![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Im an English poker player, who only knows pot limit games.
I am coming to Vegas in 3 weeks time..... and I wondered if there was pot or no limit hold em or omaha game currently spread there.
Thanks.
go to the Bellagio-its the nuts.
best ambiance anywhere
I would say that if you're coming to the States for pot-limit/no-limit games, California would be a better bet than Vegas.
I know that there's a 5-10 blind pot limit game that goes every day at the Hustler casino in LA, and there's a 10-10-20 blind no limit game in Northern California (at Lucky Chances Casino) that goes Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday.
I don't think that other than tournament time, there is a lot of big bet in Vegas--there is a lot of high limit poker, however.
Max
You're right. there are almost no big bet games in Lv.
I know that the Stratosphere in LV used to spread $1-$2 blind No-Limit on Wednesday and Sunday nights. $50 minimum buy-in. Call them to see if it is still going.
KJS
IIt is. There is a tourny that starts at 7PM, but there is a live game going on before, during and after the tourny.
Is this forum for High Limit Hold'em only? I think there should be one high limit forum for all poker games, since it seems the high limit players usually play a mix.
Is this forum for High Limit Hold'em only? I think there should be one high limit forum for all poker games, since it seems the high limit players usually play a mix.
It doesn't say Hold'Em only, so I would go ahead and feel free to post about any game you wish. =).
Max
Oh, O.K. I was under the impression this forum was underneath the "Texas Hold'em" bullet. Should $3-$6 Omaha stuff be posted in "Small Stakes" or "Other Poker Games" ?
If you look up above these messages, you can see where it says "Gambling Theory and Strategy High Stakes Hold'em (including Pot-Limit and No-Limit)" is the name of this particular forum. I would assume they just broke hold'em up like this because it has the highest traffic of any of the forums.
I agree. As you can see by the indentation, the 4 headings "General" to "High Stakes" are subheadings of "Texas Hold´em"
they should make it less amiguous.
Good point.
thank you
I always knew he was right.
I am broke (temporarily) I love NL - can you spare a car, a boat - you know a tax write-off.
Sorry, we're out.
There is a guy who plays a lot of 40/80 & 80/160 who plays very very well on the flop, turn and river...he is very aggressive and seems to win most of the time. However, he will play alot of marginal to poor hands pre-flop. For example, if he is in middle position without anyone else in, he can and will call with hands like K7o, Q9o. At first I thought it was a once in a while thing (to throw off opponents who are really paying attention). However, I've seen it a bit too often and must think he will call with those type of hands a lot of the time. And he will almost call with anything on the big blind if it is raised.
So, my question is how much of this type of mistake (calling with marginal to poor pre-flop hands, and playing too many hands pre-flop)...can he make up for even if he plays absolutely brilliantly on the flop and after? Can an expert play these many hands and still be an expert?
(by the way, I think if this guy really applied himself and was playing for a living, I doubt he would play so loose pre-flop. He is at the casino to win, but he doesn't mind gambling and pressing his luck).
This reminds me of a player that John Feeney wrote about in his book. The conclusion was that Feeney's subject did not do as well as it at first appeared.
I have the book. Do you remember what chapter or where in the book it is (I couldn't find it by just looking through the chapters). thanks.
I don't have the book in front of me, but I think Mason is referring to the guy who maintained his big stack through rebuying. he projected a winning image, but was, in fact, an overall loser.
I think Mason is referring to Feeney's assessment of "Vito" (page 6) and his routine of "sprinkling holy water" on his stack of chips in order to create the illusion of a winner. I think anyone in a higher limit game with starting standards such as Doc described, cannot be a winner over time.
Regards, Dugie
Read about Vito starting on page 61.
thanks
I used to play with someone like that. He did all right in loose passive games, and would regularly rack up impressive wins. But he got slaughtered in tight games.
In the end he always lost it all back and then some.
Brett
This also reminds me of a couple guys you wrote about in either Poker Essays I or II. I think the article was titled 'Whatever Happened to the Superstars'.
There is a very fine line between playing too loose and playing marginal hands profitably. Somehow I think when a player is limping in with garbage like K7o and Q9, long term it will be impossible for him to beat the game. I don't care how well he plays from the flop on. He is giving up too much BTF which he can't make up with so called expert play from the flop on. Anything can happen short term. I have seen this pattern too many times and the player who you describe invariably winds up broke or quitting.
Bruce
I agree with everything others have said so far. And maybe this person is another "illusory winner". But let's slice Doc (used to be ex-newbie [used to be newbie] ;-)'s question a notch closer to where we know players can win. That is, while this guy alomost surely can't win with hands like K7o, it is often said that the very, very best players can play a few extra hands. I used to hear this from David, for instance. However, my own past attempts to push the number of hands I played generally backfired. (An exception would be in passive games containing pretty bad players. Just today, for instance, I was in a 40-80 game [which Bruce may be be in as I post] which was unusually passive, with only a couple of decent players. I found myself playing hands like J9o a few times [in good position, but, hey, I almost never play J9o] and feeling sure that it was profitable to do so against these players.)
But how about the few best of the best who are supposed to be able to do this? The other day for example, I played with someone who is said to be one of the VERY best limit hold'em players around. (I'm uncomfortable naming names.) Now, this was an 80-160 game in which I've seen a bunch of *extremely good players, but this was one of only about two so far who I've seen play hands that I would normally see as CLEAR folds. I remember two of these well because I was involved. In each, this player opened for a raise four off the button. In each I 3-bet on the button, once with AQs, and once with TT. In each case the flop came king-high, and this player check-raised me. Well, one hand went to the showdown (I'll spare you the details.), and in the other this player just showed after I folded. One of this player's hands was KTo, the other was K6s. (There's a small chance that this player was only 3 off the button with the K6s. That would of course make some difference.)
Mind you, while I had a tight image, and may or may not have been assumed to be less than tough by this player who had never seen me before, the other players immediately ahead of me were on the tight/tough side and the blinds were both very tough.
I'm sure Doc has played with this player in his 80-160 game.
I really don't know if that K6s can be profitable in that spot for a super postflop players. Maybe, but I'm not conviced. I've certainly seen some other very good players play hands like that KT in similar spots. But I don't feel comfortable with it myself.
Anyway, I think Bruce's comment about the fine line is very true. If you can read that line extremely well -- like world class well -- and read hands and play *extremely well postflop, maybe you can get away with a few more hands like these here and there. But I note that in that same game some of the VERY best players, including one who I know has been making a living in it for years, do NOT show up with such questionable hands very often at all.
John Feeney wrote :
"I'm sure Doc has played with this player in his 80-160 game. :
I play in Northern California. I assume you are in Southern Cal. I know you don't want to name names, and frankly, I'm not comfortable doing so either....but given that I rarely play in SoCal, and almsot exclusively in NoCal, would you still think your statement is true?
Thanks.
Yes. Let's just say this was a Northern Cal. player who is said to be one of, if not THE, very best there.
maybe it was me!
hAHAHAHAHAH.
just kidding!
In John Feeney's post, he mentioned that a player raised 3/4 off the button with KTo and K6s being the first one in.
Here's my opinion about both raises :
I don't think K6s or Kxs (provided x is 8 or smaller - K9s may be different) is a good first raise in any position except the cutoff or the button - no matter who the blinds are....and no matter how good the player is. Once in a blue moon is fine, to throw off other players who do pay attention, but that should be once a month only, at most.
KTo in 3/4 off the button - I think this should be raised in these given situations :
1. You know the other players think you play tight and tough. 2. You have not been playing many hands in the last hour (this is highly important, because when you are playing a lot of hands, even when it is warranted, people will start to think that you are playing too aggressive and raising too much - I will post this discussion in another post).
3. You must have a good handle on the blinds, and the blinds can't be guys who can checkraise (because you want to be able to bet on the flop no matter what comes, and know that they blind(s) can't possibly checkraise you unless they have you beat....in which case you can throw it away...but if the blind(s) can checkraise with more frequency, then it becomes more difficult to play further on.
There is also another possibility. Very good players are very aware of the players on their left. Thus if they have a "visual clue" the one or two players on their left are going to fold, they come with these hands. So it seems like they are getting out of line by raising 3 or 4 off the button, but in reality they are only 1 or 2 off the button.
Mason,
Good Point, but I think it applies to limits below the limits discussed here.
BTW, I'm starting to like the new forums but still think the Exchange needs to be broken in two.
Regards,
Rick
why? high limit players aren't all good players...there are some real suckers in those games too.
Doc,
You would know better than me. I would just think people would be more careful at the higher limits, especially at the Bellagio, which has a reputation for tough games at this limit. I haven't ventured beyond California 20/40 holdem much and most of the bigger games are away from the rail where I play.
At 15/30 and 20/40, some players are consistently folding (or giving out body language that they are about to fold) out of turn or picking up the amount of chips they intend to use. This is fantastic if these players are to your left.
Regards,
Rick
Rick -- In the 80-160 games I've played in you do definitely get some players giving away their intention of folding. Sometimes even some players who you would think should know better do it. I think they just get lazy or careless. In the examples I cited it might have happened, but unfortunately I didn't notice so I just can't say.
I will add though that a few weeks ago I saw a big, BIG, BIG name player open for a raise four off the button with a couple of fairly clearly submarginal hands (IMO). It was not a soft game. My own guess is that this may be an instance of an excellent player who has just pushed the limits a bit TOO far, and may need to pull in the reigns just a bit. But I could certainly be wrong.
Another interesting thing is that I see these types of visual clues all the time when playing hold 'em, and they definitely add value to your game. On the other hand, I virtually never see the type of tells that Mike Caro describes in his book. perhaps at the lower limits you will see some of the things that he talks about, but at $30-$60 these visual clues are where it is at, not blantant tells from "actors."
