should check raise the flop.
good turn bet.
scott
close between calling and folding before the flop
close between leading and check raising on the flop
good bet on the turn
rick
Depending on the players, the betting progression is reasonable. In the 15/30 games I play, I would have played it the same for most of the same type of opponents.
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
I have to disagree with the posters thus far. I think you have a pretty easy call preflop, of course, if you threw it away I don't think you'd be costing yourself much. Nice play on the flop. On the turn, I have to think it could've been played better. A good king is not going to fold, a good player holding a good king is going to raise you and you have to call, so what's the point. I think you check-raise the preflop raiser or if anyone else bets you call.
Basically, I think your turn play wins you little when you are good and will cost you more when you are not good. Aggressive turn play costs you more when you are not good but makes you twice to three times as much when you are good. Even if your analysis is wrong half the time you get more money this way. With these types of pots(low action, no apparently big hands out) you want to get as much money in the pot as possible with your type of hand.
chris
I think you played this pretty well, although I'd have mucked before the flop. On the flop I probably would have check-raised, although when the board is this uncoordinated it's fairly tempting to try and squeak and extra bet out of the rest of the field. One reason for check raising is that if anyone cold calls your raise behind you (except for the lead bettor, we're not counting him) you can probably put them on a monster and check and fold on the turn (assuming the cold caller is a competent player). Good lead bet on the turn.
I think the turn bet was good. The play so far is not indicative of anybody hitting that flop and with a big card, two clubs and a pair on board there's plenty to be worried about if they didn't.
The real question would have been what to do if raised here. Fortunately for you, you never had to decide and your bet probably helped avoid it.
I'd like to here more about your moving-up experiences, especially comparing your performance to the lower level. I'm right behind you.
Good Luck (unless your at my table)
Nick
The call from the middle doesn't indicate a King type hand (no raise). KQ, KJ, even K10 might have wanted to clear out any A behind. Probably a small or middle pair trying to set/trap. TU player would have raised 1st player if he had big cards. Button could have anything if he thinks he can outplay everyone. Probably A9 or Ax suited. Your pre-flop call was good. I agree with a checkraise of the flop to get rid of the set seekers and prevent others from drawing for a draw. Lead at the turn as well. Good flop for you, play it like you've got two pair until someone says your beat. Don't wait for the A on the river. The turn would have been checked if you didn't lead. Or perhaps the button keeps bluffing. This is my take, I am open to critism about it.
I don't play much 15-30 but here goes.
I think the call on the flop was correct getting 7-1 to see the flop but a fold would be okay.
The problem with your hand (kings in the BB, lousy kicker, no straight or flush threat) is how do you avoid folding and get paid off when it's best and avoid paying the other guy off when it isn't? Here are some approaches:
1. Play it conventionally like the best hand: bet out until you're raised and then decide. The problem is that the better hand might not raise until later and a worse hand might raise early, not having any reason to put you on a particularly big king.
2. Check and call the likely bettor to the river. If he doesn't bet, however, everyone gets a free card and you miss bets. And if the likely bettor has you beat and it's just the two of you, you'll never get away from your hand. Your show of weakness might also inspire someone to make a play, such as a check-raise on the turn. Then what?
3. Come out blazing with a bet or check-raise when the board gets scary. This is good, it puts the kibosh on bluffers and might even induce a better king to fold. The best scenario obviously is a board pair on the turn, but it might work on the river against some opponents. Note that you don't have this option if your reputation for being "tricky" is too great.
So I'd say you played it just right, even if you didn't know that you had 11 outs going in to the turn.
I would have to say that your preflop play was fine unless you knew that raiser to only raise with true premium hands. Since you played for a short time and he's on the button, 7-1 is to tempting to pass up. On the flop, I would play it like you did because if you bet, the middle two guys will fold, but he's probably going to raise you unless he really respects you, which he probably doesn't. So then, are you going to 3 bet a preflop raiser into a king-high non-descript flop? No, so your play was good with the check call. The turn bet is good too because you can easily represent that hand. The middle two guys are unlikely to be helped by the three, unless they were slowplaying a set of sevens. So they fold and the guy on the end folds. If he raises you again, then you can fold because any kicker he has higher than seven freezes you out. Since he didn't, obviously he was trying to buy it or he's real tight with a king or, most likely, he has middle pair (8-Q).
Overall, I like your play pre-flop, unless you know specifics about the raiser. On the flop, you are setting yourself up for a bluff later with the check-call. Being too aggressive on the flop would have ruined your "bluffing equity" later because he knows you wouldn't go ass-wild on the flop with just a 3. Turn bet is perfect. So, I like your play.
MDMAniac
My play here with a tight player cold calling and another player raising him would be to fold pre-flop.
Am I playing too tight in this situation? With this holding, is it worth going in for one more big bet?
My reason for folding is not realy the extra bet. It is the trouble this hand can cause after the flop. This hand is a good example. You got a very good flop, and still felt in trouble in the hand. You are vulnerable not only to a better hand but also if someone decides it is good time to put on a move. You don't have the goods to stay with an aggressive play.
I like your play after the flop and seeing what the others did.
Anyways, I may be too tight here. All comments are welcome.
You need to evaluate the thought process you made when calling. Why did you call? If it was because you had a suited K then that is a leak.
Assume that the first 2 players don't have AA, KK and the solid player doesn't have AK. There's a reasonable chance the TU player doesn't have a K. He more likely has A-Face or a middle pair. Also larger suited connectors are reasonable for the good player.
The raiser knows that only you and the SB might fold here. He'll raise with numerous good holdings to reduce the draws aginst him. 10/10, JJ, QQ and AK/Q come to mind.
You have pot odds of 6-1 without the following 2 calls (I made the $10 SB a full bet). You have 8-1 odds for your suited K with a reasonable chance that you have the only K. If someone else has a K then you must pray for a flush or hit your 7 kicker.
This looks like a reasonable call on the flop. If it was a early/mid-position player who raised then I would probably fold. (except if just about everyone called)
I was wondering about a theory of mine that seems to have done quite well for me so far but may be a fluke. I am viewed normally at the tables I play at a somewhat tight player, usually 3-6, 6-12. Ocassionally, I will play something quite suboptimal even through a raise, such as 9-6, or 3-6s. My theory is that being viewed as a tight player I can make enough money to make up for how bad these hands are as people will almost never put me on them. When I hit these hands squarely and there is an overcard out I have been payed quite well. Far more than enough to make up for the times that I missed. Is this a statistical anomaly or am I onto something. My friend first suggested it and he seems to do well with it as well. We call it playing bad cards to beat up good cards. I would appreciate any comments on how feasible this is as a strategy. Just my $.02.
If you feel the need to make plays with these hands when they're not suited, you're doing it about 10 times too often, so there's no reason in the world that you shouldn't limit your play of these hands to suited cards. Second, you say they'll pay you when your two gapper makes a straight. Half the time a two-gapper makes a straight, there's a one-gapper that makes a better straight, suggesting that you'll make more straights and be paid as well if you limit your hands to one-gappers, at worst. Better yet would be the no-gappers, as they make even more straights and if you play tightly no one will put you on them anyway.
Chris is right. If you play 63s you are playing way too many weak hands. Even if this IS a good occasional strategy you still need quality trash; except when "advertising". 76s is just as disguised as 85o and makes good hands far more often.
If you are perceived as a "tight" player your good strategies are (1) stay tight since they give you plenty of action anyway (2) Bluff much more often since they don't give you enough action (3) Advertise to appear loose but stay tight so they give you plenty of action. All of this is besides the obvious adjustment of playing quality cheese in multi-way pots.
If you are tight and bet or raise, it really doesn't matter much if they put you on a specific hand or not; they know you have a good hand even if they don't know which one. The only real advantages I see is they will NOT put you on a small straight or small open trips when you raise, and you may get a couple extra bets in.
The notion that two-pair 9s+6s pays off well seems to conflict with your statement of being perceived as a tight player.