Mason,
I agree and put relatively little effort into looking for tells except against regular opponents who have them and I’m fairly certain of their reliability. But sloppy mechanics can be found in everywhere and with unknown opponents. In general, to take maximum advantage of an opponent's sloppy mechanics, you must work on the following:
Perform your bets, checks, and raises in such a way as to be able to change your planned action to another action without giving away that you made the change based on your observation of a sloppy player's (on your left) probable action.
For example, you make the nuts on the turn and there is a sloppy player on your left. Several check to you. If you hold your hands calmly near your chips (which should be placed in small “ready to bet” stacks on top of your cards) and now observe (without pausing out of rhythm) that “sloppy” is about to bet, then check instead of bet and let “sloppy” bet for you. Of course you now raise when it comes back to you (hopefully with other callers trapped in between).
Once again, the key is observation of the sloppy player without them knowing it, and good technique in your own betting or checking. If you use good technique, no angles are required, as the hand motion required for the start of a bet is identical to that required to check. This can literally be practiced in front of a mirror.
Describing this is similar to describing in writing how to tie ones shoes. I’ll try anyway. The key is that the when you come forward with your hand to check, you are moving your hand in a line that is directly over the small stack of chips that you could have picked up on the way in order to bet. BTW, this is a good reason not to keep all your chips in tall stacks, since your upward reaching motion when betting is hard to alter mid way through your planned bet.
Perhaps we need a new “video forum” for posts such as these. But then I would have to stop posting while wearing nothing but my underwear ;-).
Regards,
Rick
xx
I second the motion.
I agree that more people in the 20/40 games give away their intentions of folding than in the 80/160 games. But it also happens in the 80/160 games. This is one of those posts that really should belong in both sections.
Here's a prototypical 40/80, 80/160 scenario :
You are in the big blind and get dealt QJo. An average player calls in middle position and the button (a very aggressive and good player) raises. You don't think the button would raise unless he has a decent premium-type hand because of the mid-position caller.
Small blind calls, you call (anything wrong with this? - I don't think so, but shoot if you have anything to say about the call). Middle position player calls....4 BB in the pot.
Flop comes QT3 - 2 diamonds.
Small blind checks, you (BB) bets, middle position player calls, button raises, small blind folds, you call, middle position calls. 7 BB in the pot.
Turn is a J of diamonds, making 3 diamonds and QJT on the board. You have two pair.
You decide to check, mid-position player checks, button bets. You call (anything wrong with this? even if the guy has AK or diamond flush, you still have 4 outs, which isn't much, but the button could also have AA or KK, in which case you are well in the lead...and also it is possible he has AdQh making it top pair, top draw....frankly, the real thing I'm scared of here is the mid-posiiton player check-raising). In this particlar case, the mid-position player folds. Now it is head up with 9BB in the pot.
The turn is an inconsequential 5h....and the board is QJT53 with 3 diamonds (the Q is a diamond).
Now, here's the part I really wanted to get to. Let's say you have decided you will call if you check and your opponent bets. Let's see what kind of hand your opponent could have (remember, he raised pre-flop with one caller - the mid-position guy - who is an average player, not a poor one - this is important, because if it was a poor player, then the raise doesn't imply as strong of a hand)
Knowing the player, this is what I could possibly put him on (it is important in this case to trust my opinion of the other player since I play with him all the time, and assuming I, myself, am a good player, then I must have a good idea, right :) ) :
AA (6 combos) KK (6 combos) QQ (2 combos - I have a Q and board has a Q) JJ (2 combos - I have a J and board has a J) TT (3 combos - T on the board) (any other pair can be thrown out because he would not have bet on the turn...with 3 overcards) AK (16 combos) AQ (8 combos) (any other 2 cards can be thrown out because I don't thnk he would raise pre-flop with them).
So, that is a total of 43 possible hands, and 23 can beat me.
So I am an underdog, as I will win 20/43 times.
I am first to act, should I bet?
My answer is yes, and then I should call in case he raises, because based off of these combinations, the only hand he can raise with is AK of diamonds (he would not raise with a set or a straight because he must fear my flush possiblity since he respects my play - which was with a call on the turn before the mid-position player acted, and then betting on the river, which almost implies that I only called on the turn to entice the mid-position player to call too).
And let's assume he will call with any one of those hands above, well, I will lose more often than I win (lose 23 times, win 20 times)...however, a bet is still correct because if I don't bet, let's see what he will do :
with AA, KK, AQ, he may not bet. but he is aggressive enough to bet with a set, even with the flush/straight possiblities out there.
So let's say he is 75% to bet with a set, straight or flush (23 possibilities), and only 25% to bet with AA, KK or AQ (20 possiblities), and I will call him everytime, then that means my expecation is 25% x 20/43 x $80 (40/80 game) + (negative) 75% x 23/43 x $80 = 9.30 - 32.09 = -22.79
however, when I bet out on him, my expectation (and I know he'll almost definitely call) is 20/43 x 80 - 23/43 x 80 = 37.21 - 42.79 = -5.58
so, in this case, even though I know I'm a dog to have the best hand, it is pos. ev. for me to bet. and even if you changed the odds a bit, and say that he is equally likely to bet with AA, KK, AQ as any of the other hands, then the expections is the same as if I had bet out and then the only reason I lose by betting is in the case he has the AdKd, (which I may not lose at all since I may very well muck) or if he does not bet a straight or a set (but remember, I pointed out that I know this opponent well, and I know he would have bet those hands).
So, in conclusion, I am saying that there are many times when you are at the river, and you know you are an underdog (based off the probabilistic hands that your opponent may have) that it may be correct for you to bet. And this happens more often than not when there is 3 to a flush on the board or a dangerous 3 to a straight on the board (and especially when it is the third flush or third straight card that hits on the river, because then you have a partial bluff also, since the guy may fold a better hand than yours), because your opponent will find it tough to raise you without a flush (in which case you can safely muck).
A better example than the one above may be this : when you have AJ, and you think your opponent has AK, AQ, ....and the board is A843 with 2 diamonds, and a 6 of diamonds hits the river...it may be correct to bet out on the river even if you think it is more likely for your opponent to have a better kicker than you...this is because if he has AK or AQ, the most he can do is just call you, he can't raise, he can only raise with a flush (again, I am assuming he's a solid player and he knows you are too)....and it is also possible that if he had KK, QQ, JJ that he may check on the river if you check, (whilst it was possible that he raised pre-flop, bet on the flop and turn and planned on checking the river), and know he may call your your bet on the river (see if you had raised preflop, he may have folded by the turn if he had KK, QQ, JJ...but your check/call strategy may have enticed him to call you on the river).
So, whaddya all think? Mumbo jumbo, acradabra bullcrap or interesting thing to consider? (by the way, if anything along these lines has been in print before, please point out where it has...I don't think this thought is anything new, so I would think something along these lines has already been in print, and I'd like to know where so I can read it).
I mentioned that the button could have AdQd, but then the next sentence, I say the Q is a diamond on board. I apologize for the contradiction...but either way, I think the example works out with the same result (that you should bet on the river, in this case, even though you think your are a probabilistic underdog to having the best hand).
In the scenario you mentioned there would be only one combination of Q's/J's your opponent could hold. David Sklansky writes about these situations in "Theory of Poker". I don't remember what article it was, but Bob Ciaffone also wrote some interesting things about this concept. Norman Zadeh writes about this theory in general, and so does Mason Malmuth in "Gambling Theory and Other Topics".
Excellent post. With one limper and I know he is solid the aggressive player very well may raise BTF with a much wider range of hands. He may raise with Axs and perhaps even suited connectors so he may have a flush so you are a bigger dog than you think you are on the end. Also by the way you played your hand with a check call on the flop and turn it would appear to me if I were the button that your hand is really not that strong. If I had a set or AK I would probably raise on the end. But overall I think your argument has a lot of validity to it but I am not sure if this hand is perfectly applicable.
Bruce
If you really think this player will only raise AA-TT, AK and AQ, you probably should fold preflop. The only one of those hands you'd like to play against is TT, barely...
It seems like you would better be able to put him on a hand if you had raised the flop.
No one in the hand has shown any strength at all, other than the initial raiser, and thus he has kept betting.
I can imagine a lot of hands that someone would keep betting to the river that you can beat, as no one has raised him.
You do know the player, however, and I don't.
Max
If he was as strong of a player as you were saying, what were you doing in there with QJ offsuit (or suited for that matter)? It seems like you were a dog to begin with. Because if he had a big pocket pair you would have to hit not one, but two, perfect cards to beat him. And on top of that you would have to be guessing the whole way through, wondering does he have a set or what not. I am not criticizing the play, I am just curious.
he could have AK or AQ also...in which case a Q or J may be good ... I'm getting 5.5 to 1.
just read the same concept in 21st centurh HPFAF. It's in the section titled Fifth Street Play, near the end of that section.
Was in the Bellagio on Tuesday night. The games were pretty bad, especially the high limit, mixed game. Check this out. Playing $1500-$3000 mixed.
Seat 1: Ted Forrest (i think) Seat 2: Jason Lester Seat 3: Some guy I didn't recognize Seat 4: Jennifer Harmon (i think) Seat 5: Empty Seat 6: Chip Reece Seat 7: Empty Seat 8: Doyle Brunson Seat 9: Empty (actually, Doyle was in seats 7,8 AND 9) Seat 10: Johnny Chan
I had on a business suit as I was just passing through. I was watching the game from the rail, and Johhny Chan looked at me, almost licking his lips as if to say "swin over here little fishy."
Yeah, right.
Game selection IS key.
sounds like an easy game to me :P
seat 3 must have been one hell of a fish.
OK, so I know it's a tough lineup, except for the unnamed guy, and Jason Lester. I've never heard of Jason before. Wanna clue me in?
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I ran into him at the WSOP this year. He made the final table in the $2500 PLH event, and would have knocked out Phil Hellmuth early when Phil (mis)read his button raise for a steal and went all-in with Ax against Lester's pocket tens. Phil snagged and Ace, and then went on to do some damage.
I asked around about Lester, and was told by some guys that he is a tough, high-limit ring game player. Np first hand knowledge other that the one WSOP event, but my impression was that he was a tough PL tourney player, too.
Hope to see you at FARGO. I am going to come up and play the Pairs tournament on Friday (with Peter Alson as my partner) and the NLH event on Saturday. Do you know if the Friday tournament will be over in time to play the WPO super satellite?
I also hope we can spread some PLH or PLO later on.
NL and PL Holdem are enjoying a bit of a resurgence at FW the last few months. Interestingly, the NL is almost always much better action. PL deprives newbies from the opportunity to make mistakes like betting $500.00 UTG when the blinds are $5.00 and $5.00. Also most of the dealers (and players)have a lot of trouble calculating the pot size so NL flies along far better. This is quite important when you consider that on average FW might well have the slowest dealers in the country. The games tend to get off Monday or Tuesday nights, sometimes fairly late, and on other occasional nights. Another drawback here to PL vs. NL is that the amount of thought required in PL also causes the newbies to take the game more seriously. In addition, I have noticed over the years that on the occasions when these are spread live, esp. during tourney time, that the PL draws more real toughies from the tourney trail while NL is just better, looser action. Your edge against poor players is greater at NL even though your edge against good players may be greater at PL. In case you haven't noticed, I am plugging for you to start a NL interest list if you get the chance rather than a PL interest list when visiting. Believe me, historically the NL is far better action on average. A few times a pit player even dropped in and played because he could understand the concept that you could bet anything in front of you. No way would he have played PL because when they started to explain that to him he shook his head and almost left. Fortunately we got the track back to NL and the game continued with his esteemed presence for a while.
*
Pot limit in the LA area is having a major resurrection. The Hustler (the old Eldorado Club in Gardena) regularly spreads pot limit. On Sunday nites they have up to 3 games. The big game has 25-50 blinds. The Oceans 11 in Oceanside has a regular 5-10 pot limit game, half HE and half high Omaha. On Wedneday nite they had a $62,000 pot in the Omaha portion.
Bruce
Mike and all interested,
Yes, the pairs tourney is starting at 11AM on Friday, and is scheduled to be completed prior to the start of the WPF super-satellite that night. So, participation in both is expected.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've never played with Johnny Chan, I wouldn't feel comfortable playing the limits that he plays. However, I've heard some things about him that implies that he's not so hot as a ring player...I don't know if these stories are right or just jealousy taking over. The one that comes out the most is that after he won the back-to-back WSOP, that he lost it all in high limit games....which would imply that he was the fish in the high limit games.
So, is this just bullcrap stories, or did he really lose it all in the high limit games?
I understand that some PL mississippi 7cs was spread at BARGE this month. Would anyone who was there care to comment on the action?
David Zanetti
(mississippi is 7cs with fourth and fifth street dealt together instead of one card at a time, so the cards come in a 3-2-1-1 layout rather than 3-1-1-1-1, and the last card is dealt face up instead of down: it's the only sane way to play NL 7cs.)
I just read in one of Mason's sound off articles that weak players never win against good players in pot and no-limit games. I would have thought that these games provided much more variance and luck factor, but perhaps this goes away after a short time? If a benchmark for limit games is 1-2 BB/hr with a 10 BB/hr standard deviation, what would the corresponding numbers be for strong players playing against weak players in pot and no-limit?
You can't use the same standard in the games because the implied odds are so much larger. In a 5/10 blind pot or no limit game, you can make a lot more than $15-20 per hour. Another factor is how much money is on the table. If everyone has around $1000, the good player should make about $200/hr. However, if three strong players have $2000 each and six weak players have $200 each, $200/hr becomes almost impossible.
If possible, you should look for the players who are weak AND have a lot of money on the table. This is subjective and there is no sure way to tell if the people with the most money are the best players, or the luckiest. This is why observation skills are absoulutely critical in these games.
I have no idea.
I suspect that the nature and quality of these games changes so much that nobody out there has reliable stats to answer this question. In other words, even if someone has played a couple thousand hours of the same PL or NL game, the game has varied so much throughout that time frame that his numbers just don't mean that much.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Calling your reraise on the turn sounds like a bit of tilt to me, unless he felt that you had been trying to run over him way too much - or something like that. Playing the T2o sounds odd too. I play a lot of hands in that blind vs blind spot, but T2o ain't among them. I mean that just about means he would have played ANY hand, right?
His calling your bet on the flop may just have been part of a plan to call with the paired flop, then bluff-raise on the turn. With that flop, he'd know he had a lot of leverage with a raise on the turn. Hmmm, so maybe the fact that he'd turned a pair (i.e., an unexpected little bonus) was just enough to make him go one step beyond his plan and call your reraise as well? I'd say that's going too far in the vast majority of cases, but maybe that was his thinking?
But why couldn't you put him on an 8?
Would I know that player, or was this in LA?
Im very confused.How come your two pair is no good?
Board as you said it 88323 - the 2 is counterfited and the two pair 8's & 3"s on the board + your A is the winning hand.
Sorry I posted it incorrectly. A blank came on the end. So the board showed 88235. Sorry
Bruce
Briefly,
I'd suggest he outplayed you. If you say he's the best player at the table, it's likely he was either semibluffing (with a pair draw :->) or else he can read you like a book. You may very well have a tell. I can't tell you the number of times I've raised a player with absolute crap, knowing damn well that they'll fold.
I believe it is correct to really tighten up your pre-flop raise requirements after you have been on a 'rush'. This is because after you've won several hands in the last few minutes, players tend to doubt that you have another hand, even though mathematically it shouldn't make a difference.
For example, if you have legitimately raised pre-flop and won 3 of the last 4 hands (and not shown down 2 or all 3 of them), then the players will truly start to doubt you when you raise again. This is the perfect time to pick up AA (hehehe). Even the guys who play with you all the time and know that you are a tight player - even they will tend to disbelieve you and may raise or call with weaker hands than they normally would.
This has been my experience...that players will often times take into account the current session more than their past experience with you.
Thoughts?
I think that the opposite it often true. Some players will disbelieve that you have a real hand, and may re-raise you with hands that are big dogs to yours (like ace rag, and the like). This is ok by me.
Other players (often those who play what I like to call "luck-based" poker) will stay out of your way during your "rush".
This is also ok.
I think that your normal raising requirements should still apply.
Max
Had you been raising in the small blind often when its down to you and the big blind? If so, I can see how a lot players would say "screw it, he's trying to steal my blind again, I've gotta call".
The only other thing I can think of about this guy is that maybe he knows that you would only raise with a pair or two high cards or with a A and since no high cards came, he figured he may be able to steal it from you on the turn (thus the smooth call on the flop...setting up the raise on the turn).
I guess its important to note that you have a solid/tight/tough image...not a overly aggressive player.
The answer depends on what kind of player the BB is, and what his perception of you is. If you think it is fairly likely that he will follow with a worse hand than yours if you call, then calling can be correct.
The main benefit of raising here is that you can better define your hand with respect to the BB (and the button). The problem with this strategy is that the flop will radically change your relative strength, and money used for information will be better spent on the flop than before the flop.
Another important factor is how loose the button raise is with open-raises on the button. You are in a classic situation with ATo. You are very likely to have the better hand, but when you don't it's going to cost you.
Is the button tricky? Then you might to better to avoid re-raising. By entering the pot you'll be commiting to the river, and unless you flop a monster you aren't going to be able to bet with confidence, and you are only going to push him off of hands which are *much* worse than yours.
It the button likely to give up a steal after the flop if he doesn't hit? Then it's a clear re-raise. You'll be getting your money in with the best of it, and you might not need to hit a pair to win.
The most important factor is whether or not you are prepared to go to the river with A-hi. If you are, then re-raising to isolate will greatly improve your profit. If you are going to be more selective with the flops you take, then calling and seeing how things develop will probably net you more money in the long run.
- Andrew
I think Doc nailed it. He put you on two big cards and closed his eyes and put his money where his mindset was. Sorry you didn't catch on the river, those are always sweet.
I have assumed the following: that it is limit higher stakes holdem; that the big blind will fold to a reraise if he does not hold a strong hand.
A raise is in order if you think you are the favorite to the button. Its that simple; forget fancy footwork. If the big blind call your raise, you, as you of course know, are in deep waters.
The fulcrum hand here is very near ATo ironically. I would suggest it is A9o and pairs 7 and up and any two cards jack or bigger. This of course needs to be adjusted to the players but I think this is a good starting point. Forget suited; adds little heads up. This is only the small blind so its defense is not as critical as the big; this is of course somewhat modified in structures that have 2/3 of the small. I believe that most late position raisers are losing money because they over value position and start raising with trash. These starting requirements will leave you the big favourite the bulk of the time. IMHO.
I believe that you answered this question excellently. So where did you come from?
El Supremo,
He came in the backdoor. Isn't that obvious?
Rick
"A raise is in order if you think you are favorite to the button." I suppose this is approximately correct because the likely dead money to be left in the pot by the Big Blind should help compensate for your future positional disadvantage. In other words if there were no likely dead money involved I think you should not always reraise your maginally likely better hands because of your positional disadvantage. I would be curious about how much the cutoff point might be adjusted relative to more or less dead money in the pot.
Say there is a late poster who just made up his blinds in the cutoff seat and he raises and the Button folds. Now down to what hands would it probably be correct to reraise with?
I don't think I would have raised B4 the flop. While this may not be a bad play in a full ring game if you don't chop blinds, something happens when the game gets shorthanded... everyone expects their opponents to try and steal at every opportunity, and are therefore much less likely to lay down-- no matter what they have. If you want to 'steal' out of position, I'd just call pre-flop, then bet what is likely the best hand (even if it's unimproved) on the flop. In fact, when I play shorthanded (and I've played in quite a few mid limit shorthanded games, particularly last fall) I don't do much pre-flop raising from the SB if it's mucked to me, as the end result is usually a) the BB figures you're full of it and takes the 3-1 the pot is offering, and b) the BB becomes more inclined to get creative on the flop with his betting/raising etc. The end result, generally, is that you commit more money to the pot, and don't do anything to convince the BB that you have anything. And, since many players will only raise in the SB here with an A or a K, you often end up getting the BB to fold on the flop at the precise times when you'd rather he didn't.
I'm sure he was planning to make a move on the turn, then happened to hit a pair. I don't know why he called the re-raise, but then, I'm not sure why you made this move either. If he has a small pocket pair he wouldn't have 'slowplayed' it untill the turn (he would have either three bet pre-flop, or raised the flop when the board came ragged), so you can't think you're going to get him to fold something like pocket 6's, since he almost surely doesn't have a hand like this. He may fold a better A, but again, he probably would have played a hand like AJ the same way he's have played 44 or 66. So, when he raised the turn, your choices are either to a) call him down, since he probably either has you beat and won't lay down or only has 6 outs to beat you, or b) muck. I'm not sure what I would have done, but I'm sure I would have done, but I don't think re-raising here is going to achieve the results you're looking for.
In retrospect I don't think reraising on the turn was a good play. I have a tight image and I was trying to take advantage of it. I really thought my opponent would lay down most hands in this setting. But on the other hand a pair heads-up is a pretty big hand relatively speaking.
Answering a previous question this was the first time I raised the big blind the entire session.
Bruce
GD:
If your sole opponent in the big blind will play most of his hands, I would think that failing to ordinarily raise with ATo in the sb would sacrifice more bets than one could reasonably hope to recoup against nearly all players.
(P.S. How's Michigan?)
I probably should have been more clear. Against a bad player, or at least one who isn't prone to making plays back at you, you're probably right. But, I think it's important to have a player who a) will give you the blind occasionally, and b) who will define his hand on the flop-- or, barring that, on the turn. IMExperience two things happen when you raise routinely with a hand like ATo in the BB here. First, you piss off your opponent, which makes him exponentially more likely to raise the flop with nothing, set up a play on the turn, check call till the river with top pair, etc. etc. Second, since you did raise (and didn't 'slowplay') they almost never give you credit for a hand. If you just call, then bet out on the flop with what is probably the best hand (even if it doesn't improve), they'll often relinquish. But they get cute when you raise, since they figure you want to play 'hard ball'.
In short, I think life becomes a lot easier if you just take the money on the flop, as opposed to trying to take it before hand.
This isn't always true. But, it was often the case with the guys I played with at the Med and the Matterhorn last summer and fall, and often true against the players up at the Soaring Eagle in Michigan.
And while we're on the subject of Michigan... Life here is fine. I've finally gotten out of the wretched poker circle for good, and am spending my days working as the foreman for a roofing crew. My boss is an old acquaintance, so it's a good set up. I'd probably still be at the Med. except that Paul and I got caught up in a wicked power struggle just before I left, and as a result were stuck as the odd men out. But, I really don't have any regrets.
If you're looking for a hoppin'-- and I mean hoppin'-- 6-12 game, give me an e-mail. I know a game in town that's run by one of the wildest players this side of the Mississippi, and he plays in the game all the time.
Hope you're still playing in Jerry's game. Keep flopping sets.
The (big) downside to this strategy is that you're giving the opponent a free flop. If he has garbage but flops a pair, you've just lost a lot more money (most of the time). If you're really only raising when heads up with above-average hands, then that's a broad enough assortment that they can't put any flop out of your reach, yet they know that they should give up preflop.
Just because this might inspire them to get trickier doesn't mean you won't make more money. If they're getting tricky with T7 when you're holding AT, that's (usually) a good thing.
Overall, in this spot, I'd be raising with my better hands and pressuring them to fold early. If it doesn't work, use your position to outplay them postflop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You don't have position if you're in the SB. In the BB, sure-- I'll raise here with ATo virtually anytime. But not from the SB. I thought that in the original thread our hero was discussing a play from the SB. If I'm wrong, then I take back just about everything I said about the pre-flop play.
In this situation when you are in the small blind, are there any situations where you will call a raise and not re-raise the button?
Situations that come to my mind are when I see the big blind mucking his hand, pocket Aces and Kings on occasion to mix up my play, and perhaps suited connectors against an action player when I think the big blind will play. But in general if I elect to play my hand from the small blind I will do so with a re-raise most of the time.
Bruce
You have a hand that's better than average with the Ace overcard in the SB. Against a random hand in the BB and what is likely a random hand on the button, I'd say a raise is pretty much automatic.
I have been playing limit poker for a while and had found that i was always just making enough to get by. Then I decided to play pot limit and since then I feel I could never go back to playing limit. And if I did play limit it would have to be heads-up or three handed. Is this normal to be better at pot-limit, but not be that great at limit. It seems that in limit it was always real hard to get someone to lay a hand down or not draw to that gut shot straight. but, in pot limit that does not happen to much. I have found that you usually don't need that strong a hand to be real aggressive with, but in limit you usually do. I am just trying to see if my analysis is correct. Thanks
Craig
Limit poker sucks. Might as well be a stepford player.
PL and NL favor the better players - I just wish it were spread here.
True. Also true is that PL and NL destroy the games, and the few who survive, will usually be tough enough not worth plaing against, so in the long run limit games are definately better for everyone, except for the one person who is the best player (with large enough bankroll) in the local area. I wish they would have (only) limit games where I live...
For an empirical refutation of the thesis that PL/NL destroys games, just look at Europe.
It is primarily the house rake that takes money out of games and causes otherwise breakeven players to lose. I counted the drop at Foxwoods in the 10/20 Holdem game on a decent dealer's 1/2 hour (when they had to convert it all to red chips because the drop box was stuffed full). The rake for that 1/2 hr. was $70.00. At $140.00 per hour I think the poor players and even most decent ones have little long-term chance.
I think PL/NL gives the better players a better chance to overcome the house rake. The poor players are going to lose anyway.
I agree that limit games tend to last longer and let the poor players win more often. However, the long-term effects of an overraked game can be just as damaging (perhaps even more so). What I disagree with is the thesis that PL/NL necessarily destroys games. Again, just look at Europe.
Well, it's not quite comparing the same things. Speaking from my own experience in England, there are plenty of players, and plenty of weak players, happy to play big-bet poker but a lot of it is tournament play and a lot of the cash games have a very small minimum buy-in.
It is probably fair to say that the lack of limit poker does discourage some potential new players.
While I agree with what you're saying (in my experience), I think the poker cultures in the US and Europe are so different that citing one to back up a point in the other is not really valid.
Andy.
PS When an expert play by an opponent costs a poor player a big pot this may not necessarily be more expensive than the cumulative effect of the rake but it is _much_ more noticeable and more likely to deter the weak player from continuing.
I am a european player :) Inb London they have one cardroom AFAIK, and it has only a handfull of tables open any given time. Now, London has 7 or so million people living in there...
The problem is, that if you never win, you will not come back after awhile - in limit games, the fish will always come back as going broke is not nearly that easy and you do win quite often even if you play badly. In PL games you will lose all your money in your pocket almost every time against relatively cmpetent opposition (and the opposition is, in general, quite competent in places where they've had pot limit for long periods of time).
And, yes, you are right that the good players will much more easily overcome the rake in the pot limit games - however this does not mean that the suckers will come back, and without suckers there is no poker left to be played as in a ring of rocks only the house wins.
And about over raking - welcome to Europe, in no other continent is the rake (or time collection) as high that it is here. This combined to PL games does murder the games - I know tens of people who would still be playing happily and donating easy money for me and others were the games limit and if the rake were something sane.
In conclusion: pot limit causes the fish to either go broke (even to sell their possessions to play poker - their salary would be enough if they played limit), pot limit makes the games tougher to beat every day - although a live one can almost always be sure that everything will be lost when he leaves. And pot limit sure makes it easier to beat the rake as long as the fish is there; the problem is that when you fish too much, the lake will soon be empty.
To much text, too much beer. Well, perhaps I'll drink one more...
why don't they start playing limit poker in London?
That's a very good question and there isn't a simple answer. A few points strung together at random :
1) In fact a couple of card rooms are offering small limit games but on an irregular basis and these tend to be on the same nights that "beginner" tournaments are offered.
2) Poker is simply nowhere near as high-profile as it is in the US. I mean, you're having problems with casinos closing down card rooms to make space for slots and roulette and so on, right ? There is very little incentive for casinos to lose gaming tables to make room for poker, and even if there were, they'd have a hard time convincing the bean-counters.
3) The existing core of players are very resistant to limit poker. The view is that it is an emasculated form of the game and personally I share this view.
4) One potential way forward would be to open a poker-only club (along the lines of those in Vienna). The problem is that the law is an absolute mess regarding gaming in the UK and the government have little incentive to make it easier because the moral majority frowns on gambling - except of course the lottery (sound familiar ?)
5) Having said that, the situation is not as bad as Tengen implies. There are half a dozen casinos within easy reach of London which spread poker. I'm lucky enough to live near a rocking card-room with plenty of action. There is no juice on the tournaments and there are a lot of weak players (quite a few strong ones too unfortunately). It's true though that the casinos in London and particularly the West End are much more interested in getting Kerry Packer or a few shieks at the blackjack table, and I can't say I blame them from a £££ point of view.
Andy.
Well, it's true that you can push people off their draws easier in PL, but I don't think that means you need less of a hand to get aggressive in PL.
If you're getting called less, you need to bet medium hands less in PL. Bet only really good hands that want calls even when the caller must have a good hand, or bet draws and bluffs, that want the more typical fold result.
It is not normal to be better at PL. Some people are, some are not. If you're better at reading players and putting them on hands, knowing when you can bluff and when they're gonna call, etc., then you'll be better at PL. This is even more true if you're not patient enough to fold most of your hands preflop. These impatient players, if they are excellent at making good decisions after the flop, do better at PL or in short-handed games.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I was brought up playing pot/no limit tournaments in UK since that's the only games we've got(we don't even have ring games often!). Last month I played limit in vegas which was kinda boring, it restricted my aggressive style. Its much easier than my usual game, all I did was draw when the pot favors it, bet when the odds good, looser against the maniacs, reraised the calling stations, played solid hands, it was boring! I can't bluff 9 games in a row like when I play pot limit. I can't check-call-check-call-check-reraise all in with. Worst of all I had to play good hands, I can't play 8,3 offsuit and get lucky on the flop. Pot/no limit is much more psychological, much more fun. You can make the guy fold the second best hand when you've got 7,2 offsuit. There's nothing like final table no limit tournament play. I came fifth last night.
Due to awesome implied odds, you can play much much looser at pot limit relative to limit. Here's a no limit play that I would NEVER do in my entire lifetime at limit: It's 1-2 blinds and I raised 5 dollars UTG. An extremely predictable rock sitting immedieately to my left(who I know would never ever reraise with anything less than pocket Kings) reraised it to 30. Everyone folded. Once the action got back to me, I purposely paused in order to give him the impression that I was contemplating going all in with a hand that I represented as at least AKs or QQ. I thought and thought and at one point asked him "How deep are you?". He then counted his chips and told me that he had 1300 (to my 1500+). I paused and thought and thought some more making sure to convince him that I had a major hand worth going all in with. Finally, I shook my head and said "I just call" and then called his reraise. Flop comes A23 rainbow. He bets 60, I call. Turn comes a 9 with no flush draws. He bets 300, I shake my head and call. I was absolutely sure at this point that he had trip Aces. River comes a King. I immediately pretend to be very excited and impatiently say "All in!". He calls without blinking and turns over AA as expected. I then turn over 45o and take down the pot of the night. He turns red. The railbirds and the other players shake their heads in disbelief. Explanation: I called pre flop strictly based on implied odds which at that point was at least 40-1. You'll never have this kind of implied odds at limit.
ROTFLOL
I had a similar experience when I first started playing big bet. I had 63 on the button against two A3's. When the flop came 245, the two wheels craftily started building the pot. I called for a king on the turn and got a blank. When a king hit on the river I started bouncing up and down in my seat. The wheels went into a feeding frenzy. I ended up dragging a pot worth a year's 3-6-12 grinding. Been addicted ever since.
Your analysis is exactly correct. You have the ability to shut out your opponents and bluffing becomes much more important. However, the converse is you can lose a lot more money in P/L or N/L games faster than in limit.
Blinds $5 and 10. Robert a good action player who is very aggressive straddles for $20. One caller Alex who plays conservatively, tight, and who can be pushed off of hands calls (I know this from personal experience), Fred a pro who has made his living off of this game ever since the casino opened calls, Sam the number one producer makes it $100 to go, everyone folds to Robert who calls, Alex calls and Fred who calls. Some things about Sam. Sam is a terrible player but he is a dangerous terrible player in that he will do a lot of bluffing as playing hands against him is usually very expensive. Recently this game moved from Sandia to Isletta and now is back at Sandia. I heard a story last night that Sam lost $200,000 at the Isletta craps tables and decided the casino was unlucky for him. So naturally when he wanted the game to go back to Sandia everyone obliged. Going into the flop Robert has about $5000 in front of him, Fred has about $5000 in front of him and Sam has about $1500 in front of him. Flop comes Kc, Jc, 9s. Robert checks, Fred checks, and Sam checks. Turn is a blank, Robert checks, Fred bets $200, and Sam makes it $500 to go. Fred thinks for a long time and calls the $500. River is a blank, Fred checks and Sam bets $800. Fred calls $800 turns over Th,9h and Sam mucks. Comments?
OK, so Fred knows Sam well, and knows when to call him down. I can't think of much beyond that to say. Either that or Fred played like a schmuck and got lucky.
What happened to Alex? You said he called preflop, but then no mention of him? Since he's tight you need to keep him in mind if he was there to see the flop. This flop hit a lot of the hands a tight player would play for $100 preflop.
Also, you don't say when Robert folded. It seems clear that he folded on the turn after Sam raised to $500. That obviously makes it a lot easier for Fred to call.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
When you're really into it (being totally absorbed with what you're doing, in fact, being one with what you're doing), you tend to enter a state of mind and emotion that some athletes refer to as being "in the zone", where your senses and state of consciousness are so altered and hightened to the point where you swear you've had an ESP experience. Of course, you never really had an ESP experience because ESP is pure science fiction. It does not exist. But you do notice more things that you couldn't possibly had noticed under an unaltered normal state of mind. Sometimes you just know that a person is lying without being able to explain why or how you know that he's lying. You know something just doesn't seem right and yet not know why. You see, the average human is bombarded with 2000 bits of information per second. But can only be conscious of an average of 7 bits at a time (the other 1993 bits just go by). When you're in the zone I guess it moves up a little, say, to 9 to 12 bits. Fred may have been in the zone when he decided to call Sam with that mediocre hand. He may had subconsciously noticed certain incongruencies in Sam's behavior that gave him an intuition that he just had to keep him honest.
i remember being in a medical library at a major university and looking up some pretty impressive evidence for telepathy (dream telepathy) in a major scientific journal.
I have had several clairvoyant experiences, all of which were explainable by sensitivity or coincidence, but it is still intriguing to me that ALL of them were correct when that "different" sensation occurred in my consciousness. That is, I "heard" or "saw" things in my mind. In three cases, I correctly predicted future events which had a reasonable chance of occurring, but less than 10%. They all boggled my mind. They all involved baseball. Weird. I remain unconvinced, as I am sure you do, but these occurrences certainly did not prove to me that it doesn't exist.
My belief is that what people call ESP(extra sensory perception) is really nothing but HSP(hightened sensory perception). When you're 100% focused on something while in a relaxed, curious and highly confident state of mind your visual, auditory, and kinesthetic perceptions are going to inevitably be hightened. But that does not mean that you've developed "extra" perceptual senses. You're still going to continue to have the same primary senses (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, gustratory), but at a "hightened" level. There is a term for this called, "hypersynesthesia". The great news is that it can actually be trained and developed to a level where you can count on having it whenever and wherever you want to have it. As I have said earlier, out of the 2000 bits of information that we are bombarded with per second, we are only capable of noticing 7 at a time (the other 1993 just go by us unnoticed). If we're very focused in a relaxed, curious, and confident manner, we can actually increase this number and thus notice more things and distinctions than we are accustomed to. And a lot of times it's going to feel strange and send chills up our spines. And if we're the type of person who likes to watch the Twilight Zone, Star Trek, X-Files, supernatural documentaries on the Discovery Channel, and read about Big Foot, UFO's, and the Loch Ness monster, these strange feelings can translate into a belief in clairvoyance and sixth sense. But it's really none of that. It's just basic seeing, hearing, feeling, and perceiving more distinctions than normal. Genius artists, chefs, athletes, and poker players separate themselves from the merely good and competent thru their abilities to consistently put themselves in the state of mind that enables them to access hypersynesthesia.
There's incomplete information, but...
Sam hears two grown men check on the flop. There is no way Sam ever checks in this situation when he has a pair. (Sam is here for action.) When Fred bets the turn, Sam correctly puts him on a weak hand and decides to steal or re-steal. Fred guesses that Sam doesn't have a pair from his flop check, puts him on the steal, and check/calls the hand down.
Where's Alex?
at this point i have quit a bit of pl omaha under my belt and im comfertable with my game. of course i always try to play in a soft game. i dont have a particular hand in mind at the moment, but what it amounts too is laying down a big hand, with already a lot of money invested. i can make up the hands to get my question across. you have rocketsxx. flop ace 45. bet, callers. turn 5. you bet pot with your filly. get raised the pot. next. sort of the same deal but you have axs. only one hand can beat you, the sf. say you know nothing about the player. i tend to call the full and lay down the flush. assume these are large pots and to call the raise costs a fortune. especially intersted in ray zees opinion.
I believe that this is really just a question that you must answer for each specific situation, and it is HIGHLY player dependent.
There are some players who would never raise the pot in such spots without the nuts, so if you have the A-hi flush, they must have the str8 flush. Likewise, if all they had was 5s full, they wouldn't put in so much money when you could have As full. Against others, you wouldn't hesitate to call with 4s full, because they are most likely to just have trip 5s (not full).
You just have to know the players.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
i of course concur. once against steve wynn i raised and got reraised with the aces full and loved getting tons of money in the pot. the same day against my friend lee wosk i got raised after only a moderate sized bet and i folded my aces full(correctly).
High limit hold'em...it is a full game, but one guy just left and three guys are taking a break, so it is currently five handed. I am not in the hand. UTG (a very good player, and possibly a great player...maybe the same guy that John Feeney was speaking about earlier, his last name's initial is A.) raises....an average player who calls way too many pre-flop raises calls (but the guy is smart enough to have respect for the UTG player, and especially his raise), button folds, small blind folds, and big blind (another average player) also calls.
The flop is
T64 rainbow
BB checks...UTG bets, Average player calls, BB folds.
Turn is a 2 - the fourth suit, no flush draws.
UTG checks, average player checks.
River is a 3. UTG checks....average player checks.
UTG turns over ATo....average player mucks.
Everyone looks at UTG (who everyone has respect for) quizzically. Why did he not bet on the turn or river?
UTG says to the average player "I saw you finger your chips like you wanted to raise on the flop, so I figured you had a weak ten...and I was trying to checkraise you on the turn and the river."
average player says "I was thinking about raising on the flop, I had AQ, and thought maybe I could blow you off of AK or AQ. I thought AT was below your raising standards...but then I decided just to check".
UTG says "I wouldn't normally raise with ATo UTG, but it's shorthanded".
My comments :
1. it was very interesting to hear the UTG player mention that he noticed the Avg player was thinking about raising and thus wanted to checkraise on the turn...and it turned out he almost had it right. But once the average player checked on the turn, maybe UTG checked on the river thinking that the average player now doesn't have a pair, and thus the only chance UTG can get a bet out of him is if he checks and induces a bluff....I'm not sure the river check was good...I would have bet, and hoped something like A high might call...but then again UTG probably has a good handle on the average player, so I wouldn't argue too much with the check on the river.
2. I would have bet on the turn as the average player, because I would have to try to blow out AK.....and if I was the average player in question, I would have gotten snapped!
3. It was a poor slip for the UTG player talk about what he was thinking. It made it clear (to me at least), that this guy's depth of thinking, watching and analysis was pretty deep. And that's not generally a good thing to do.
Doc,
I’ll answer this in reverse, more or less. You wrote: “”3. It was a poor slip for the UTG player talk about what he was thinking. It made it clear (to me at least), that this guy's depth of thinking, watching and analysis was pretty deep. And that's not generally a good thing to do.
Maybe this guy was smart enough to use deception in his post hand BS. Maybe he was defending his self-image. Maybe John Feeney could figure it out. Me, I don’t trust table talk from most decent players.
I'm honest when I discuss hands on the forum since I don’t expect to often face the players that post here and we get back far more than we give. But at the table I keep quite about the reasons for playing a certain way. If I'm pressed for what I had, I either shrug or answer incorrectly and to my advantage, as long as it can't be detected.
For example, holding two queens and playing aggressively, I get a pair of kings to fold with an ace high flop (the player flashes his kings to me when he throws it away). If he seems to want emotional support, I'll just say good fold without emotion. Hopefully he will think it is a good fold for him, not a good fold for me! If he asked what I had, I either evade or say AQ, which would be a logical hand. I never specify suits since another player could be holding the ace of that suit.
Anyway, back to your hand. The UTG player’s post mortem analysis makes sense. The only question I have is, do you believe it ;-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I made it a point to watch a higher limit game the other day. You are right (in anyone is interested, refer to the “KTo/K6s” sub-thread below). Many players give away their intentions before the action is on them, and some of them are supposed to be tough players. Maybe they just get tired and lazy.
You made some good comments about not believing post-hand BS...however in this case, I have two reasons to believe what they said. The checks on the turn and river were way out of line and also, the two seemed like they knew each other for a while, and were on very friendly terms. So in this specific case, I actually believe all the post-hand talk with 95% certainty.
Also, I don't want to take credit for what you said in your P.S. comments - it was Mason Malmuth that actually pointed it out...and that's what made me think about making this post
Doc,
I just added some Trader Joe's pre-made frozen meatballs to the saucepot and already there is an answer to my post. I hope they’re good since I hate making meatballs by hand. Despite the fact I’m half Italian, I make lousy meatballs. Anyway, you answered so fast I feel like I’m in a chat room (actually, I’ve never been in a chat room except on Planet Poker so how would I know ;-) !)
Anyway, I’m back to the “meat” of the post, as opposed to the meatballs in the pot. That is possible. A lot of these bigger limit player’s play each other every day and I've also noted some get quite friendly. If I ever move up in limits, I need to figure out how to remain tough yet friendly without giving away too much of my game.
Regards,
Rick
It's unhealthy to eat so late. Maybe you should go on a diet. Just kidding.
Actually, I think one of the reasons people seem to be more friendly in the 80/160 game I play in is because the guys who play there all seem to have lots of money, separate from poker....meaning the majority of them are probably millionaires or are kids of millionaires....so losing 2 racks may not the same to them as losing 2 racks to a 20/40 player...of course, there are exceptions both ways. in general, there are no grinders in the 80/160 game, but several in the 20/40 games.
Doc,
I'll be up until at least 3:00 a.m. so I'll be lucky if I can resist a snack later ;-). All I've had so far today was raison bran, carrot juice, sharp white cheddar cheese on melba toast, and a veggie tray. Even John Feeney would approve of that (I think).
Although I’m mostly a 15/30 and 20/40 player, John Feeney’s essays have been encouraging me to take a look at bigger limits. My bankroll needs to grow a bit and I need to work on my skills (which is why I am posing on this sub-forum). But I agree that the makeup of the game is much as you describe above.
Besides the obvious rich types, do you get the impression that quite a few of “the pros” at this limit are what I term “trust fund pros”. By this I mean that they talk the talk of being a full time winning upper limit player, but they actually have quite a bit of automatic outside income and barely break even, if that. I know there are quite a few at the mid limits and Jim Brier has written that he believes this is the case in Las Vegas.
Regards,
Rick
where I play, the 80/160 game only goes for one day a week, and not for too long - maybe 10 hours on a good day. so none of these guys are pros, as by definition, pro means you have to be doing it on a consistent basis. I think this 80/160 game is much softer than the regular one's that you'd find in vegas or Commerce.
Rick -- That's a good little food list. Sounds like some dieting there (melba toast...). Do you need to lose weight?? Try the Cosmo article, "How YOU Can lose A POUND a Day WITHOUT Dieting, and Fit Into that NEW Swimsuit in Time for SUMMER" My tip for the day is just don't eat non-organic strawberries. They're higher in some kind of dangerous pesticide residue than nearly any other produce.
Okay now, about higher limits: Yes you should play them as soon as bankroll allows! I have little doubt you will beat them handily. Also, my impression is that in CA, at least, at limits as high as 80-160, a good player can still make enough in proportion to the limit that the moves up are well worth it. (That's in hold'em.) That is, any diminishing returns are not *so diminishing that it's not still well worth moving up.
Doc -- I agree that it was not a good idea to have such a detailed post mortem on the hand, unless the guy was BSing. But, as you said, the comments do make sense.
I'm not sure of the last initial of the player I mentioned. I thought it might be "G". But the first initial is "M". If you want to email me I'll tell you. And if your email gives away *your identity I swear on HPFAP-21 I will keep the secret -- unless I am offered a hefty sum for it.
I mean Rick said they made sense.
This hand sounds like a good example of why Mason may be correct in the Mason vs. Caro debate over the value of tells.
Caro talks about how important tells are. Mason says they're important, but not nearly as valuable as Caro says. One point Mason makes is that often you read a tell, but it has no impact on your play decision (e.g., you read the guy for a strong hand, but you were gonna fold anyway, as you have a busted draw).
This hand points out how a player read a tell correctly, and it cost him 1 or 2 big bets. Thus, while he should continue to read tells and take advantage of the information, it sometimes has no impact on his play, and it sometimes causes him to make an incorrect play, thus reducing the value of the tell.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Maybe the player who found a tell gave away a tell indicating to the other player that he had found a tell on him and the player whose tell was found first took advantage of the latter's tell about his tell. Just a thought.
"I saw you finger your chips like you wanted to raise on the flop, so I figured you had a weak ten...and I was trying to checkraise you on the turn and the river". This guy's thinking too deeply. From a shallow thinking perspective, the proper response to this tell is to check the turn (with the intention to raise). If the guy checks along, then bet on the river representing a steal with an unimproved Ace high. Also checking on the river was taking deep thinking a little bit too far. Fancy play syndrome of the passive variety. "It was a poor slip for the UTG player talk about what he was thinking". Perhaps he's got an ego or insecurity problem which can be exploited in the future.
I am in a full limit hold'em game...in 5th position. UTG, (the same guy I mentioned in the post below, who is a very good player, and possibly a great player) raises. I have AdTd.
I fold.
Any thoughts?
Doc,
I think you have an easy fold. This UTG player’s average raising hand is much better than your hand in a full game. Your suitedness won’t help much since you will rarely get much soft action behind you. In addition, he will play well post flop. Against a very tough UTG raiser, I would want a pair of ten’s or greater, AK offsuit, or at least AQ suited to play here with two or there players behind and the blinds yet to act.
Regards,
Rick
I agree - open and shut case. Actually, it was a pretty loose table, and two guys called him pre-flop....one guy called him on the flop and turn (the guy who, in another post of mine, raised on the turn when the board was Q353)...UTG turned over AQs into a flop without a card higher than a 9 and won the hand (I can only imagine that the guy who called him probably had AJ, AT or KQ, which would have been consistent with his fault of calling too many pre-flop raises).