One BIG problem with playing consistently tight is its fairly easy for knowledgable opponents to peg your hand accurately. Throwing in these small card curve balls DISGUISES YOUR REGULAR HANDS, as well as giving you many more opportunities for believable bluffs: if a tight player calls early and checks a small flop, only an IDIOT would lay down a pair of 3s if he bets the turn; since he obviously has no pair.
- Louie
I forgot to add: its your life, Brian.
nfm
Thanks for the input guys. I am still a little new and I am learning. I just have a little fondness for the rifleman as it was so, SOOO good to me when I was learning. I see what you say and it makes a lot of sense. And remember: Always look on the bright side of life.
I think Mason wrote somewhere that you should flop set over set every six months,now if you flop bigger set how often should you lose to quad? Four years ago I lost three times on the river in one week(yes,one week) last year one time only.
People are posting all these probability questions which really have very little effect on how you should be playing poker. There are quite a few legitimate applications for probabilities in the poker world, however, even if recent posts have indicated the contrary. As for the current issue, you should learn how to do the math yourself. This is actually a really simple question.
Given that two people have flopped sets, the chance of the underset making quads on the turn and the overset not making quads on the river is (1/45)*(43/44) = .0217
The probability of the overset not making quads on the turn and then the underset making quads on the river is (43/45)*(1/44) = .0217
Adding the two, you discover: Given that two people have flopped sets (a rare occurrence in itself), there is about a 4.3% chance that the underset will suck out with quads. How or why this should affect your play, I have no idea.
(Note - the reason I could add the two probabilities above is because the two are mutually exclusive, a condition not present in the threads where Nick has been incorrectly exhorting his readers to add probabilities instead of multiplying them.)
Playing in a pretty loose 3-6 Hold'em game and there is an absolute MANIAC to my immediate left. This guy raised EVERY time, no matter what (and I am not exaggerating here). Anyways UTG I pick up KK and immediateley raise, Maniac obviously reraises, suprisingly everybody folds and I reraise, maniac reraise then I reraise then he reraises again (no cap heads up) and so I finally figure he has something this time. Flop comes K 9 5 all diamonds. Well I bet and get raised so I make it 3 bets then he just calls. Now I am pretty confident that he has AAw/diamond or less likely 99. Turn comes another diamond I bet (bad play?) get raised then call. River comes another diamond I check and call. With pot odds of 14-1 is this call any good?
thanks..........
You didn't mention if you had the King of Diamonds or not. I'm assuming not.
I would not assume on the flop that the maniac has AA with the ace of diamonds. He may have another overpair with a diamond, or AK (although he would have the case K, so that is a bit unlikely.)
I think you had to see the river with this hand, as you have 10 outs to improve to a full house and most likely crush the maniac.
I would have check-rasied the turn, to see where I was at--you have outs to improve at this point, and if he makes it three bets, then you can assume you need the board to pair to win the pot.
On the river I think you have to check-call, although with five diamonds out all you can do (obviously) is hope to split the pot.
What happened?
Max
He didn't have the K diamonds. It was on the board.
Hopefully he had 99 and you split. Maybe the AA or AK without a diamond.
You can't fold on the turn and his flop bet may not be on the diamond flush or draw.
Once the last diamond comes you need to call or you'll never sleep at night.a
It's possible you were freerolling right from the flop.
Screw pot odds on this hand. It's irrelevant in this hand. You've gotten the supposedly worst player at the table heads up. You're now in a pissing contest and the entire table is salivating at this display, waiting for the showdown. And then...you fold for one bet on the river?!?
The people at the table have to put you on a good hand, assuming you've earned their respect in the hands you have shown down. You each were throwing in your chips, neighbors chips, potato chips pre and post flop! And then the board got scary and you laid your hand down for one measely bet on the river.
Yes, your call was a good one. Not because of the pot odds, but because if you had folded to the maniac you might as well have painted a bulls-eye smack dab on your forehead.
I'm sorry that you lost this one (I'm assuming). Yes, you're going to get people who think you will now see all the way to the end and think they can string you along. But KK is such an overwhelming favorite against almost every hand, suited or not, when you're heads up that I wouldn't worry about it.