Easy fold against a tough player. Good choice.
I am in a full limit hold'em game...on the button. My chips are short, I only have 5 small bets left.
UTG (below average, loose/aggressive player) raises....2nd to act (good tight player) re-raises. 3rd to act (a player who thinks a lot, plays too many hands, is usually too aggressive, but only when it comes to stealing blinds or getting free cards...and he knows the 2nd player is a good, tight player)....raises, making it 4 bets.
Everyone else folds. I have 99.
I muck...comments?
In another hand...I have 99 again....same spot...this time UTG folds, 2nd to act just calls, 3rd to act (all players in same seats) makes it two bets. I am on the button again....with approximately 10 small bets left. I have 99...I muck...comments?
OK, I confess, the only reason I really remember and posted these two hands is because a 9 turned on both hands ... and I lost out on at least $1000 in each pot....arg. I still think the folds were correct, but I would like opinions.
The folds are no-brainers. In the first example you are mostly likely a huge dog. In the second example 99 doesn't play well multi-way and besides, you don't have very much money in your stack if you do flop a set. You should have bought in for more.
why should I have bought in for more? I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't think its a disadvantage to be a bit shortstacked...yes, on certain hands I will be disadvantaged, but on other hands, I will be in the advantage.
I believe Sklansky or Malmuth has written (proven?) before that the optimal best buy in is just one bet, although practically, that is impossible.
Doc,
You wrote: ”why should I have bought in for more? I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't think its a disadvantage to be a bit shortstacked...yes, on certain hands I will be disadvantaged, but on other hands, I will be in the advantage.”
The disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and I don’t think it is close (this has been hashed out in ancient threads). One exception might be that when you get into a massive confrontation in early position and lose. You have about one buy in left. Because you are about to take the blinds, you might wait until the button comes to reload. The blinds play well with short stacks.
“I believe Sklansky or Malmuth has written (proven?) before that the optimal best buy in is just one bet, although practically, that is impossible.”
Mason wrote an amusing essay (it should be in his books of Poker Essays but I can’t find the chapter title) in which he said that the optimum buy in for seven card stud is one ante as long as you are the only one allowed to do it. Other than that, I believe Mason believes in keeping a lot of chips in front of him.
Regards,
Rick
Doc,
First Hand: Collectively, I think there is a very good chance you are against an overpair. If not, most overcards are covered. With a lot of chips, facing calling four bets cold and three opponents, I would fold.
With five small bets left, you will be going all-in no matter what. So you get to see the river. Seeing the river brings the odds of spiking a set down to about 5 to 1 against (since I don’t go all-in, I’m not going to bother with the math but this seems close). But your sets won’t win more than about 80% of the time with three opponents. And you won’t collect additional bets.
Next, how often will the nine’s stand up as an unimproved pair? This requires the parlay of no overpair held by an opponent (that is not blown out before the river – an AQ could blow out a pair of jacks if a king flops) and no overcards that pair an opponent. This seems like a long, long shot. So I would fold.
Now if you had a pair of jacks I would still fold with chips (but it is close against this group of opponents) but would call with few chips (of course it doesn’t matter to me since I don’t play short stacks in ring games). The factors discussed in the above paragraph are far more favorable with jacks, which is why I think you could call.
Second Hand: I think it is a fold but it is close. You have just enough chips to pay off all the way in situations where you are not sure (e.g., there is one or two overcards and you are bet into), but would wish you had more when you flop a set.
Now if the right type of overly aggressive UTG player raised and then was cold called by a weak player, I would like the hand much more. Now I figure to get led into all the time with the weak player often calling which makes my sets much better and my decision as to what to do easier post flop when I miss my set.
Regards,
Rick
Would you go all in with 67s for 4 bets. It's a similar analogy. You don't have enough money to play the hand if you flop a set.
Bruce
n/t
I am UTG with KdQd. I have played very few hands...and losing the ones that I have played. I raise. Avg player 2 seats from me calls, LA (loose aggressive) player calls, three other guys call (geez, I'm thinking, I don't need to play 1 hand every half hour to get action in this game!). 13 sb in the pot.
As a note, LA is a guy who will call two bets in any position if he has Axs.
flop is Qs3h5h.
I think about checkraising, but I can't depend on the late position players to bet for me, so I decide to bet.
Avg player raises, LA calls, everyone else folds....I call. I'm not sure what avg player has here, possibly two hearts, possible Q (A kicker is not necessary for him to have called me). I decide I'll checkraise on the turn provided its not a heart.
Turn is a 3d...board reads Qs3h5h3d.
I check, planning on check-raising. Avg player bets (good, I think)....but then LA player raises.
I start to think, what could he have to raise at this point, but not make it 3 bets on the flop? These are the possible hands I think he could have : 2 hearts, A3, QJ, AQ, 55, 33, A5....but with 2 hearts, even with the A, I don't think he raises on the turn, but maybe he would've made it 3 bets on the flop...with 55, 33 and AQ, I think he would have continued his aggressive play and three bet on the flop as well, cause he can see the hearts as well as anyone.
So that leaves him with A5, A3 or QJ....I almost definitely think he can't raise with A5 or QJ on the turn, even though he is looseaggressive, it would just be too much. He's gotta think that he gets callers and that a raise won't drive anyone out...and with QJ, I think he would have been more likely to three-bet the flop than two-bet the turn. So, I think there's a high chance he's got A3...making three 3s, and my only out to be a Q...and maybe the average player has a Q too, so that makes it only 1 out, for possibly just a tie.
It's two bets to me, what do I do? I think for a while and decide to fold - because I think average player will call too - he's either got a Q (possibly AQ) or a flush draw, and if he has a flush draw, then that just makes it even more likely that LA has A3.
When I fold, average player immediately folds too, and LA takes the pot. It was a big pot, but given the position I was in (calling two bets, and waiting for average player to act after me), I think I did correct....
please comment.
Doc,
Good post but I think we need a clarification. You wrote:
” Turn is a 3d...board reads Qs3h5h3d.
I check, planning on check-raising. Avg player bets (good, I think)....but then LA player raises. I start to think, what could he have to raise at this point, but not make it 3 bets on the flop? These are the possible hands I think he could have : 2 hearts, A3, QJ, AQ, 55, 33, A5....but with 2 hearts, even with the A, I don't think he raises on the turn, but maybe he would've made it 3 bets on the flop...with 55, 33 and AQ, I think he would have continued his aggressive play and three bet on the flop as well, cause he can see the hearts as well as anyone.
You seem to be saying he could have an Ah5h, yet there is a 5h on board. Could you check on this for us.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I may not get back tonight if my mid to upper limit holdem friend comes over as he usually does to watch some late night TV and eat me out of house and home. BTW, I just sampled one of Trader Joe’s frozen meatballs and they are damn good. (I get the impression you are from California so you would know about Trader Joe's)
I don't like your hand as much as you seem to do. First to speak with top pair, and a half-good kicker, and any number of flush draws and straight draws possible. If an Ace comes you'll cop it.
When the other guy raises you, you've lost the pot. You listed the large number of winning hands he could have. What about the losing hands? QJ or a flush draw or something. There ain't that many hands he could have that you will win against.
How do you know the LA player is not making a play at you? You may have laid down a worse hand, but by checking you put yourself in a bad posititon having to call two big bets cold and not knowing what the middle player will do. On fourth street I would prefer leading and playing accordingly. LA senses weakness on your part with your check and he assumes the middle player is on a draw and raising is a perfect oppurtunity to get rid of you.
Bruce
I don't know he's makng a move on me, per say, but rather, he's making a move on me and the flop raiser...so he's making a move on two people. That would take some real steal balls....and this guy is one of the few guys that is capable of doing it....but I gave my reasoning already, as he made his move on the turn and not on the flop.
I guess I'll never really know what he had, since I folded...but I'm still happy I folded.
I would have just called pre-flop (I like to play KQs multiway) and check raised a late position bettor during the flop. If not three betted on the flop, I would bet the turn. Then I would check call on the river if I don't make a full house.
You had the right idea on the flop, you have to bet if you don't think anyone will bet.
On the turn, I think you have to lead bet here to stop free cards for both a flush and a ace draw. You tried to checkraise the flop, but now a check raise on the turn is more problematic due to the possibility of trip 3's.
I'm not saying this is likely, but would this player raise the turn with a nut flush draw, hoping to knock you out if you hold AK? That way if an ace comes he can win. I think this would be a pretty good play considering the pot is so big.
Regardless, I think you were probably beat, but I also get very tenacious when I have something like top pair and the pot is this big.
If this is a typical LA mid limit game I would call for sure, or any online midlimit game (in fact I just won a huge pot out of my BB with Q3 when I flopped top pair, but telling that story might make me look like a fish ;)). Given that this is a HIGH limit LA game, I would think it is bordeline. I certainly don't argue with your fold.
David
Splitting the Hold'em Forum into so many categories is a poor approach. It makes navigation and participation more awkward and finding specific threads difficult. How subtle the difference between 'General Theory' and Hold'em 'General [Theory]'. Must be particularly hard on Schizophrenics.
Well, I can't fault you for not capping the flop. One advantage of not capping is that if the turn card is ugly 9say, a King), you can fold without haveing invested further bets on the flop.
Given that the turn card was a blank though, I would probably bet because I don't want the 3 bettor to smugly accept a free card in case he was trying to slow you guys down with a hand like J9 or something. As it turned out, he bet for you anyways. In that case, I am likely to raise him now because if you just call, you are leaving yourself open to be at the mercy of several bad river cards. If the guy to your left has AA, He has 8 outs that are different than the outs that the 3 bettor has if he (say) has J9. You need to protect your hand.
Yes, the 3 bettor could have you in bad shape if he flopped a straight but them's the breaks. Better to lose an extra bet or 2 on the turn as opposed to losing the pot on the river if you allow AA who would have folded to your raise on the turn a cheap card to beat you.
against very aggressive live ones after the flop id raise most anytime it came to me and take my lumps or the chips.-- if you dont like putting money in the pot just say raise and the floorman will make you put it in.(:
check raise on the turn
A check raise on the turn would have pounded the flop 3 bet guy into jelly.
I would not cap the flop, however, either a check raise on the turn or bet outright. Personally, I prefer to just bet outright, unless you have a very sure sense that the agressive one with bet. You must be fairly certain of it otherwise just bet and unless a really scary card comes on the river, bet that too.
If he flopped a set or a straight, oh well. It happens
well Doc,
if you had brought it in for a raise your tightest wouldnt have called. but you do want to play against kj when you have ak. many limit games if its raised and reraised it doesnt mean top two at all. why not kq or any king as you might have raised him with 2nd pair. you do do that sometimes(alot) i hope. its usually a bad move to give the bb a free flop.
I'm playing 20-40 hold-em in my local cardroom. Two live ones walkin around 1 AM. They want to play higher and we agree to start a 100-200 game three handed. I normally don't play this high, but it's a great lineup. One of these guys the night before lost $11,000 playing 40-80 with an over button. The only problem we face is the cardroom's refusal to start a new game. I always thought cardroom's were in the customer service business, but something is ass backwards here. They tell me with a straight face that our game may threaten the integrity of the two existing 20-40 games. Anyway one of the two live ones decides to sit and play pot-limit. The cardroom spreads a half hold-em, half high Omaha pot limit game almost every day. The blinds in the hold-em are 10 and 25 and in the Omaha are 10 and 15. About three quarters of the time there is a live straddle. I decide to sit down and play. This will be my second time playing pot limit. The last time I played was three years ago.
The game with me is seven handed. There are three incredibaly live players, two weak tight players, and one half way decent player. The experts who normally play the game are fortunately home sleeping or whatever else they may be doing. Most of the players have anywhere from three to five thousand dollars in front of themselves. I notice almost immeadiately that a pot sized raise BTF has the opposite effect of what it normally has. They all come in. Everyone wants to see the flop regardless of the price.
I buy in for $500 and we are now playing high Omaha. I have never played high Omaha before. The last time I played high low Omaha split was about 5 years ago. Personally I don't care for the game, but I really do think I understand the game to a certain extent and probably more so than my opponents. I play real tightly for the first 45 minutes trying to get a feel for the game, and trying to figure out what the maximum bets are I can make if I so desire. I am now down to $350 when I decide to make a real buyin. Why play tournament style when I am in a cash game. I buy in for $2500 more.
We are playing hold-em when I get involved in my first hand. I pickup AhKh UTG. We are playing six handed and a superlive (SL) one has posted before the button. I raise the pot to $150 and the big blind and SL call.
The flop comes 4h 6h 7s. I flopped the nut flush draw. The BB checks and I bet $450. SL calls and raises the pot $1200. The BB folds. I stop to entertain all my different options. I can certainly fold. I have $600 invested in the pot at this point, but that just doesn't seem to be the right play. What can my opponent have? Putting him on a hand is next to impossible since he plays just about everything and he plays big hands and draws hard and fast. I don't think he has a pocket pair because previously he has reraised with big and small pocket pairs. I speculate that he has a pair with a straight draw. I doubt he has a flush draw since I have one. I think I have my nine flush outs and probably an Ace or King as an out. How do I play my hand? Do I call and see the turn card or do I go all in on the flop.
This is now more than I bargained for. I am a limit hold-em player and I have never been in this situation before. I have never made a large bet like this before. Anyway I decide to go all in on the flop. If my opponent puts me on a flush draw and I get there he has an opportunity to get off of his hand. I call his $1200 raise and reraise another $1600. He calls my raise.
On the turn a third heart comes and the river brings a fourth heart. I win a very large pot. My opponent throws his 85o practically hitting the dealer in the face and proceeds to act like an absolute moron. I was taking the worst of it on the flop and I did not put him on a straight, but nevertheless I did have a big draw. I had fewer outs than I realized.
Comments and feedback are certainly appreciated. I will post some more hands later.
Bruce
I have absolutely no experience playing pot-limit or no-limit poker, so I have absolutely no idea if you made the "correct" play. But let me just say "God made yours just a little bigger."
Great post!!!
Your thinking is sound - your nut flush draw and 2 over cards are probably good if you hit any of them giving you 15 outs or a bit better than 2/3 chance of hitting your hand.
I think I play the hand just like you did.
If in doubt, raise!!! You did the right thing. Pot limit and no limit is a game of who's got the balls of steel. You certainly proved in this hand that you did.
This is a really tough decision here. But I have to say that, if you were absolutely convinced that he had at least one pair, I don't think that a call here is really that profitable.
Assuming that you have 15 outs and they are all clean, you are the favorite to win this hand so a raise is definitely in order. But if you knew that he has at least a pair and that your A and K outs are no good then you must fold.
In this case you have seen this player play draws fast, so it was even possible that you had the best hand at the moment. So, in the final analysis, I don't see anything wrong with a call. If you would have called even on the river in case he missed his draw and was bluffing, then a raise is even better.
-SmoothB-
I have thought about this hand long and hard for the last few days and I have asked two top pot limit players about the hand. Both of these players are very familiar with my opponent. I described my opponent as a live one, almost, but not quite a maniac. I think that's a pretty fair description of him. One thing I did not point out was the fact that he was stuck almost $25,000 when I sat down and the longer he played the further his play deteriorated. Both of the "experts" agreed with my play. Basically, putting this guy on a hand is next to impossible. In light of that and the fact that he could have a draw just like me, except mine is bigger and that I still may have the best hand makes my play correct. Even if he has a pair, and assuming I have 15 clean outs I am still not in bad shape on the flop.
Bruce
Richard,
I would tend to agree with your thread. I won a big pot and I was happy, but my immeadiate reaction without really thinking too much about the hand was somehow I didn't play the hand correctly and yes I was the liveone for putting my whole stack in when I can't even beat a pair of twos. Of course when I made my flop bet I was semi-bluffing. I wanted my opponent to fold, I had nothing. If we had turned our hands over on the flop before betting I mostly definetely would have passed. I wasn't getting the correct price so yes, I was the live one. However, it's better to be lucky sometimes than good. This guy has often tortured me playing limit hold-em catching runner runner that it did feel good finally outdrawing him and witnessing his childish behavior afterwards.
Bruce
Same game as previous post. This hand came up about twenty minutes later when we are still playing hold-em. There is a live straddle and 4 callers. I am in the big blind with AKo. I call the $25. Blinds are 10 and 25 and the straddle is 50. I am not sure if I should reraise or not. A reraise will probably not thin the field at all and subconciously I am sill thinking about the previous hand. There is $200 in the pot.
The flop comes J T 4 rainbow. I check and the live one bets $50. This is the same opponent from the previous hand. Everyone folds and I am the last to act. I call. I have a halfway decent draw.
The turn brings a King and there are no flush draws. I check and my opponent bets $300. I call. I doubt he has much of anything. He would have raised BTF with big cards. If we were playing limit I certainly would have been more aggressive in this situation, but we are not and I don't want to risk going broke with just a pair. The pot seems big enough to me.
The river brings a Six. My opponent bets $700. I call in about two seconds and he throws his hand angrily in the muck. I never saw his hand.
Comments are appreciated. Did I play the hand well or did I play too passively?
Bruce
What do you think he'd do with a draw, like 9-8, if you'd check-raised him on the flop? Since you caught on the turn, and he bluffed all the way, you probably maxed the hand; however, I'm not sure passive was best strategy. You might have caught a banana on the turn.
Fat-Charlie
I think you should have raised the pot to get rid of the smog and possibly get heads up with an inferior A or an under pair where you are about even money.
With AK you really don't want callers and picking up the pot of $200 is just fine far as I'm concerned. The cal on the flop is OK since you didn't raise preflop you have 10 outs 4 Q's 3K's and 3A's however 2pair could spell disaster.
Your turn play was really weak and since the last player was the live stradler (I assume) you are up against a random hand. Maybe a straight draw.
Your comment concernes me - "If we were playing limit I would have been more aggressive" Pot limit calls for just as much aggression if not more - the pots are bigger and the game is designed for the aggressive poker player.
Maybe ou ought to stick to Limit.
This is my second time playing pot limit. I realize I am far from playing the game well. The lineup looked good to me and it was a situational decision on my part to give it a shot.
Raising BTF would not have thinned the field and because of my poor position I decided to knuckle the table BTF rather than raise.
I put my opponent on little and I felt like he was bluffing his money at me. Literally I felt like he was giving me his money. Why discourage a player from bluffing by playing strongly?
Bruce
Giving free/cheap cards is one way of letting the bluffer get ahead - I make them pay. Also a raise pre flop sets up up to buy it with anykind of flop.
Since this table is the type in which you can't protect a hand preflop, you made a good call before the flop. The check and call on the flop was a good one for implied odds reasons. But I would have shown cheap aggression on the turn and river. That is, I'll bet 200 both times just to get into a showdown cheaply against someone who is capable of having anything.
Richard he was playing the man and I think he played this man well - you think it "perfect" poker for SL to be calling a pot sized raise with 85o come on - this guy (SL) is certifable MANIAC. On the flop I think bruce was pretty committed to this pot so his actions were justifiable.
Bruce played the hand almost "perfectly" IMHO.