I'd have kept reraising until someones chips were all in preflop. 5 d's on the board - any d wins (that can improve the board. Flop you are in check call mode until the end.
Stick with this guy he is easy to beat maybe not this time but in an hour or so I'd have all his money, house, car, wife, 1st born son and eye teeth.
:-)
Yeah I figured it was an auto call (with doubts) but must admit I couldnt conclude wether it was one of those times that you know you are absolutely sure you are beaten and may as well muck since the maniac couldn't be dumb enough to bet and think I would fold. Well the conclusion is that he did have AA with the diamond. Well thanks for the input, I honestly thought that my "auto call" may have been considered an idiot call by some peoples standards.
Just remember this. Maniac=autocall heads up with any decent hand.
Are they still trouble to cold call 2 bets on the BUTTON, with 1) a raise and 3 callers, before blinds. 2) a raise and 4 callers before blinds ? I know this is remote, but it happens. 3) 5 callers ? How about call,call,raise,call to you? Remember, I'm talking unsuited trouble. Do you reraise (?) to knock out the blinds ? You might get reraised by early raiser. 4) Are small and intermediate pairs, any diferent ? Does it depend entirely on who the raiser is + what position he's in ? Who the callers are ? Are none worth the trouble. KQ,QJ,JT and included. With any, you will have to flop a big hand or a nut str8 draw to continue, they are usually gut shots. If you do continue to the flop is 2 pair enough to contend, if I can drive the action ? These are all where places I would gamble from the button in 4/8/8. But I'm trying to move up.
Basically, where do YOU draw the line, in soon to be multiway pots on the BUTTON ?
I assume you can never call 3 bets cold with any, even suited.
Thanks, in advance for your thoughts. If I ask too many questions, just a general approach would be appreciated.
#
Its better to be over-paranoid with trouble hands than under-paranoid. At least that lets me rationalize why I am over-paranoid.
I consider how likely the raiser or callers are to have hands better than mine. If its a done-deal I do NOT have the best hand, then, well, I'd rather have 87s. I usually think "WILL this player raise with worse hands" rather than "SHOULD this player raise with worse hands" or "WOULD I raise with worse hands in his position".
Incidentally, I am much more willing to call raises with cheese than trouble.
- Louie
Thanks Louie ! I realize now my question is too broad and out of place. Still a good answer. Cheese could be more alive, just like a smaller game, it's also easy to get away from. Trouble is trouble ! Thanks for your reply.
The Gambling Forum Archive
Posted by: Specs (rkr@well.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Truc Bui (trucbui@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: ratso (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Nelson (mnelson@mdsi.bc.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: CrazyJim (gallen@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Friday, 3 March 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mickey
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 2:42 a.m.
Posted by: George Lind
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 10:39 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 9:11 p.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 10:17 p.m.
Posted by: MikeC (MChearney@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Nelson (mnelson@mdsi.bc.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 1:17 a.m.
Posted by: RG (coach54-99@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 10:44 p.m.
Posted by: mrq
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: Biguns
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 5:10 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Nelson (mnelson@mdsi.bc.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: Riff Raff (andrerhs@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 10:17 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: CharlesRC (charlesrc@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 11:50 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: NoCable (nocable44@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 1:12 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 2:16 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@acm.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 March 2000, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 March 2000, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: oonwayvos (oonwayvos@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 2:44 a.m.
Posted by: Nick
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 6:47 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: MDMAniac (mdmaniac@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: mick (moreys_wigs@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Nelson (mnelson@mdsi.bc.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: BigusDickus (themanavault@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 10:10 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 11:45 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Mickey
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: BigusDickus (themanavault@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 March 2000, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: ronzoni
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Goat
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Max (maxer25@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Nelson (mnelson@mdsi.bc.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 7:01 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: Goat
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Prodigy (jsho12@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 4 March 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 February 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 March 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Thursday, 2 March 2000, at 12:08 p.m.
Hold'em
February 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo