![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I think the software only has pot- and no-limit in the tournament version. Is that right? That would make it less helpful (though still of some limited use) for someone interested in live game play.
Ace of Spades has ring game pot limit hold'em and omaha. It may also have stud. I have used the hold'em. One part is a teaching program that gives you suggestions. The other is a competitive play where you can compare your play of each hand with a pro, Roy. You can also vary the players, from a caller to an agressive. I found it useful. One lesson the program teaches is to respect pot sized bets on the river by solid players. I also noticed that the pro, Roy, is very agressive with pairs, in position or not. The program also keeps excellent statistics for you.
By the way, excellent book. John.
board showing t,9,8 and you have draw at the low end??not knowing all of your cards, first thing I think of is---why did you see flop with cards like that--especially in pot limit??? Jim
It seemed to me that the cards worked together fairly well except for A-9 off. Table somewhat loose and also passive before the flop. Five players at 4AM. I tried to run out the big stack at the flop by backing my trips as strongly as I could. So, with ten outs I called his bet when he hit the straight. I only had two hundred left, so ...
Is it customary to limit the amount you can bet to the pot in PL Omaha? Most rule books I have read say that PL betting can be a pot sized call and then a raise. This particular club does not allow that. So, I bet 250 to protect my hand when I would have liked to have bet 500. This may have kept the big stack out.
You got very fortunate with this hand.
You should not play J9s UTG because you can get stuck with both a worse hand and no position.
I would have gone all in on the flop. You were definitely going all the way with your draws. With $500 in the pot, you can't just call $125 because if you miss the turn, your not getting odds anymore if someone bets the turn hard.
WOW! I'm amazed at the way this hand went down and some of the responses. First, depending on the game (ie: alot of preflop raisers or limpers) I don't agree with everyone else that limping UTG is a bad play. This is pot limit! It's all about limping, hitting big and making a bundle. With a $10 blind I like the hand alot. You may very well get 4-5 limpers on average. If someone does raise you may get 4-5 callers of $30. I still like the hand! If it get's too costly preflop, you waste a mere $10.
You definately got the best of the flop. I would have check raised and pushed it in after the $125 bet. You don't get many draws this good and may pick it up right there.
But the amazing part was that you bet out $300 on the turn when the 9 hit and won it there. The only explanation is that (1) the "liar" did NOT have AJ (if he did then he is sickeningly weak and you should have made a killing off him as he deserved to lose) and (2) everyone put you on a set of 9's (which would be unlikely since you'd never call $125 with an underpair)
The 9 as part of a straight is also ridiculus as you'd not likely call $125 with a gutshot. You were very lucky that these idiots weren't paying attention. I agree that the bet on the turn smelled like a semi-bluff. If I were there, you'd have been called! I do think you should have won the hand, I'm just surprised at how you did it!
Keep playing hard!
Background - mathematics/computer science, undergrad Carnegie Mellon, grad UIUC (coursework complete for M.S. but never finished thesis), employed for several years each at Bellcore and NASA doing artificial intelligence research, beaucoup blackjack experience all over the world, started playing poker around 1991, left job to become professional degenerate gambler several years ago, getting into sports betting, currently living in Las Vegas, used to live in LA and SF Bay Area.
-Abdul
Dam! You gots smarts! It seems like every mathmatics is gambling and us musicians are left to tend bars! I haven't even gotten to your website yet, but I'm curious how much, if at all, do you use computers in your research?
MMMMmmm! That is going to take a while to digest! I just got back from your site and I'm traveling to chat with my poker buddy in a few days. I think we'll go over what we can and ask you tons of questions. I have started a poker log and journal and one of the things I'd like to do is to catalogue every single hand in HE by taking general playing notes on them. It'd take a long time to do, but It'd be interesting results. Since there are few starting hands in this game, I think that a guide to each and every hand is about due.
Before you do such labor intensive work, see poker strategies, rules, and guides, specifically the tables of hand domination and the article by Abdul, describing the limp reraise strategy for LAG. It would take you years to deduce what is presented there.
Here's a preflop situation that come up at the Sunday NL game at AJ's that I thought was neat.
The game was surprisingly revved up considering the line up. No severely soft spots at the table, but chips were moving anyway. The guy to my immediate right was shortstacked with $400 and playing super tight. I was playing in extra extra low gear as well at the time, with a big stack.
On this hand, I was in middle position and both the players in the blinds were extremely good preflop-robbers-from-the-blind. They do it with just the right frequency, a touch to often that they actually "have it" every time, but too infrequently to gamble at picking them off with a good but not excellent hand.
In other words, this was a bad time to limp, since they knew I could easily be robbed in my current mindset.
The guy on my right open limped. Now it's all different! He was protecting MY hand from the robbers because he is likely to limp with a hand that he is likely to come over the top with if one of the blinds raises.
So I limped too, in safety. One other player limped, and when it came around to the blinds, both of them in turn eyed the situation carefully before deciding to just call.
No bets were called after the flop. But one was made, by the opener. When everyone folded, he showed JJ.
Nifty.
Tommy
You're right, a nifty concept. I'll think about this one for days. This might give me a whole new line of thinking on seat selection.
It could also work in other ways. If the blinds are not quite bright enough to not raise the guy, then you can dump a mediocre hand or slow play a monster. It would be cute if the blind tried to steal over his JJ and you had AA.
I'm curious. If you were to rank the players at the table, how would you rank the limper, the two blinds, and yourself?
It DOES go that way sometimes. Typically the only player a robber has to worry about having a high pair is the limpy opener. But several times I (and the guys I learned this from) having gotten paid off big by limping behind a limper with AA or KK, to trap the robbers. This works when the limper is someone who limps often and plays lots of hands. The robbers in the blinds need not fear his big pair, since it's very unlikely he has one. And they don't put me on one, because I surely would have raised with AA with a limper already in, right? Well, not always.
This limp is not as dangerous as it seems because let's say several others limp in too and now I'm sitting there with AA against five completely unknown hands, and I'm out of position. No problem. I gear down mentally and I'm ready to muck my hand. No way I'll lose a significant amount unless an ace comes or maybe a nut flush draw. This is a classic case of Brunsonism, when aces win a small pot or lose a big one.
As to rating players, there's no point in a rating that compares a player to the field. All that matters is how each player rates against me. In other words, a big-long-range-loser can be "better" than me when his game happens to match of well for him against mine. And visa versa. The players in the blinds are players that I rarely bust and they've busted me plenty of times. The limper was a guy who I have a reverse record against.
Tommy
I had a situation arise this weekend that falls under the last post that Tommy made and would love to have some feedback on this small problem. I was involved in a six handed no-limit holdem and omaha hi game with 5-10-25 blinds and none other than Ray Zee sitting across the table from me. (a small side note that I came to this game mostly just to meet and play with Ray and he is both an incredible player and a joy to have in a game, we are all very fortunate to be able to read anything that he shares with us about poker or gambling in general) That said... the stack sizes varied from just under a thousand to just over six thousand with myself having about 5200 at the time of this hand. The game contained a couple of loose fairly passive players and usually consisted of some preflop action and a big bet (especially in holdem) taking down the pot on the flop or turn. I pick up two aces one off the big blind and limp the loose player to my left raises to 75 and the small and middle blind call and the action is to me, what to do? Two of the callers are short stacks with about 1000 and 1500 in front of them, but the middle blind has me covered and at this point I couldn't put any of them on a hand if I had to. I used the loose player to my left to protect and enhance my possibilites with AA (he had been doing all game for me) and was left with a tough decision on whether to limp again and as Tommy said gear down and prepare to muck or lay a huge trap (hopefully not on myself) and maximize with this hand, or obviously re-raise and define my hand to the table. I'll post the ensuing events after some opinions on what the best course of action to take are would be. Thanks. J.Brown P.S. Ray if you have any comments or interesting thoughts from that night of poker I'd love to see them or e-mail my at the above address. thanks again
I don't like to limp with aces here, there are too many players and too many potential hitchhikers. I would like too get head up, but the two short stacks worry me.
On the other hand, if I am looking for an opportunity to slow play aces (for example, to demonstrate that I can do it), this might be a good chance for the same reasons: the short stacks make it conceivable that I will show the hand down.
Another situational play might be to bet more than half of the raiser's stack if there's a chance he'll find it threatening. If he drops the small blind's call goes from 2:1 to close to 1:1, and you may get it head up with the middle blind, which to me is ideal. I would have to be there to know if this makes any sense at all.
Nine times out of ten I just move it all in and take the three hundred.
Basically I agree with Phat Mack (is that pronounced "fat" ?) and try to take it right here. But I might raise 500 and see what happens.
I think about this situation and decide to take it right there by raising 1000. It works and I almost get the loose raiser to my left to put in the rest of his money with KcQc??!! The part that became interesting is the middle blind showed JJ and mucked and then asked the dealer to run out the cards. (private game and it is done very quickly) The board ends up reading JxxxA and the ensuing discussion is whether or not I get to stick around to the river or not if we both see the flop. What scenarios would cause a fold before the river other than the obvious 5000 bet on the flop? Do you see the river with AA and no possible straights or flushes in this situation? This could have obviously been a huge pot and win for me if the hand is played out differently and I had been dominating this player the entire night so I might have gotten stubborn and not folded under almost any circumstance. Comments and Help appreciated. J.Brown
Hard to say without being there, but in general if a guy calls a huge bet before the flop, he's got AA or KK, awaiting further developments in both cases. I'd have a hard time putting him on JJ.
Tommy
My guess is if I have AA and the flop comes Jxx, it all goes in on the flop. Depending on what happened before the flop, if he bets into me he could have anything from AJ to an over pair. If I lead, I go all in.
Incidentally, this same situation happened to me last summer. I had the AA. I bet 500 before the flop, my opponent hit a set of J's on the flop, we got the remaing 2000 in, and I lost.
After the flop, my opponent criticised my play. He said my 500 bet wasn't enough to get him to drop JJ, and I should have bet him off his hand. I disagreed: when I have AA, I want a call from JJ every time.
Again, stack size is everything. A general rule of thumb is that if player A knows or very much suspects that player B has a big pair and will bet the flop, player can profitably call ANY raise preflop if the stack sizes are 10x the raise or more.
So in your example, the raise was 1/4 the stack sizes (meaning the smallest stack). Not a good call. If you had each had $5000, and he thought you would stay committed postflop, then calling $500 would have been reasonable. Oddly, 2-2 is "better" than JJ in these situations, and QQ and KK are not good at all because you can flop a set and maybe not get paid.
Tommy
Presuming the other players had me covered, I'd move all-in if my stack was less than about 3X the pot. Otherwise I'd probably raise half my stack and give someone a chance to get strung out.
Tommy
NL holdem @ binions 1,2,5 blinds. My general philosophy on draws is: if I am drawing to the nuts and it is checked to me I check hoping that someone gets a free card hits the draw along with me and I break them. I have had this happen several times. If I am drawing small or ignorant I bet hoping to take it down right there knowing I have outs and position if called.
The Hand: Tight UTG raises to $25 gets called in 1 place I call on the button with AcQc BB calls. We each have about $1k. Flop is 8h9cTc. It is checked to me I check my nut draw. Turn is Ah, checked to me again I bet $100 UTG check raises me $400 what would you do?
With the two tone board on the turn, your opponent should fear any club or heart on the river. Obviously, if it's a club, you can win with the nuts. Do you think you have a big enough stack and a tight enough image to blow him away on the river if a heart comes?
If yes, then I'd call. You should have 9 outs to the nut club flush. The 3 remaining jacks may be enough for you to make a higher straight (though one of these jacks is likely in your opponent's hand). The 10 remaining hearts should allow you to steal the pot if your opponent is capable of laying down a big straight to an apparent flush.
My only real fear with this plan is if your opponent has JQ of hearts and will bet out on the river if a heart comes. (or if he's just too stubborn to fold to a big bluff) If you can count on the success of the bluff, then half the deck on the river should help you win this pot.
5-5 PL Holdem game. 9 players at the table. Everybody involved in this pot has over $1,500 in front of them. I'm in the small blind with the 5&6 of diamonds. UTG calls and one late player (LP) calls. I check. BB checks.
Flop comes 7d 10s 3d
I check. BB checks. UTG bets 20. He automatically bets in this position. LP raise 20 making it 40 to me. I figure him for Ace-ten or a set(he might have Aces, but Jacks through Kings he would have raised pre-flop). I have a weak flush draw and a gutshot straight draw. I've only got my blind invested so far.
Call, fold or raise? And why?
I called. So did the BB and UTG folded.
Turn is the 2c.
Check. Check. Bet $40. $40 seems to me to be a weak bet. This confirms A-10 in my mind, but makes possible Ace-7. Again, should I call, raise or fold? And why?
If I raise, I am only worried about the BB. I'm pretty sure the bettor will fold to any pressure. If the BB calls a raise I don't know where I stand on the river and if he re-raises me I obviously have to fold. A call says I'm drawing to a flush (or maybe a straight). Is a fold here right?
I call. BB calls. Turn is the Queen of diamonds.
Now what? There is 280 in the pot, but I don't know what the BB has. I hate making my hand and not knowing where I stand.
I bet 75. Here was my thinking. I might have the best hand. If the BB has missed then he will fold and I'll probably be paid off by LP. If I'm beat by the BB, but he doesn't have the nuts, then he'll just call and LP will either call or fold. If I check and the BB bets the pot then I'll either make a crying call (maybe win, maybe lose) or I'll fold. My bet was mostly to ensure that I get a showdown. Obviously if I bet 75 and the BB raises the pot, I'll fold.
Thoughts? Other than fold on the flop, which I will do sometimes and won't do other times. I'll post the results later.
Both players called. The BB had the J-9 of diamonds for a higher flush and LP had J-10o.
These were the worst cards LP showed down all night. As he showed them, which he didn't have to do, he said "nice acting you two." I think this was because I took a moment to figure out where I was on the river.
The BB told me after the hand was over that he was indeed going to bet big on the river until I bet out. Then he didn't know where he stood.
So, my last "defensive" bet was good. But judging from results, I should not have been in the hand at all. I have four outs the whole way (any 4). But automatically folding this on the flop everytime seems rather weak-tight. I also am thinking that a pot sized turn bet might have won it for me.
Depending on your image, I think the play would be to check-raise the pot on the turn. Checking from the blind in an unraised pot means you could have 72o, or any other garbage 2 pair hand. The only obstacles I could see is if the LP was underplaying a set to string you guys along (unlikely), or the BB was attempting to trap with a similar garbage hand.
Even with his flush draw, the BB would probably have a tough time calling. After all, this is a play you could make with Ad2d as a semi-bluff. The LP would almost certainly have to dump it.
The problems with calling to chase your draws are that you're not sure if there is a better diamond draw out there, and that even if you hit your 4 for the nuts, you're very unlikely to get paid off for very much.
The only other option is see is folding on the turn.
In your 1st post you said that LP might be on a set. Though possible I don't think he'd have played it that soft with a four flush possible. My first instinct was to re-raise the flop (full pot bet). By putting in the 2nd raise here you're indicating a set that you don't want to go any further. You'd make it extremely hard for any other flush draw to call and most likely would get LP to fold right there. If anyone calls you have 1 or 2 draws to the flush depending on the action. This of course is a knee knocker if you get a call on the flop but I think your best chance to win was there. A pot-size bet on the turn would also make them assume a set but they might wonder why you'd wait and then may call. By calling the flop and the turn you definately told them you were on a flush draw. I do like the amount of the bet on the river though. It probably got you off as cheap as possible.
Keep playing hard!
Anybody here play PL Stud? I haven't seen too many posts and I was wondering why? Is it just not a very popular game?
Thanks! Dru
Here in the UK virtually all poker is pot-limit and some (though not much) Stud is spread. I basically learned how to play (to an extent) in PL Stud tournaments.
The problem is that unless that stacks are deep you are invariably all-in by 5th street and the later streets don't really come into play. In cash games you often have enough chips to play though and it can be quite lucrative. The bigger tournaments are also well worth playing.
Stud is however not spread very much at all generally (I think my local club spreads it much more than any other for some reason) and is a distant third behind Hold-Em and Omaha.
Andy.
Well, 8h9hThJd may not be the best hand to chase 2 pairs of aces with, but it's not too bad: AcAs9c2d 30.5% AhAdxx 29.5% 8h9hThJd 40%
5d6d7h8h does a little better winning 47% versus 26% 26% respectively.
If 8h9hThJd is up against AcAs9c2d and KhKdxx then of course the aces go up dramatically to 46%, kings 22% and 89TJ wins 32%. If it is the black kings then the Aces go down 2% and the 89TJ goes up 2%.
Very interesting! I wouldn't have guessed, well DIDN'T guess 89TJ was nearly so well placed. Clearly, it was an easy call even if the other two hands were AAxx and KKxx (because of the dead money).
Did you calculate this or do it on a simulator?
If you're not already too bored with the numbers, what is the answer if the Ah is suited up?
RFL.
See my analysis above for a few othe match-ups. It is tiltled Omaha matchups for Fossil. i did it with a simulator.
nt
My first thought was that JK had an easy call getting more than 2-1 if he really put you both on aces of some sort. The analysis seems to prove that. Here are some runs I did using 25,000 hands on Poker Probe.
In all cases I gave you Ac9c2dAs and gave JK 8d9hThJh. I varied the other AA hand as shown below.
Run 1. The AA has a monster AdAhKdQh. Win %, including the shares of the numerous splits for the AA hands are as follows: AA92- 31.4%, AAKQ double-suited 33.5% and 89TJ 35.1%.
Run 2. The other AA has a weaker 54o has his side cards. AA92 ss- 24.5%, AA54o 25.6% 89TJ- 49.6%
Run 3. The ultramonster AAKK double-suited. AA92- 28.8%, AAKK ds- 39.7% and 89TJ 31.6%
Run 4. This should be as close to the worst it gets for the 89TJ hand. I gave the other guy AAJT, with his non-heart Ace suited. AA92- 35.4%, AAJT ss- 34.6% 89TJ- 30.0%
Given the money that JK already had in the pot and the fact that he put you both on AAxx, his call was correct.
For fun, let's say he was wrong and give the other guy another big hand that has him more dominated, like KhKdQhJd. In that case, his equity falls to 29% and yours goes up to nearly 47%.
How about JJKK double-suited? Assuming it is diamond and spades, leaving JK's flush draw live, the 89TJ equity is still 29%.
Bottom line is that even if his read is wrong he is still getting money odds. If anyone can think of a worse scenario, they will have to run it theirself as I am off to dinner.
I didn't necessarily think Jack's last call was wrong (due to the dead money, as you say). I just wish he hadn't caught, or that he decided to play conservative and folded anyway.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, your original post said something that has sort of worried me for days now--afraid it would give your hand away if you raised before the flop--. Seems to me that the hand may be OK to call with, but not really worth a raise. If flop does not hit your flush or aces, what are you left with? I like a hand that has more ways to hit agood draw on the flop. Having played with Keller,I think that his raise tells you he has a hand he wants to play, likely a wrap...after that flop he is there till the end. good luck, Jim
First I apologize for the length...
Are there any opinions on showing cards to opponents? I promise I'm not bitter about getting beat on these two hands tonight but in the past I have shown other players a winner, or a huge favorite, and gotten them to lay down a draw that would have won...
This is a 1-5 spread limit game 1&2 blinds, I would define this game as loose in the past, but it has tightened up...
I get KK in the BB and am up against two raises, I just call because the player who re-raises is ultra-tight and to be honest I thought he had aces.
Flop : J-9-4 rainbow, I check raise and get two callers
Turn : K I bet he calls, river is a ten and his pocket queens make a straight.
Earlier, I showed someone a made flush, 89, on the turn who had top two, aces and tens and he folded, another guy with the King of clubs calls and we see a ten pair the board on the river. If I didn't show he most likely wins the pot.
Do you give too much away by simply showing your cards in rare cases like this? I'm not advocating using this reguraly or even more than once, but people who are calling with 2-6 outs in a large pot can only call you on the river if they can win. Ex. set vs. a flush draw, gutshot etc... A bet on the end won't net more money if the flush misses.
2nd Hand. I have 45s on button and limp in and call a raise from SB.. Flop comes 4-4-8 it is checked to me and I bet. Turn is a blank maybe a 2 but puts two spades on board. SB bets into me and I raise, SB calls. River is a 10s giving SB tens full I check it down thinking SB wanted to re-raise.
What does one lose by showing trips on the turn to a raiser? In this case nobody would have called a 2 outer, correct? I realize stronger opponents might "put a move on you", but I don't think you lose bets against weaker opponents. Showing also is a form of protection in a game that has loose callers who will routinely call all the way with gutshot or equiv. Also, I know showing cards, only 1 usually, is often routine in NL games, any thoughts would be appreciated on this topic.
If you do this, you lose the bets for when they call with their 2-outer and miss. If you have trips against an overpair, you want them to call with an overpair, because they will miss over 20 times for every time they hit.
Don't let a couple of outdraws make you lose sight of the big picture.
Binions 1,2,5 PLHE. all fold to cutoff who limps i am on the button and raise to $25 w/red aces. All fold back to cutoff who calls w/o hesitation we both have over 1k. this dude likes to call with suited connectors but will fold or re-raise otherwise. Flop is 2h3c5h he checks I bet $50 he calls. Turn is 4s, giving me the low straight. He checks, i get a bad feeling and check behind him. River is Qh he bets out $150 I fold. He rakes emotionless but out of the corner of my eye I see him give a friend at the table a look like, "oooh I wanted a call". Would you have played it different? I cant help thinking I folded a split pot. I believe that since I had the Ace of hearts I could have come over the top and taken it down if I had any guts, or is that stupidity?
You maybe should have called the river, but probably not. No way you should have raised, unless you were perfectly capable of raising preflop with some hand containing a 6 (A6s, 66, 67, etc.). If you raise and he can't give you credit for a 6 or 67, then he folds if he has nothing, calls if he has an A, and reraises if he has a 6 or 67 (or is bluffing again). In none of these scenarios do you make any extra money by raising.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, there was, I believe three hearts on board and Jim had the Ace.
Jim, I think your play on the river is fine, but, even with the low straight, on the turn I would still bet. He needs a six in his hand to beat you and an Ace to split. I like your odds.
x
dont forget the hearts, greg.
No way you should have raised, unless you were perfectly capable of raising preflop with some hand containing a 6 (A6s, 66, 67, etc.).
the old omaha representing the nut flush with the bare ace trick.
I'm a pretty successful middle-high limit holdem player. I dunno how to play 7 card stud at all. Can anyone gimme an Idea of a good starting hand and some of the concepts involved? Thanx a lot. Im kinda interested now that i won a nice little sum playing that recently. i think i was lucky. any input appreciated.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but 7csfap from 2+2 and the Konstantin Othmer book are the way to go, if you study them, and have good card sense, you'll do fine.
I'd also read Mason's post about why HE and 7cs players seem to do poorly at the other game. I learned HE first and 7cs was my worst game. It always seemed like I had to fold. After reading 7 Card Stuf for Advanced Players, I realized that there are a ton of situations where there is enough money in the pot to justify calling for a few cards and seeing what happens. I also had trouble with not watching more than one board of cards, remembering what cards were dead, and certain judgement calls. Some of the plays are profitable when you can get the pot heads-up, which is a huge judgement call. Recently, I've gotten a little board with HE and I like 7cs the more. I still have some of those problems that I started out with, but I'm getting much better the more I actively practice.
ummm...i just ordered two stud books... but before that arrives can anyone gimme an idea of a good starting hand? Like in holdem we all want Pocket Aces or kings in the hole. Besides a 3 of a kind what is a good starting hand? Is a runt A-K-3 playable? Help!
Stick to pairs and 3 flushes mostly, till you get to read the books. AK3 is not generally playable, AKQ is if the cards are live, but is still surprisingly marginal. A good deal depends on the other cards that are up.
As DeadBart suggested, 3 overcards are almost nothing at 7 stud. 7 stud is a game of PAIRS. Period. Other good starting hands but with a lot of limpers (that is where you aren't in early position and the pot is not raised) are 3 straight cards (the best is 10-J-Q) or 3 flush but pay attention to play Big flush cards that could give you a Big pair along the way. It's superflous to add that the cards you need must be LIVE. The very best starting hand is definitely a rolled up trips (but you are 424 to 1 dog to get it)
Summary:
PAIRS: Many players in the pot= you can play with ALL pairs better if the third card is an ACe or a KIng (2-A)2, (K-J)J etc, and better if your pair is hidden (7-7)8 for example. If you have a small pair (2 through 6) you need that your cards are ALL LIVE Shorthanded pot: enter only with big pairs 10----A and pay attention to a raise coming from an overcard
3 to a straight: as general rule of thumb play only 8-9-10, 9-10-J and 10-J-Q, better if 2 card are suited (excellent if all cards are suited-----dreams)
3 flush cards: abandon 3 small flush cards and play 3 flush cards only if you have at least a big card in your starting hand. Books say that you can play a flush draw in 3rd only if you see in all other boards a maximum of 2 cards of your suit. In many sessions I noted that it's better to enter the pot if you see max 1 your suited card in other hands.
If you have other specific questions write them.
Hope this helps
Marco
This helps a whole bunch...But i have several mroe questions...
Preflop, i've played a lot like holdem...in that if im last to act and everyone has folded I iwll raise the person who"brings it in". Its been succesfful thus far, but i wanna know if its effective or not.
I tend to play very timidly which is not good in this game. When is a good time to raise? What kind of cards are good on 4th street. When should I stop chasing a flush? How about if you're holding a 3 straight, when should u give up the draw? This is implying that 1 or 2 max cards have come out that could have helped ya?
Is it wise to fold low pairs when an Ace or King has raised, or is it wise to call?
What does live mean, that the cards are visible but other players? I think thats what it means but again i'm not sure.
What kind of cards can you call an average player's raise with? Is a hand like KQ10 playable preflop? Im excited about my book coming, but would appreciate another other info i can recevie to inmprove my game.
if you're just starting i think the best thing to do is to muck junk as quickly as possible on 4th street - it will save you a bunch of money
e.g. starting with 789 and you catch a 3 pass - similarly if you start with 2s up to 8s and fail to trip up or make 2 pair on 4th st and there's action - pass - chasing is tempting but even more expensive than at holdem coz there are more rounds
Yellow, couple of thoughts:
Raising if you're last to the bring-in is frequently a good play assuming the antes are enough to make it worthwhile, and the player is weak, don't pop it too much though. In games with observant players I tend to pass on this sometimes because it gives you a tighter image that you can use to steal down the road when you do have garbage like a K up with nothing in the hole. Again, also, live cards matter. Raising to steal with a J up in last position when there are two j's out can get you in trouble agaist strong players.
A good time to raise is if you need to get the pot heads up or at least knock out players, this is particlarly true on 4th street if you start with say, A-Q-7 suited and catch an ace or queen on 4th. And, if you're in the lead, pop it, free cards will kill you in this game and a lot of the casino games are weak-loose so you'll get a feeder line of callers. If you've got the goods, bet 'em, if you want a free card, that's a great play too, particulalry in weak tight games where you can raise on 4th for 1/2 a bet, and get a free 5th st. card if you know that it will be checked to you. Also, establishing a table image as a check raiser helps with this too.
Live cards means that you can't see the cards you need, i.e. if you have 9-10-j-q on 4th, where are the kings and 8's? And, something to keep in mind is, if you have that hand and someone with a king up is popping it, they likely have kings meaning more than just the one king you see is dead, hand reading is important in the live card area since you can gain extra info.
Marco,
One of my favorite stud hands is 3 small flush cards, with no other of same suit out, even better if none of the same rank out either, and getting the bring in cheep. Then to get a four flush on the next card, I'll call with a few people in, raise when I make it.
Sometimes 3 little flush is profitable but not vs good players and probably is an easy read hand
Marco
I think some of the advice people give is way too tight and as I noted I suspect some dont know the odds.
If your flushes are easy to read you aren't playing them correctly! I fyou wait until you make a flush to raise you are costly yourself money! (Eg if you make a totally live 4 flush on 4th you should jam away unless of course someone has paired theri door card...), if make a 4 flush on 4th and it totally live you will make a flush about 51% of the time, so basically you are winning half of the bets that go in. (You usually have more ways to win so its better than that). Those who think 3 flushes are not profitable against good players are stoned!!
On how far to go w/your draws, you often should chase all the way to the river w/4 flushes and openened draws unless someone's board is super scary or it appears someone else has a better drawing hand than you do. This is really important.
There are some hands ,which contrary to what was written, are correct to take all the way to the river unless someone's board is superscary. (eg any pair w/a A kicker vs a known pair (less than A's of course)) goes tot he river unless things get scary. (This is ofcourse if it is heads up).
Note that you need to find other hands to jam w/other than these otherwise you may become too predictable...
ANother important point is that if you plan to call on 5th you should be prepared to go to the river.
ALso extremely impoprtant is to consider the price the pot is offering you. YOu'd be surprised how many hands it is correct to call w/... (and you'd also be surprised how often you are going to be told that you didn't have odds to call when you did!!!!)
LIve cards are of paramount inportance.
Alot of how you play depends on who you are playing w/ and the ante structure.
If you are just beginning and not playing a terribly high ante game you pbly should play very tightly and play big pairs, big 3 flushes and big straights, and pair and over cards. Again if your hand is not live you pbly shouldn't play unless its an over pair. to the board. YOu want to play most big pairs heads up, or at least against a small field...
Drawing hands often prefer a big field though at times an over card can make a difference. You can often reraise a raiser with an over card to his probable pair if you have a 3 flush. You can often raise w/this hand. This play often makes an impression on your opponents. They won't believe it if you make a flush (they will mutter and think you are a fish), and now they will pay you off all the way when you have A's while they put you a flush and chase all the way w/their underpairs... blawahahaha!
ALot of hands which you can see cheaply to forth that can improve to big hands are also good if its cheap and unlikely to be raised...
(eg say a hand like 7h8h Tc) if no 9's are out , few hearts are out (and few if any J and 6's). You are looking to catch a 9 and then you are in good shape.
Many stud players even at very high levels have no idea of what the odds of making hands are. No one seems to know that for example openended straight draw on 4th gets there about 1/2 the time (if all you cards are live), a flush draw is a little better. In general alot of people simply assume a big over pair is a favorite against anything which isn't made which is not the case...
That's a start, alot comes from experience.
As far holdem [players don't play stud well and vice versa, i don't quite buy it. The player simply needs to rethink waht is important. Eg in holdem one needs to be paranoid about kickers if you have a big pair, in stud this is rarely an issue as it is unlikely some will have the same pair as you. One needs to learn what is important...
Good luck!
I think you got some good responses here. Play tight while you are learning the game but loosen up your starting standards a little as your skill level increases.
Don't worry if the other players make wise cracks about your tight play , if they have a hand they will play against you , make them pay. Most important , don't get bluffed and call those river bets against you.
In a post below Jim mentions bluffing on the end with a dry ace into a three flush. I wonder how many here have tried this gambit. I know of some who play the dry ace like a bat out of hell (o'neal longson) but it is not a part of my game, am I missing someting?
This also applys to big bluffs when a 4 straight hits and you are sure your opponent does not have it. How many among us have the balls to pull off this coup? I have done it before on the prompting of "super/system" but use it sparingly, How many are regulars at one or more of these bluffs?
Please don't answer "it depends" we all know that.
I make the flush play frequently in Omaha when in games where I've established an unimaginitive image.
I make the play less often in HE. More often on a 3 suited flop, less often on the end. For reasons that I don't fully understand, the play seems to work better on a player I have on a baby flush than it does against a player I have on a set or 2 pair.
Yes I do use this play - but I much prefer it at Omaha as the possibility of multiway hands tends to make people err on the side of caution, but I tend to adhere to the standard bluffing criteria, i.e.
1) Preferably heads-up 2) Opponent is not very weak or tilting and he feels the same way about you. 3) Your action is credible based upon your previous betting and the board in front of you. 4) You have leverage (sorry - I'm basing this on a PL game) - no point bluffing a $300 pot if the guy only has $20 left.
In my experience the amount you bet (again assuming a Pl game) is vital - is it consistent with your past actions? Would you really bet the pot with the nut flush on the river when it's checked to you etc?
I'm starting to realise that in the games that I play in, with very solid players, these are the sort of moves you MUST make if you're to generate any sort of worthwhile profit. The good hands/big pots don't come often enough and I feel I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg. A huge, preternatural, life-crushing iceberg.
Next game Thursday. Sad man or not, I currently can't concentrate on anything else:)
mike cunningham
I use this play every once in a while with lots of success. It's because I have a very tight -you could almost say timid- image in the no limit games I play. My image is the unfortunate result of running very cold everytime I play in this game. But I use it to my advantage when I can.
This allows me to make a couple big bluffs per session and steal a pot or two. I think there are some key factors to making this move:
1: Have a tight, risk-averse image. If you are known as a player who will bluff wildly in this spot, don't make the move. You've already set everyone up to call you when you have it.
2: Don't do it from out of position unless you have a VERY good read that your opponent fears the nuts. There's nothing worse than bluffing big into someone with the nuts. Let him check first. That makes it MUCH more likely he doesn't have it.
3: Don't do it if you've been the aggressor. Here's an example from a pot I took down.
I have TT in late position. The flop comes K high two tone. All check the flop. On the turn, an aggressive player bets about half the pot (around $50 if I remember correctly). He might have a flush draw, a king or middle pair. I just call and everyone else drops.
The river brings a flush card and my opponent checks. I bet about $150 and take it down. He seemed angry about the river card so I think he had a real hand.
My smooth call on the turn allowed me to win. Maybe I had the best hand anyway, and maybe I pushed out the top pair.
If I had been bettng all the way with my TT, the river bet looks a LOT less like I made the hand I am representing.
natedogg
I have an idea for a betting structure for hold ‘em that is a hybrid between limit and no limit. For fun, I dub it "Epstein's Hybrid."
The basic rule is that on any betting round where there are only two players still contesting the pot, the betting does not stop until both players have checked it down twice in succession or one of the players goes all in. Even if there is a bet and a call, the first player may bet one unit again.
For example, assume a $20-$40 hybrid game. On the river if there are only two players left contesting the pot, assume Player 1 bets $40 and Player 2 calls. Player 1 then may bet $40 again and again until Player 2 folds. Even if Player 1 checks and Player 2 checks, Player 1 may bet $40 again. If Player 1 checks, Player 2 checks, and Player 1 checks for the second time, then Player 2 may check to see the showdown or Player 2 may bet.
This structure differs from no limit in many ways, starting with the feature that neither player may bet all of his chips at once. A player may make several bluff bets to represent that he intends to keep betting until one of the players is all in, waiting to see if his opponent shows that he is willing to call all the way. The player need not (an may not) take the risk of putting a lot of chips into the pot at once to show strength. Unusually, Player 2 may even bluff call several times to see if Player 1 will maintain the initiative for more than a few betting rounds. If the money is deep, the implied odds may favor trying bluff calls.
I can think of a few variations. The procedure described above would confer a greater than usual advantage on the player with position. If Player 1 checks twice in succession (thus giving up the opportunity to make sure that the betting continues), Player 2 may decide that Player 1 has shown weakness and thus emboldened, take the initiative. One variation to ameliorate this heavy emphasis on position might be that if a player bets after his opponent checks, the player who bet must lead out on the next round of betting, reversing the players’ relative position.
Another variation might be that whenever there have been say four rounds of bets and calls, then the betting unit doubles. This might be necessary if the money is deep compared to the size of the bets. Otherwise it might take a long time before the players can get all in if they so choose. A variation on this variation might be that the betting unit reverts to the original amount whenever the player with the lead decides to check.
One rule that might be necessary to maintain the game structure would be that if the two players make any verbal agreements not to continue to follow the structure, then regardless of their agreement, there can be but one more betting round of one betting unit. This rule is intended to avoid the problem where one player asks his opponent if he wishes to go all in. The opponent should be protected from having to show weakness by declining the offer.
The reason I suggest that the repeated betting is allowed only when the game is two-handed is to avoid problems of collusion.
What do you think the strategic implications of this hybrid structure would be? Do you think other variations might be necessary to make the game playable?
If this is posted to the wrong forum (since it isn't an existing "High Stakes" game), I hope 2+2 will move it to the right place. Maybe it should be in "General Theory."
-- Marc Epstein © 2001
I am seated to the right of the button with a Kh, 10s. Blinds are $1 and $3. All fold to player 2 seats to the right of me. He is usually a non-aggressive player who has recently been changing his game to a more aggressive style. He raises $10. Player between us calls as do i, all others fold. Me and the raiser each have about $300 in front of us and the player in the middle has about $150.
The flop comes Jc, Qc, Ah. The raiser bets $20 into my nut straight. Other player fold and i decide to just call even though there are 2 clubs on the board (bad move). Turn is 7c. Bettor checks to me and I bet $50. He doesnt't hesitate a second to raise me all in. He is a player i live with and play alot of cards with so i usually can read him pretty well. I figure he has got clubs, but not nut clubs. Then i thought about the ways 5th street couls hurt me. If another club comes then all he needs id one club to take it. Or maybe he hasd trips and a board pair would give him the pot. I show him my cards to see if i can get a reaction, then fold.
The other players at the table looked at me like i was insane to fold my straight. I realize my awful play before the fold was assinine but i thought the fold was pretty solid. Afterwards all the players at the table but one say they would have called him.
Anyone have any suggestions or opinions?
Thanks,
Jim
What am I missing? You think the your friend has clubs and you have no way to beat a flush. You are not committed to the pot, so the fold seems like the only reasonable play. Based on the way the post sounded, it seems like you might have the king of clubs? Even if you do, the fold is right. And the player is all in, so you won't be able to bluff him at any point.
never show the table your cards when you fold a good hand...ever. what you've done is give your observant good opponents at least plays which can be used against you.
1. they noticed your smooth call when you flopped the nut straight. slowplay is ok, but you should not beat yourself for not raising there. your opponent may have had a high pair w/flush draw-he would have called.
2. they noticed you can be taken off a great hand when a scare card comes. if i'm playing against you, and i see a straight/flush come on the turn/river, i will bet the pot knowing you will fold.
tootight
you would have gotten all in with way the best of it. He could have as little as AK.
He could of had the same hand as you, but he was just trying to freeze you out if you had clubs.
taxidriver
Hello all.
I happen to be the player that Jim is referring to. This has been eating him up ever since Sat. night. He keeps asking me what I had. Hate to break your heart Jim, it's not going to happen. One thing that I will say is that when I saw that third club come, I knew he didn't have the flush, and I knew that if I bet his whole stack he would let it go. (the cards that is)
I bet my whole stack... I took it down.
If Jim had gone all in right there on the flop, you would have folded, right?
Well you just answered his question.
natedogg
I had a problem the other day at a club were there was collussion between two players, I played for a while used some tactics to my advantage but then a new player arrived at the table. I noticed that over 95% of his deals meant winning with monster hands such as Four of a Kind, Full House and Straight Flushes. He won over $600. My question is how do you stop someone who is cheating using culling and stacking methods? What defenses can you take?
Report it and walk away from the game!
What is 'culling and stacking' ???????
You get rid of him. Or yourself. If the situation is such that you will be believed and are not risking your health, you say something, and get the guy removed. If it is in a club where you feel you're at risk or nothing good will come of it, you just quit.
Or, you turn into Rambo on the guy, and shoot him in the back of the head. Watch out for jail if you choose this option.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Go to the Archives and find my fairly recent post "Important Cardroom Procedures". This details some procedures which, if followed, will greatly reduce the chance of such shenanigans and will also help the game to run more smoothly in other ways too. Note that I failed to mention counting the deck stub which should be done also. If you play in a regular game in a home or club it would be wise to follow these procedures if you can get the group to start doing it. If you can't achieve this for whatever reason then follow Greg's advice. If you only play in casinos (as I do now) you generally won't have to worry about these types of problems.
I am assuming that the cheat was culling from the muck while he was putting the deck together before shuffling and then stacking the deck by some technique. If he was milking the deck with an overhand shuffle then his shuffle may be against the club rules. No club should allow overhead shuffling because of how easy it is to stack a deck with that shuffle.
Before reporting a potential cheat to the house, it is a good thing if you can spot some particular aspect of his method which you can point out to the floor person. Even if you cannot spot something specific with his shuffle, there are other places to watch. For example, he still needs to get past the cut and that is another place where he is vulnerable to discovery.
Most cheats work with a partner who is not stacking the deck and who appears to be perfectly innocent. A cheat who only deals winning hands to himself is taking a special risk because of how easily he can draw attention to himself by winning mostly when he deals. Therefore, the person cutting the cards may be his partner and be doing a false cut or crimping the deck so the cards can easily be put back together with the stack on top, after being picked up.
If the cutting player is not his partner then he may be putting the cards back together just the way they came apart. Another technique is to maintain a break in the deck where the cards were cut with your little finger and performing a slip cut once the cards are back in your hands. If you can spot any of these specific moves then you have something to go to a floor person with that will make their job much easier.
If you are in a room where there is a competent floor person, get up and discreetly alert him to the problem. Ask him if you can change tables and tell him which player, you suspect of cheating. Also, tell him how you think the player is cheating and tell him what to look for if you have identified any specific moves. If there is no other table to play then you might still want to go back to the game. If you do go back, then I would avoid bumping heads with the cheat until the floor person has time to watch him and hopefully throw him out of the club. If you do this carefully then the cheat will not even know you talked to the floor person.
When I was young and immortal, I used the sit-out method of making a cheat leave the table, but now that I am mortal, I just get up and leave the game. Remember, this is something which I no longer recommend, but I mention it just in case you are still young enough to be immortal, as I once was.
If you are playing hold'em and you are in a position from which you can sit-out each time he is dealing, then do so. If you are not in such a position then try to move to a spot from which you can conveniently sit-out. If you are in a game such as 7CS then sitting out each time he has the cards should be no problem.
Sooner of later he will get the message and leave before the rucus starts, or someone at the table will ask why you are sitting out so often. Once you are asked about sitting out, it is time to sincerely compliment Mr. X on how very lucky he has been tonight. Tell him how you admire how lucky his touch is when he is handling the cards. Explain that you do not want to play against someone who has such a lucky touch because you know you have no hope of ever being more lucky than him. Try to sound as sincere as possible when telling everyone about why you are sitting out. If you do your job well then, from that point forward, all eyes will now be on Mr. X. each time he has the cards. In most cases, he will not be able to continue with his little game and will play another round or two and then leave.
Nowadays, I leave the game and inform the floor person of the problem. Sometimes I just go home, sometimes I go to another table and soemetimes I wait until the house removes the problem player or he goes away of his own accord. However, I recommend leaving the game even if it is the only game available.
Good Luck, William
This seems like excellent advice. How many times in your career have you detected such cheating?
I have seen cheating going on a few times Dave. I find it interesting that even very low limit home games seem to invite cheaters.
Years ago, when I was playing on the road full time I joined the Moose, the Elks, the Eagles and any other animal you can think of in order to play poker no matter where I went. Many of the lodges had what I would call stag night in which the local farmers would get together to play poker, shoot pool and drink. I have seen a few cheats in these games but it was minor stuff and they usually were not very good. Maybe once a year I would spot someone who was good and I suspect that some were good enough that I did not detect them at all. In all fairness, I was playing full time and I put in many hours each year.
I personally believe that casinos and card rooms are the safer places to play compared to private games.
William
Thanks for the reply. I need to be more perceptive. The only time I know I encountered a cheat was years ago in a nickel-dime-quarter game. This drunken idiot took off his shirt in the middle of a game (it was 95 degrees and muggy) and he had a king stuck to his sweaty chest. Apparantly he'd forgotten it. He still lost that night!
This hand was played by a friend of mine and later related to me. We had quite a debate over the proper play. The game was $40-80 Stud with a structure of a $5 ante and $10 bring-in. I will leave out a lot of minor details.
Deuce brings it in, a couple of folds, my friend raises with split Kings. He is called by a player with a 6h showing whom he does not know (but whom he previously observed taking tremendous heat with a split pair of fours and following the hand to the river). One other player calls. By 5th Street my friend has caught running Queens for a board of K Q Q and the player with the 6h now shows 6h 8h 3c. The open Queens bet, the 6h 8h 3c calls and the third player folds.
On 6th Street the opponent pairs his doorcard making open Sixes and my friend catches nothing special. My friend with open Queens bets and is raised and calls. On the 7th Street my friend checks and folds.
MULTIPLE CHOICE: Of the following ways to play this hand from Sixth Street on, please rank them in order of preference and give a brief explanation of your choices:
On 6th Street:
A) Bet 6th Street and Call if Raised
B) Check and Call on 6th Street
On 7th Street, if on 6th Street you bet and are raised by the open Sixes:
C) Check and Call
D) Check and Fold
Of course further discussion is welcomed, but my friend and I have a dinner bet riding on a certain aspect of the multiple choice and I laid 2-1 on this bet (dinner at a pretty nice restaurant vs. dinner at the local pancake house). LOL. So that is in part the reason for the multiple choice. It also may help in the process of breaking the hand down a bit. Of course there are other options, but these would probably cover the primary options against an unknown player. My friend has been playing Stud for many years and is a respectable player.
Bet and call the raise on 6th. It is very likely he is on a draw and you cant give a free card. Check and fold the river if you don't improve.
^
are you nuts???
you have kings up and don't call on 7th street with $720 in the pot, approx: 8:1 odds. you gotta pay this guy off. esp. if you say that this guy is loose.
am i missing something???
tootight
check and call, on 6th and 7th. Based on his previous play, this guy could easily have 2 pair also, and was trying to win with a scare raise, which he did.
Betting into your board is scary, but it's too late in the hand to fold. Just my opinion.
taxidriver
...above post "hand For Discussion, Multiple Choice" if you can get to it in time before it gets too many responses on this wrong forum. I just reposted it on the Other Poker Games forum. Sorry for the error and inconvenience. Thanks, Mark
B. The pot is too big to fold, and this play minimizes losses. Also, if you bet into him, you won't know what a raise means unless you know the player. Also, if I were the 66, I would raise pretty much no matter what, and then decide what to do on 7th street based upon your response. Most people will just call on 6th unless they can beat trip 6s, and then I need to decide if they're going to call me down (in which case I bet trips and check 2-pair) or fold to a bet (bet no matter what I have).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You suggest by your comment about the split 4's that the other player is loose, and possibly, erractic. I would call the raise and check call the river. Saying that, almost the exact same thing happened to me recently, and the other player, who was also drunk, showed me quads. You never know, but I would still show my hand down. Were your friend's cards live?
Yes, the K's and Q's were live.
Well, you never know, and hindsight is 20/10.
In "The Theory of Poker" it says says that a powerfull weapon against a semi-bluff is to semi-bluff-raise somone you think is semi-bluffing. I wonder if this is still true in pot or no limit poker.
In limit, a semi-bluff re-raise is only going to cost you a couple of bets if your opponant has a real hand. In pot(or no) limit, you are risking your stack... ( of course, you are always risking yor stack in big bet poker).
I supose that it strongly depends on the stacks after the re-raise.
any comments ?
The difference between semibluffing limit and bigbet games is that semibluffing in a limit game only has to pick up the pot a small percentage of the time to be worth it because the size of the pot is large compared to the bet. The "semi-" part comes into play when the bluff itself isn't getting a good price, but the extra outs push you over the edge to profitability on the play. Now if you change the numbers such that the bet is much larger proportionately compared to the size of the pot (as in pot and no limit), you see that the opponent must fold quite a bit for it to be worth it. If he is not folding that often, then the extra outs that garner the "semi-" tag probably are not going to make the difference between losing and making money on the play. If your read on the opponnet is accurate, he will probably fold most of the time unless he has a monster draw out, but in that case, I wouldn't have classified his bet as a semibluff.
If you can make a very good read on your opponent the counterraise is a good strategy. But at the same time, if he can read you, two things can go wrong. He can actually have what he is representing and call you down, in which case you just spewed a lot of money on your read. Or if he and you have more money, he can raise back enough that makes it difficult for you to call. So it is partially a function of the stack sizes, but the opponent reading is the big factor there.
Anyway, semibluffing isn't that good a weapon in big-bet poker compared to limit because the relative investment in big-bet poker is so much greater that if you frequently make these plays you will get caught often enough that it costs you a lot of money. But in limit it only costs you one or two bets. My two cents.
JG
sure right about comparative cost and risk between lmt and P/P. BUT those elements make the re-raise a stronger weapon in P/L. good luck, Jim
Is it all that bad a play? I think if you are deep off the table as well the semi-bluff is a great play.
Say you put your opponant on pp9-J and you have AQs flop comes 3 rags 2 of your suit, right now you are behind yet have 15 ways to win the hand with 2 cards coming, your opponent is good enough that he will lay down his hand if beaten on the turn, in these spots i like gambling and gettin money into the middle against these opponents. I think the odds of completing your hand, along with the possibility the opponent will fold make it a worthwhile play...
Others opinions?
Right. But when I think of the term "semibluff," I think of raising with a gutshot or something. Most of the equity is picking up the pot right there, but some is hitting you slim draw. In the example you give, there are a lot more outs -- as there needs to be given the extra price you may be forced to pay in big bet poker -- so I wouldn't think of that as a "classical semibluff" as described in WP. We may just be at a semantic difference. But when you have lots of outs, yeah, it's cool to raise a large amount.
JG
n/t
Would like some help with a PL Holdem hand I played this weekend. I'm a solid limit player at 20-40, 40-80 levels, but have only played PL/NL a couple of times. I think I played ok. Any advice?
Game is a PL Holdem with 5-5 blinds. I'm on the button holding KsJs. Game has been pretty loose before the flop and tight thereafter. Three players limp in for five, before loose aggressive player raises to 30. This player has been raising with as little as 9-10o, trying to intimidate the table with a stack of $8K. This is much bigger my $1K, but I figure I'll see the flop because no one else will raise. Five total call. Pot is $180.
Flop comes 7d, 4s, 2s.
All check to maniac who raises $100, solid player calls, I call. I figured this was a pretty weak call, because I'm drawing to the second best hand, but this guy was playing pretty poorly.
Turn is Qs. Second nuts.
All check to me. I'm not sure if I'm getting trapped here, but I figure I can let anyone with the Ace have another card. I bet the pot at $480. Good bet?
Maniac takes 5-6 minutes to think about the call. Finally calls. Solid player folds.
River comes 9d. He checks. I go all in for $300. He calls.
I turn over my flush and he turns over As 4c. Showing a pair of 4's.
Was this guy as crazy as I think or am I missing something? The call on the turn seems weak, but the call on the turn seems to make no sense.
I'm on the button holding KsJs.
What is your dream flop with this hand?
All check to maniac who raises $100, solid player calls, I call. I figured this was a pretty weak call, because I'm drawing to the second best hand, but this guy was playing pretty poorly.
OK, this guy is playing pretty poorly, but there is another guy in the hand. Here you have to be wondering what they both could have. Could either one of them have AsXs? You have two over cards and a flush draw, not a bad hand heads up, but would the solid player be just calling with a big pair (or more) and two spades on the board?
All check to me. I'm not sure if I'm getting trapped here, but I figure I can let anyone with the Ace have another card. I bet the pot at $480. Good bet?
I like it, but I wasn't there. My guess is that if you were trapped, it was by the solid player. If there is a set or a dry As out there (I doubt the set), you have to make them pay to draw.
Solid player folds.
Good news. What would you have done if he had come over the top? A solid PL player acts differently than a solid limit player. Your pot-size bet made it difficult for him to make this play.
Was this guy as crazy ...
I would have to guess yes, but I wasn't there. He must have had you playing position on him w/ an Ace.
I like the way you played this hand.
Drawing to the second nuts against a maniac is fine. Doing so with a "solid player" is VERY dangerous. I would have expected SP to be very likely to have the nuts here. Obviously he didn't, but be very careful of this next time.
Also, I don't like your pot-sized bet on the turn. If someone is trapping you, they aren't going away. If someone has 2-pair or a lesser flush, you want them to be committed, and your full-pot bet is giving them a good chance to get away from their hand. Also, you've invested $130 so far, and should have about $870 in your stack. By betting $480 now, you're committing yourself to the pot, and can't get away if one of these guys check-raises you all-in. However, it appears you played it well, since the maniac is unable to fold for even $300 on the river with his pair of 4s (obviously he's hoping you're bluffing with the Ks and no pair). If you had bet less on the turn, he'd have called, but then probably could've folded the river when you bet $500 or the like into a smaller pot.
In general, I like to give myself some room both ways, and betting $300 on the turn should do that.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
either one of the other posts seem goodplay it might even be OK to just bet $100 to try to keep good player in --- but I want to compliment you on your game selection---very important! Jim
Thanks for everyone replying. I have a few more questions that maybe someone can help me with.
Are there any clubs that allow a player to use the overhand shuffle? Are there any clubs that don't require a cut to be made by another player before the cards are dealt?
Are there any advanced videos that teach effective teaching methods such as stacking and culling using the riffle, overhand and undercut? I'm just curious. Thanks again.
If you want to see just how vulnerable you can be and why you should probably play only in casinos, get Steve Forte's videos (available from 2+2/Conjelco I believe), though I doubt you could really learn to execute such moves by simply watching.
Are there many card mechanics dealing poker in U.S. casinos?
Do the big money tournaments take special precautions to protect against a corrupt dealer dealing winners to a playing co-conspirator?
Have there been any scandals detected or highly suspected at any big-money events?
I understand that opinions may vary highly, but I'd certainly be interested in a variety of viewpoints. Thanks in advance to anyone who cares to share thoughts on this (important?) topic.
These are just my opinions:
1) Highly doubtful
2) When I watched the final table from the bleachers of the WSOP Championship event the last time Stuey Ungar won it, the dealer scrambled the deck before each shuffle and slowly dealt the cards from a slightly fanned spread deck laid flat on the table. Hard for anything to be going on there. In general, too, there is video coverage of really big tournament final tables. The procedures dealers are supposed to follow actually do, if followed, provide a high degree of built-in protection against chicanery, and with so many people watching during a tournament and with video coverage it is hard to imagine anything taking place
3) I haven't heard of any but I don't follow tournaments that much
I used to believe the casino games were completely on the level but I've heard so much lately about cheating that I'm not sure. One thing is for certain, there are many ways to cheat in which you wouldn't even know you were being cheated. Such as dealers dealing seconds or thirds, daubing (?) of decks etc. If you've ever seen the video, "Beat the Cheat" you'd realize how sharp some of the cheaters really are. In some places, the same cards are used for a very long time, so daubing techniques would be very successful. Look for Mike Caro's upcoming (early June) discussion about cheating.
DL Asked:
"Are there many card mechanics dealing poker in U.S. casinos?"
I believe there are a few active mechanics, but not many. One very important thing the eye in the sky does is watch the employees. The main risk to the players in a casino is collusion between a player and a dealer.
A cheating dealer does not have to stack the deck in order to cheat; he need only flash cards to the guy in seat two or three as they are dealt from the deck. It is a very risky business to cheat if you are a casino dealer because of the possibility of losing your ability to earn a wage doing the thing which you have spent some amount of time learning. I do not believe it happens very often, but I am still watchful.
Also, I have seen a move or two at the blackjack tables, but that was years ago and another story.
As for the rest of your questions, I have no direct knowledge.
William
My home game recently began playing pot limit Omaha. Most of the players are decent, but none have any pot limit experience. I have 2 questions, and any advice would be appreciated.
1. What different starting hands should I look for/consider playing as opposed to limit Omaha?
2. What is the best book on pl/nl Omaha?
thanks for any help you guys can offer.
Read the Ciaffone book available at Conjelco.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In addition to the Ciaffone book, I also like "Championship Omaha" by Cloutier and McEvoy. A good read as well as informative and useful.
Regards,
Richard
Ciaffone's Basic Omaha book has a section on Omaha. I would read that before his Pot Limit book. Otherwise the advanced book is heavy going. Also, I would by some software and practice. PLO is quite a game. I recently sat in a game with five players and one five dollar blind. One of the pots went over 3K. You would not think that the loser would employ a check and call strategy at the river, but despite his demeanor of experience and skill, he did exactly that. When shown the nut, he bolted from the cardroom like his hair was on fire. I held my own, despite some seriously poor play. Gotta love it.
that's exactly the game i'm in. 5-6 players, one $5 blind. i mucked x-10-J-Q of hearts and sure enough the board ended with the 7-8-9 of hearts in it. no pair showing, and someone held the A-high flush. i probably could've made some good money with that one. that's what prompted my original question. i don't really consider that a good hand, but maybe worth it in plo?? probably remembering your folded hands can be the death of you in this game.
I'm on my second read-through on the Ciaffone book and am just starting to see the light. Some rough going, though. A dramatic shift of mind-set.
Jon I.
The basic Ciaffone book emphasizes the likelihood of the nut showing up at limit high Omaha. Checking and calling may be permissiable there, though definitely weak. At pot limit, if you can't bet, you probably cannot call, unless you have an excellent read. I doubt you will see tells, but at these stakes, you can see fear.
As far as folding a non nut straight flush draw, with ten jack, I would call. The pot odds are not good, but the implied odds are huge, especially if the money is deep. Mistakes are costly but still...
I don't think there is anything wrong with reprising your memorable hands provided you can learn from them. I keep a journal of each session, with the type of player or game and the significant hands. Most people don't know, but Socrates had an assitant, Pokrates, who said, The unexamined hand is not worth posting. He avoided having to drink the hemlock by sucking out. That will be me.
My hand is Ac2dKdKh I make it $50 to go before the flop There are three blinds 5 5 and 10 I get one two callers flop comes down Qs8c5c everyone checks to me and i bet $120 one caller turn is the Jc my opponent bets $200 I call and raise the pot $790 more.He calls and the river brings a 2h(no low for me)He rolls over his hand for a 6c2c for a six high club flush takes the pot how many mistakes did i make in this pot or how many did my opponent make.One note i had shown the nuts all night when i made a big bet.i just figured the guy liked me and wanted to pay me off.comments needed.
Your hand certainly warrants the pot-size preflop raise, though from early position I probably just call. I think a check on the flop is a better play. You really don't have anything but a low draw, and it's likely that one of the other players has A-2 also. When the Jc came on the turn, I really don't understand why you raised, it's a clear fold here. All you have is a counterfeitable draw at 1/2, or more likely 1/4 of the pot. Don't fall in love with Omaha hands- everything changes with each new card. Besides, A2KK with an unsuited Ace isn't that great to begin with. It's very hard to flop the nuts with that hand and you could easily get stuck drawing for second best and/or getting your low counterfeited.
CH
Craig H,
I don't think you understand the play. He has the cock-block on the nut flush and he figured that since he had been showing the nuts all night, someone with a brain would lay down a six high flush. He also has any low card to chop. I think the play is great, but obviously not against this idiot. Your only fault here was not understanding how you opponent would react.
I understand the play. My point was that playing the lone Ace in a hi/lo split game is a losing proposition. Even if the smaller flush believes you, he still might be on a low draw as well (like I bet this guy was, we don't know his other two cards)
I cannot but help that craig h didn't understand what went on at all at this hand.
a few points:
a) the raiser had been showing down the nuts and isn't going to raise on the turn w/o it.
b) is the raiser really going to risk a reraise if he doesn't ahve the nuts. Ususally the answer is no, and the thinking player will have to assume the preflop raiser has the nuts. (Observe since he has Ac there is no way the caller can have the nuts and pbly shoudl fold (pbly even if he has A2 as he is only getting 2-1 on his call and if a low comes he is likely to be quartered).
So the reason he played his hand this was is not because he was in love w/his hand which happened to get worse on the flop...
What were his other two cards?
One Cardinal Rule i try to keep in mind during many semi-loose or loose pot-limit games is...Never try to put a move on a person incapable of rationalizing through what is going on...be that as it may i might hae just called the turn and folded the river...
Were either of you all-in on the river? The river might have been the time for the huge bet, but when the possible low comes on the river, that makes a big river bluff less successful. (and really increases your exposure). In retrospect, if you could've seen thru the cards, a big bet on the end should've taken the pot. Nonetheless,the guy should have mucked the turn. Hopefully, you will have other opportunities for him to pay you off with horrible calls, as he could've easily been drawing dead in both directions when he called the turn.
its too hard to run someone off these type of hands as they figure if you have them for high they may win low or visa versa. ive found that when someone catches a good card and then bets alot they mostly have it as they would be afraid of you here. its just that its hard to tell what having it means to different people.
I'm new to Pl and Omaha and am trying to improve my game. The club I play in recently began spreading PL Omaha/Omaha 8 or better (dealers choice). $2 antes, $5 on the button. Max. raise $50 anytime before the flop. The game tends to be very loose and passive.
In this hand I hold 2-3-4-5 (no suits) in Hi/Lo on the button. I have $1200 and have everyone covered. 4 call the $5 and I raise $20. All call. Flop is 3-6-10 with 2 clubs.
A decent player bets $100 into the field and all fold to me. He likes to bet his draws aggressively but usually not this big. He has about $450 in front of him. It's either a huge draw or a set of 10's. What's the best play here?
I call. Turn is the 7s. He bets $300 into me again. I'm pretty sure the 7 didn't help his high. I think it's either a set or (more likely now) A-2 with clubs. Do you call?
I call. River is the the Jc. He bets his last $60. I think I'm forced to call here.
Thanks for any responses,
TJ
I may well be beat, but the pot is too big for me lay down the hand...call. Jim
In this hand I hold 2-3-4-5 (no suits) in Hi/Lo on the button. I have $1200 and have everyone covered. 4 call the $5 and I raise $20.
Not a bad hand for pot limit, but I'd want to see the flop cheaply. I wouldn't raise here.
All call. Flop is 3-6-10 with 2 clubs.
I want to see an ace on the flop. A, 5, 6 would be nice because I can catch a card in the wheel house, counterfeit a low, and scoop both ways. No ace so I'm out of there.
A decent player bets $100 into the field and all fold to me. He likes to bet his draws aggressively but usually not this big. He has about $450 in front of him. It's either a huge draw or a set of 10's. What's the best play here?
Fold. Your only draw for the nut straigt is a 2. An ace gives you a low, but you're drawing to half the pot if a club comes. Not worth it.
I call. Turn is the 7s. He bets $300 into me again. I'm pretty sure the 7 didn't help his high. I think it's either a set or (more likely now) A-2 with clubs. Do you call?
I call. River is the the Jc. He bets his last $60. I think I'm forced to call here.
Might as well, it's only 60. Did you scoop?
he scoops with the Ac-2c. I think that I should have laid this down on the flop given the flush draw and no ace.
obviously you have to call the turn right, with your second nut straight and second nut low?
but yeah folding the flop seems correct
The first raise is interesting, and good given that everyone calls, but I would fold to almost any bet if the ace doesn't hit. I would compare it to a raise with a three flush in 7-card stud. If you have a lot of people in the hand you are getting decent odds, and you can confuse people which will dramatically increase your win if you get your cards. But if you don't hit the ace, you are very likely drawing dead low, and with a possible flush draw you are drawing to at best the second best high.
Here's another hand. I have about $800 at this point which is an above average stack. Hi/Lo game.
I have K-K-5-3 double suited on the button and call a $10 raise with 8 players in. I'm not in love with this hand but for an extra $10 and a pot of $140 I think I should see the flop. Right or wrong?
Flop is Ah-Qs-7h giving me the nut flush draw. First player in (an experienced PL Omaha player) bets $100 and 5 call to me. The pot is huge and only getting bigger. Although I have the nut draw, with 5 players calling many of the hearts are probably busy and I'm surely up against a set here. In this game many of the players chase any flush draw. I call.
Turn is the 6s bringing the low. It also gives me the 2nd nut flush draw in spades and a gut shot for a straight which could be good. Same player goes all-in for $150, next player raises $50 all-in and 2 call. I call.
River is the Qh and I fold to an all-in $200 bet. Should I have gotten away from this hand earlier?
Thanks, TJ
no. if board doesn't pair you have half pot locked & poor chance to win low...who knows, could even scoop the pot one way or the other. Jim
I agree you must call for $10 preflop.
Seems tough to give up on the nut flush draw with approximately 7-1 odds on the flop. Even though you will often split the pot, and occasionally make the flush on the turn and then lose to a board pair on the river, you have pretty good odds, especially considering implied odds.
On the turn your odds are too good, especially with the extra non-nut outs. You have to think the gutshot could be good, as even in loose games you don't see too many people with a 5-8 in their hands.
In short, I think you had to call the whole way.
the strange thing in this hand was that I had more outs than I thought. Only one player had the low and it was unprotected so any 2 gave me low. 2s or 2h gave me the scoop. Also any K was good for high.
On the turn I thought that there was a goo chance that there was more than one set present making the full house draws weaker. Is this a valid consideration?
Pocket Q's and 2-3 split the pot. I think one of my problems in this game is that I over value the flush draw. How good is a flush draw with nothing else to fall back on?
we have all felt the sting of having our nut flush beaten, but truth is more pots are one by straights and flushes than by full house...thus if your draw is to the nut flush...draw. also note that (as in this hand) ANY low draw has some value, even if small. Jim
I joined a WSOP pool, whoever has the last man standing wins.
Person A: Cloutier, S.Nguyen, Ferguson, Seed
Person B: Hellmuth, Negreanu, Ulliott, Sexton
Person C: Seidel, Chan, Bonetti, Ma
Who do you think has the best chance of winning (and the least?)
wow-what a choice...in this order, A
I like whom A got in rounds 2, 3 & 4.
JG
I have a bet with a friend for a paid entry into an Orleans Open event. We alternated "drafting" 10 players each. All of your players are on our list except Negreanu. I don't think Negreanu is quite ready to win a 5-day event with such talented opponents, so I think B is the dog. I would take person A's picks, but if you ask me tomorrow, I might say C. If Bonetti wasn't such an enormous A-hole, it would be easier for me to like C's picks.
CH
I am player B, and I won since I am the only one with players left (and I have 3!)
makes it interesting...cloutier and ulliot are already eliminated!
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@netaxs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Craig H
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: broomcorn
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:09 a.m.
the situation : 7 handed 80/160 hold'em - I am two after the big blind. I have AdKd - pretty tight crowd.
preflop action : I am first in and I raise. Everyone folds, except the big blind who calls.
the flop : KsJs8c
flop action : big blind checks to me, and I make a wager. the big blind then raises. I just call, planning to raise on fourth if no spade hits.
the turn : 4s
turn action : big blind bets out...now I just call...I'm a little scared of a spade, and I don't want to get bluffed out with a three bet with a hand like AsJd...or even AsKc.
the river : 4d
river action : big blind bets, now I raise...big blind calls...I lose the pot to KJ (he flopped two pair). I figured the river raise was safe because if I got reraised, there would have been no way that my hand was good (flush possible. full house possible), and I could, with good conscience, fold if I got repopped.
did I go wrong anywhere here?
Your river play makes no sense. You slow played your hand on the flop planning to pull the trigger on the turn if no spade hits. The turn brings a spade so you just call rather than raise. Frankly, in a heads-up situation I think it is highly unlikely that your lone opponent has precisely two spades in his hand. I would have raised and charged him to catch a fourth spade at the river if he had a singleton spade. But nevertheless you just call which is consistent with your strategy so far. But now the river brings a blank (creates a running pair of fours but so what?) and you now raise his river bet. Why? If you weren't willing to raise on the turn why are you raising now?
I would have popped him on the turn and just called him at the river or bet the river if he checked. Regardless, you are earmarked to lose money on this hand. Don't try to make informational raises at the river so you can make a fold if reraised. At that point it is not worth money. Simply call if he bets or check-raises you and see what he has.
my thinking is as follows - if he has two pair, he'll be afraid of AA (with the running pair counterfeiting his two pair against aces)....the only hands he won't be afraid of are flush and full house. I thought i was highly likely to have him beat, that he ony had a K with a weaker kicker...given that, I thought my risk was only one bet, as he'd only rerasie on the river with a better hand about 99% of the time (maybe 1% is tiltness making him go nuts). thus, i am risking one big bet to make one big bet, and in this situation, I thought I was a favorite to win the hand.
Your logic for raising is fine, IF you are a favorite to win the hand. That is, the concept of risking 1 bet to win 1 bet, and doing so when you're going to succeed more than half the time, is correct.
However, why did you think you were the favorite? It would have to be based upon specifics of this player, since the action you described would normally indicate that your AK is not the best hand at the river.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
here's why i thought i was a favorite at the river : he checkraised the flop - typically people don't checkraise the flop wit ha flush draw...some will, but i think it is a bit unlikely...more than likely, i thought he had a K with a weaker kicker....thus my ace kicker, or so i thought, would be good. of course, i didn't think my edge was big...but i thought it was roughly 60/40 - in that area.
If you didn't think he'd check-raise with a flush draw, then why did you back off when the flush card hit?
I don't play big limits; so, maybe I'm missing something which only happens with the big dogs. Here's the flop action you described:
flop action : big blind checks to me, and I make a wager. the big blind then raises. I just call, planning to raise on fourth if no spade hits.
Why were you planning all this aggression on the turn? When I get check raised on the flop, top pair isn't in the lead. Ok, you don't dump it because some opponents are tricky, but aren't you worried you're giving action instead of getting action?
Fat Charlie
possible hands he'd checkraise with are : AK, KQ, KJ, KT, K9, K8, J8, AJ, QJ, Asxs. I can beat a good number of these hands.
After the flop check - raise, and the turn spade, you have a pay-off hand at best. There's only KQ and KTs that you can beat, and does he bet these on the river?
If he was trying to knock you out with a semi-bluff, he would do it on the turn, as this board almost certaly gave you something. The board also suggests that the turn semibluff is not all that likely to work.
He may also have a QTs, but it's probably suited, and you get nothing by raising the river. At this limit, th KQ or KTs might not pay off your river raise anyway.
Why you raise on the river I don't know. Raising the turn , then checking down the river is the better play, if you want to raise at all. But I think this play is very risky as well.
Mark this down - I agreed with Jim Brier.
Good luck.
Dan Z.
I feel like my disagreement with all the other posters (not a good sign for me if I am disagreeing with 4 guys!) is that I think there are many hands that fall into the category of his action : checkraise flop, bet turn, bet river. a lot of players i know would do just that with any of the following that i can beat : K2s, K3s, K4s, K5s, K6s, K7s, K8s, K9o/s, KTo/s, KQo/s. I agree I can discount just a pair of Jacks...but anyone with a King is probably going to bet turn and river as well. different opinions strongly encouraged to post and lambast me.
one other question i have, since i'm somewhat new here. it seems that this type of hand and post is more suited for medium stakes, even though it was a 75/150 game...there's really not much difference in this hand versus another 30/60 or 20/40 hand. should i be posting these type of hands in the medium stakes area?
It seems to me that you showed weakness by not re-raising his check raise on the flop thereby telling him that you only had one pair...most likely the K. If you wanted to represent a stronger hand a re-raise on the flop and turn would have been necessary to convince him to muck. It happens.
StrayDogg says " If you wanted to represent a stronger hand a re-raise on the flop and turn would have been necessary to convince him to muck. "
with a worse hand than mine, I don't want him to muck...with a better hand than mine, he's not going to muck no matter what i do.
It is rare indeed when I don't want my opponent to muck - espically if I don't hold one of the top 5 nut hands.
Hmm this is an interesting hand, its one of those marginal situations where I think you have to think about whether or not your opponent is capable of putting in a threebet bluff on the turn with a hand like AsJd. It seems rather unlikely that he would make this play, because you don't think he would even checkraise the flop with a flush draw. If this is the case I think a raise on the turn is ok, even so it is somewhat dangerous, because if he calls and the river brings a spade, and he bets you lose another bet.
I think you also have to really consider if he is going to pay you off with a lot of these worse hands if you raise him on the turn he might toss Kx, if this is true its probably better not to raise.
Also if you don't raise the turn, I think you should just call the river, many players there would check a king if their kicker didn't play.
Oh and it think for 80-160 its probably better to just post it here, since the game does tend to play rather differently than a 20-40, 30-60 game.
skeller
When I am in the blind vs a preflop raiser I almost always wait to checkraise the flop because the preflop raiser should bet when checked to. Therefore (at least from your description of the player) he could indeed have a wide variety of hands. I think a turn raise is a mistake because he may fold a hand that would have paid you on the river- say he has Kx, he has a 3/44 chance to beat you on the river making you lose the pot- 8 big bets plus a possible river raise and small blind- the other 41/44 times you get an extra big bet from him, so you obviously want him around if he will put in the last bet on the river even if he does not improve. On the other hand you may be 3 bet by a draw and fold the best hand or pay off a monster if you are so inclined. Only if you have a good handle on him would a turn raise be profitable in my opinion. On the river I wouldn't raise because without a hand that beats you he probably would not bet, but if you are dealing with an overly aggressive player or you have been caught calling down something like JJ in a similar situation I might raise (on Paradise Poker I would definitely raise). I think your play was alright if you considered the above factors. Skeller: what's goin on these days my man? -Ben
Not too much Ben, just trying to pass all my classes so I graduate :D
My prefered game is hold'em, but play a bit Omaha hi/lo. I've read Lee Jones : Winning low limit, Lou Krieger Hold'em Exelence, Sklansky and Malmuth, Hold'em Poker and The theory of Poker.
I would like to read quality bookss about Omaha hi/lo and Hold'em tourny theory.
Which books do you recommend. It seems pretty hard to find tourny books worth reading.
Furthermore i would like to read Brunsons SuperSystem, but have given up finding it. Does anybody know where its possibly to buy it?
thx in advance.
You can get Super System from Conjelco.com or gamblersbooks.com. I think that Conjelco offers a $5 internet discount so it's $45 +s/h. That's where I bought mine and I'm very pleased with it. A must for any poker player.
As for books on tourney play - one thing is for sure, do NOT get the S. Suzuki book published by 2+2. It is just horrible. I would suggest the Tom McEvoy book (the newer one). This is also availible at the two sites I listed above.
I can't say too much about Omaha books since I'm very new to that game myself. Super Systems has a section on it. I also have Ray Zee's book. The Ray Zee book is good but I have heard from many sources that the 7-stud hi/low section in that book is better then the Omaha and that there are better Omaha books out there. I don't know which ones are considered the better ones since I have yet to read them myself. If anyone can enlighten us please advise. Thanks!
"Zen and the Art of Poker" by Larry Phillips.
"Inside the Poker Mind" by John Feeney is excellent. The essay compendiums by S & M are also worthwhile. For big-bet poker and tournaments the best book is Ciaffone and Reuben's No-limit and Pot-limit Poker. Cloutier and McEvoy's book on No-limit hold 'em is also worth reading.
But the Phillips book recommended by Tommy Angelo is a real sleeper in poker literature. It's one of the few books that helps build a bridge between knowledge and execution by concentrating on attitude, the place where otherwise non-fishy players go wrong.
Andy Glazer has a great article on poker books on www.poker.casino.com as for the omaha8 books, Ray Zee does a great job in his book, but the 7 card stud 8 section is much better. Probably something to do with the much more complex play.
I think that the Ciaffone/Reuben book is the best on big-bet poker, the Cloutier/McEvoy books on Hold 'em and Omaha are essential reading for tournaments. Try Bob Ciaffone's Omaha book -- it mostly covers Omaha high, but there is a good deal of useful information there. Avoid the Andy Nelson books on Omaha/Omaha Hi Lo Split.
I concur with the others about the Ray Zee book; the section on High Low 7 card stud is indispensable, but the Omaha section is not my favorite. Super/System also has an excellent section on playing Stud Hi/Lo.
nt
I've been forced to attend a bachelor party in Las Vegas next weekend. I expect it might be a lean week for poker this soon after WSOP. Does any casino consistently have a Pot-Limit Omaha hi game going? If so, info on blinds appreciated. Thanks
what are the different situations ie pot size,ev,outs that warrent a bet or call by either player. if this was live where either of the calls or bets out of line. given they both saw the flop cheaply what would be the best stratigy for each.
Here is a hand I played at the WSOP that I would welcome your comments on:
Game is PLH, 5-5 blinds. At the beginning of the hand I have approx. $1,000.
I straddled the pot for $10. Opponent limped, I raised it to $60 with KK. Limper re-raised the pot to $120. This player is an experienced pot limit player, known by other locals at the table. I immediately put him on a big hand given his limp/re-raise and put him on AA, QQ, the other two KK or maybe a bit suited Ace. I figured he wouldn't give me credit for a hand as big as KK so I just called. Flop is A J 4. I check, he goes all-in for $340. I go into a mini-huddle and finally fold.
My thoughts: Should I have re-re raised before the flop? The advantage there is I put another $340 in the pot and get to see all 5 cards without any more decisions to make. In the end I felt I was beat and threw it away. Given the play of the hand should I have called the last $340 hoping he had QQ?
Thanks!
pre-flop, there is only one hand that will beat you, and if he is type who would raise with ace & face, then you want to win right there rather than seeing an ace on the flop--bet him all in & let him decide! yes, at times I do slow play, but we all know better. Jim
My inclination is to reraise all-in. As you say, he doesn't necessarily give you credit for any type of hand here, since so many folks who like to straddle also like to raise their option as well.
Now, if he's seen you play a lot of straddles already, and you haven't been raising them very often, then it's a different story. However, as told here, I would reraise the pot and basically put him all-in.
If he had AK or the some other big A, then it looks as if you were going to take a bad beat. If he has AA, another crying shame. If he had JJ or 44 or otherwise would have sucked out on you, them's the breaks. My read here is he is unlikely to have AA, so get all the money in there.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Guys, Hold-em, UTG always leads the betting in this school.
Having probs with my end game at No-Limit, from a table of 8/9/10 can usually get to 4th with ease but then go one or two ways, too timid or too aggressive. Still winning about 1 in 5 games but I am sure I am the most knowledgable player in the school with regards pot odds etc. and feel I should be winning more regularly. Heres a beauty for you and i can see it was wrong but was it so bad?, 3 left, i have 430 chips, blinds are 50/50 i am in the SB against the table leader (2000 chips) who is in the BB, i have 2-2 and the blinds go up in 5 minutes to 100 so i raise 300 (why didnt i go all in, or check???), he calls, the flop gives me an out to an inside straight, i check (ouch, bad play, he must know i aint got much now, but 80 aint going to scare him much with 2 cards to come), he puts me all in, with 80 chips left i call to put myself out of my misery, he had t-t.
I ain't got a no-limit book and maybe play a little too much like a pot-limit or limit player?.
Thanks Droopy
I think your play here is completely dependent on the amount of chips the third player at the table had, and the payout structure for the top 3 places.
If the third player's stack was close to yours, I'd fold the hand and hope to get second place. If it was close to the leader's, I'd go all-in and try to double up. I see no advantage a 300 chip bet has as opposed to an all-in bet.
Also, I don't understand how you could "check" since you were in the small blind.
Its winner takes all, UTG is always 1st to bet in every round in this school, its been happening for a while. UTG (button) is dealer in a 3 player game, I am small blind. I know confusing huh? , so i will always be 2nd to bet every round but UTG had folded.
I reckon 2nd place here had around 2,000 like you say he was close to the leader, i reckoned i needed to double up just to stay with them as the antes were going up in 5 minutes.
thanks, but still need some advice on that end phase of a game.... any crumb would be appreciated.
"i have 430 chips . . . i raise 300 . . . "
Forget the cards. I think this is always a bad play, tournies or otherwise.
"I am sure I am the most knowledgable player in the school with regards pot odds etc. . . "
And Napolean thought Russia was an easy conquest. He was defeated not by guns, but by the "scorched earth" retreat and winter. There are many ways to lose at poker. The surest way is to underestimate the opponents while overrating our might.
Tommy
No problem Tommy, thanks for the reply,
I know it wasn't a great play thats why i asked for some help, i play in the same school all the time and I think i can judge them without being funny (we are not talking WSOP here). Just wondered why I wasnt converting enough, maybe its because I play too tight early on instead of trying to get ahead, then i get a bit behind and get beaten up I dont know. Maybe betting 300 was an act of weakness as I didnt go all in, i'm pretty sure i would have been called anyway with TT but not with say q-t with 300 or an all-in....
i can handle limit on the net, its just my no-limit game is worrying me a little.
BTW, Russia was an easy conquest for Boney and Adolf up to a point, but then they didnt get the right advice when they needed it most.. lol
Droopy
It was about 5:00 on day 3,I started the day with 28,000 and I had literally robbed my way to 45,000,hadn't looked at a real hand all day.Finally I look down and find 2 black A's.Someone limps from early position for 1000,I make it 4000 to go(I thought about limping but I hadn't limped all day,too obvious.)bb calls and so does limper,makes the pot about 14000 with antes,flop is Ah,6c,7c.It's checked to me,should I move all in and grab the 14000?NO!!I finally got a hand and I want more chips in the pot,so I bet 5000 thinking please someone make a move,bb(Salim Botshon)moves all in,limper folds.YES!!!I'm gonna make the final 45,hell I'm gonna win this I'm gonna have 100,000 in chips.Dealer yells "All in pot"over come the cameras and the microphones.Salim shows KJc.I have no idea what the turn card was,none.But on the river the Qc jumped off the deck and winked at me.Salim went on to finish 21st and pocket 40,000.Some people say that I took a bad beat but I beg to differ.I could have moved all in on the flop,Salim would not call 40,000 on a flush draw,but I chose to try to induce a bluff,careful what you wish for.
interesting post. Too bad. I am a no limit nobody, so I'll hope the others comment.
Salim is one of my very bestest buddies. We've played about 1500 hours together in no-limit ring-games over the last four years and I've learned more from watching him than from any other player. The main reason I was still in Vegas on day four of the final event was to root for Sam (his sign-up name)and eat with him on breaks.
As to the hand, I'm not familiar enough with the average chip count at the time to get a feel for what those big numbers really mean, but it sounds like a very tough choice between grabbing the $14,000 or going for the bluff-inducing $5000 bet, which was a perfect amount in my opinion. I can SO picture Sam trying to push you around with a draw after that bet.
For what it's worth, your chips went to my vote for the toughest no-limit player in the Bay Area.
Not to question the ability of someone I do not know from Adam, but did not this fellow call a raise out of position and with an early position limper still to act, with KJ? Of course, it was s00ted!
Anyway, I think joey did everything right, and just got outdrawn. He's only being hard on himself with the benefit of hindsight. If the 5,000 bet provoked a bluff, as he planned, then just about the _worst_ situation for him would be to be against a flush draw, as in fact happened, and against which he was about 4:1 favourite (he had Ac, so his redraws if a flush came were very numerous). Only a very slim risk in my view compared with the opportunity to double up.
Since this was on day 3, and it sounds like towards the end of the day: about 150,000 would be an average stack at the very end of the day, and so 100,000ish would represent a very healthy position to be in.
The only risk of betting 5,000 would be to let in a drawing hand, but what draws are likely to be out given the action and the flop? Not much; and any flush draws have to be pretty scared because they cannot be to the nuts (of course the man with KJc has a degree of confidence because his hand means that the best clubs either of the other players could have would be AQc, which is not all that likely given the betting, and the next best is ATc, still less likely. Of course, if either of the other players did have the nut flush draw ...).
So I like the 5,000 bet just fine. Nothing too wrong with taking down the pot either. Most unlikely anyone will call a big bet, and if they did, joey would be laughing all the way to the bank, because what could they call with that he could possibly have to worry about? They cannot call with a draw and anything else is just dead to trip aces.
RFL
Just the Bay Area? Someone is being modest about their friend's poker skills.
natedogg
"For what it's worth, your chips went to my vote for the toughest no-limit player in the Bay Area."
Oh give me a break Tommy. Sam only got my chips cuz he was lucky. I'll get my money back; I really will. I just had a bad beat. Guys...? Hello...? I'm not a sucker I swear.... hey come back here!
I think you played the hand correctly. If you win the pot now, that's great and all, but you're still twice as far away from your goal (winning) as you would be if you had won this pot. Only if you were down to the last 50 or so players would I consider playing the hand the conservative route and betting big enough to win on the flop. Even if I wanted to win it then, I wouldn't bet all 40K, but more like 12K, and then my final 28K on the turn.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with this, maybe a 10k bet on the flop with a all-in on the turn if no flush hits. But, since your opponent moved in anyway, your 5k bet did the trick. Just a bad result from your point of view.
I mean Joey, not Greg.
joey,
I liked how you played this hand, in this situation, at this stage of the tournament. Beyond the technicalities, draw odds + pot size + opponent stack size, this is a player's play.
Sure, you could go to seize the pot(circa 14K) now, but there is a greater opportunity for you to exploit.
At a time when you need to at least double up to be a factor in the tourney, you will rarely be offered a better scenario where you are such a huge favorite.
Bob
Just got back from playing NL with Sam. I printed Joey's initial post to show it to him and get some feedback.
Sam said he would not have called any more than $2000 more before the flop. Sam's first remark was that he thought Joey should have raised more with a limper already in for $1000. But there's more to the story, as usual. Sam said that Joey had drifted down a some by moving at a couple pots and laying down when someone moved harder. One of the reasons Sam called preflop was because he thought he might be able to push Joey around in Joey's apparently weakened state. Everything was set up perfect for Sam to go busted. When I suggested that Joey's smallish preflop raise was just right to utilize the perceptions at the time, Sam reconsidered his initial comment and agreed.
I completely agree with Sam to come in before the flop with KJ,like I said I thought about limping but I figured that would raise a red flag,it was fine to come in before the flop considering the hands I had been playing.I'm sure he thought when he moved all in that I had nothing,after all I had been stealing all day,how could he put me on aces?Tell Sam I think he's a fine player and a gentleman,I was hoping he would make the final table,and I look forward to playing with him again.I don't think he beat me by luck,I think he played it great and even if my hand held up he played it excellent,he just would have been unlucky that the theif finally came up with the nuts.Hope to see you and Sam late in the tourny again next year.
Wow, what a heartbreaker in the WSOP.
Just gotta say I really admire you Joey for your sportsmanship in this. A great example for us all.
.
"Tell Sam I think he's a fine player and a gentleman,"
Again I will print your post and show it to him (in just a couple hours when the war resumes again).
Hope to see you too in the late stages!
Tommy
.
Whether or not you played the hand perfectly, you got the result you wanted: all-in with a 4 out of 5 chance of more than doubling up. You should make this play ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE TOURNAMENT, even 3-handed. (The only exception would be if you have an insignificant amount of chips and someone else is about to bust out.) People who think this is wrong are too interested in moving up the ladder, and not in maximizing their expected payout. This example is clear!
I'm going to be in Vegas this week (after four looooong years away) and I was wondering where to go for Pot-Limit? I mostly play 5-10 or 5-5-10.
Two pocket aces hands from yesterday. One at $20-40, one at no-limit.
$20-40. The pot starts out four-way for two-bets and comes down to head-up after the flop. I have position. The second limper checks and calls the flop of K-9-x.
Turn: Jack (it's a rainbow board)
He check raises.
My strongest hunch was that he hit the gut-shot with Q-10. Other possibilities were a pair and a straight draw, and two pair. I had no experience with this player.
My thinking was that if I reraised he would only rereraise with the straight, which is what I did and what he did and I folded right there on the turn. (He did not show his hand.)
If he had the pair with a straight draw, I was making him pay the max, but not really, since I'd most likely check the river, but then, maybe he would check and fold the river after missing in which case my reraise on the turn did earn a bet.
After the hand I got to thinking that if he had two pair I obviously would have been better off just calling him down because I had outs.
Do you guys ever put in three bets on the turn and fold for one more? This hand still bothers me, even though my reasoning seems solid.
AA at no-limit. A happy story about a no-brainer gift from heaven. I open for $80 (the minimum open) UTG and no one raises and three of see the flop. I'm in middle position.
Flop comes: K-K-Q, twotone.
All three check. My thinking here is typical for when I limp with a big pair and no one bites preflop. I'm not married to my hand, at all.
Turn: 10
First guy bets $200. I call. The third guy calls.
River: ACE!
First guy checks. I'm liking it a lot because any jack makes a straight so I tried to find a number that an expecting-to-tie jack would have to call. I bet $400 and the last guy shoved all-in for $1300 more with K-Q. He flopped the nuts.
What I'm wondering is, just how bad were his two slowplays? I can see checking the flop with his hand, even though I still think it's better to bet because he's in the steal seat and might get action from all sorts of hands, and might bust a big draw or a king right there before any scare cards can slow down the action. But on the turn I'd raise (not to protect against AA. He could hardly suspect that hand was out), but to give someone a chance to screw up with a lower full house or a straight, since after getting action on the turn, ANY high card becomes a scare card for pocket tens or pocket queens or K-10.
Gotta love the attitude of the K-Q player. All he said after the hand was, "good call on the river."
Tommy
I can only comment on he 20-40 hand.
By only calling his raise on the turn instead of re-raising, you could have gotten to the river for the same money. There weren't too many hands he would call your re-raise with (perhaps only A-K, and, from the pre-flop action, it doesn't sound like he has that) that you would already have beat on the turn; why not take the opportunity to see if you could get to the river and draw out on him if he did indeed have two pair?
Do I ever put in 3 bets on the turn and fold for one more? Yes, if I know for sure a player wouldn't 4-bet without the nuts and I would be drawing dead. And of course it's going to be one additional bet on the river.
(no limit hand) sounds like your limp and lack of opportunity to re-raise pre-flop might've helped you quite a bit. he must've had NO IDEA you had aces, and that's the only hand he couldn't beat. although i'm still not sure he would've made any big bet on the turn because at that point he was stil willing to let everyone play catch up. how nice that ace must've looked to you.
"how nice that ace must've looked to you."
The phrase "bust a nut" has rarely been so accurate. :-)
When the KQ player called the $200 on the turn, I had a major feeling that he had a made hand. I was thinking AJ, for a straight, or maybe pocket tens for a full house. Both those hands fit with the betting so far, the checked flop. (Yes, he might just limp preflop with 10-10 even on the button, partly because I had opened under the gun. Danger!)
It's illogical and unexplainable, but sometimes I really do get that twilight zone feeling when the dealer is burning and turning, like I "just know" that my card is coming. It don't happen often, but it happened on this hand.
Tommy
I get the same feeling, but it's important to note (at least in my case) that I sometimes get that feeling and a brick hits anyway.
i know the twilight zone feeling you speak of. its almost as if you say the card you want in your head and less than a nano-second later you see it turn over. happens all the time for me. ok not all the time, but semi-often enough. usually with the 2 outers, or when i fold long shots and they end up hitting.
Slowplaying is a disease.
Slowplaying at the 3-6 table is a disease.
Slowplaying in a $1000 buy-in no limit game is a disease.
Slowplaying at the final table of the WSOP is a disease (ask Dewey Tomko).
natedogg
Natedogg-
Long time lurker, 1st time poster. I have to disagree a bit with your "Slowplaying is a disease comment". I do agreee that slowplaying is more of a gamble in the short term. In each individual hand that is slowplayed, (where a player either checks, calls, or under bets the pot with a very strong hand in hopes that his opponent will: A. catch something strong but not quite as strong on either the turn or river and give action that you otherwise wouldn't have been gotten or B. read his hand as weak and make a play at the pot)there is more of a risk of losing that particular hand.
Obviously there are a few hands that can be slow played with no risk or gamble (ie. flopping a royal), but the majority of hands fall into other groups of varied risk based on: # of outs your opponent(s)has vs. pot size vs. implied odds if he hits something lower or bluffs vs. not getting any further action on the hand if you bet it out on the flop. All these factors need to be considered when slowplaying. Also, the more fluctutation (short term risk) one is comfortable with will be a determining factor in how often one slowplays with "riskier" hands.
There are situations, based on the factors listed above, where slowplaying is the best strategy for longterm +EV on the play of a particular hand (more frequently in in pot limit/ no limit poker than limit). Does that mean that you will win hand every hand that you slowplay, obvioulsy not -(don't make me use the "That's why they call it gambling" quote that I seem to hear all too often from people who are 5-1 dogs getting 2-1 on a call and getting there).
I agree that slowplaying at limit is rarely right in "California style" games. In some games I think it's okay to slow play even with just top pair to try to squeak one big bet out of a lone opponent, but when the game is like that, I have usually already quit. :-)
But at no-limit, I was forced to change my whole way of thinking about slow playing after blowing off a huge chunk of my bankroll to slowplaying no-limit players after moving west.
I love the descriptive phrase, "shoot 'em in the nest." Let's say we flop a straight draw in position and call the flop and hit the nuts on the turn. There is a flush draw out and the opponent bets. Lots of times I think it's best to just call here. Yup, give him a free card. The risk is not that he will draw out for free. The primary risk is, how much will we lost if he hits and bets big? Remember, we don't have to call! The gain is, if the nuts remain the nuts, we have ALL options. No matter the betting scenerio, WE get to pick the prices.
Of course there are infinite situations and variations and it gets deeper fast. In general (at no-limit) I think that slowplaying to trap a person into bluffing is not nearly as good a motive as slowplaying when you really think the other guy has a hand he likes. Also, slowplaying out of position is far inferior to slowplaying from the nest-shooting seat.
Tommy
I don't know enough about no-limit, Tommy, but on the 20-40 hand I would have figured to just call, and shown down for three bets. If he's bluffing (or has a hand, but one that doesn't beat yours), then you gain a bet, and if he has you beat you get to show down (and draw on the river) for the same price as the turn three-bet.
If the pot were mulit-way, and big enough, I'd probably have to rethink my position. But heads up, with nobody to kick out of the pot by three betting, I'm pretty sure I'd slow down.
Guy
Tommy, I can only comment on the $20-$40 game. I would call and not reraise on the expensive street. The strategy of reraising and then folding when four bet is unnecessarily expensive and probably wrong. For the same money, you call and then give yourself a chance to suckout plus prevent any bluffs at the river. When you reraise someone on the expensive street you need to have the world's fair normally.
Now I know why this hand bothered me so much. I definitely should have just called him down because of the two-pair possibility.
Let's play quantifying. I'll use the posted hand for example but I'm thinking generalities here about three-betting the turn and folding to four bets. If we exactly knew the likelihood of him holding two pair, and we exactly knew the likelihood that a reraise on the turn WOULD earn an extra bet (when he had a hand that he would check and fold on the river), couldn't we then, factoring in the probability of sucking out on his two pair, calculate the EV of the reraise on the turn?
In other words, if the chance of him having two-pair was very small, and the chance that he would check-fold the river was unusually high, then couldn't it be right to three-bet the turn and fold for one more bet even when NOT drawing dead?
Tommy
Yes, I think you could do an ev calculation based on assuming that he will only call your reraise a certain percentage of the time with two pair and will only four bet with a set or better. But I think if he calls your reraise with two pair, there will be a certain percentage of the time he will call your river bet as well when you improve. You would have to examine the probabilities of which specific two pair he might have and then run the calculation from there.
I'm just a lower limit piker Tommy, but here's my two cents (on the limit question): the kind of guy who will check raise you with two-pair is in the superset for players who would 4-bet with two-pair... And it is exactly that possible hand that you want to stay and suckout on. So I would never 3-bet. There are people that if they lead and I raised and they 3-bet I would fold, but (I think!) I'm darn sure who they are before I raise them hoping to check down the river unless I improve... which goes to the whole unknown player thing...
I'll rarely fold to a 4-bet after 3-betting the turn only because I won't 3-bet (especially a check-raiser) without at least the near-nuts. I'll just call him down with position. Benefits:
> you get to see the river AND your opponent's cards for the same price as folding to his 4-bet, where you got to see neither
> if your opponent does show you a monster after you call him on the river, you can quietly muck as if you had bottom pair, and might keep the table from trying to bluff you
> conversely, if he shows you just top pair, you turn over AA, and get everybody wondering next time you raise
You will lose a bet every now and then, but you won't get burned when your opponent does have the nuts. Of course, if you think he's check-raising out of position with a draw, then well....
That NL hand was sweet. Just curious, what would you have done on the river if a blank hit (of course not knowing your opponent had the nuts)? Would you have bet from middle position? How much would you have called if bet into?
< No.
<< How much would you have called if bet into? >>
If the first guy bet out I'd have a problem calling any bet unless maybe if it was about half the size of the pot or smaller. The problem with just calling on the turn is that by not protecting against the third player by raising, I'm announcing one of three hands, a draw, a monster, or a pair-type hand that can't stand pressure on the river. This means I'm more obligated to call on the river because AA might be much stronger than what they put me on.
If the first guy checked and I check and the button bets and the first guy folds, I'd be leary as well but in a far safer spot to call a modest bet.
Still I think I would have folded to any bet and here's why. I limped in UTG and then put money into the pot on the turn and I had been slowplaying a lot that day because a couple guys were playing extra spunky. I had already showed down some big slowplayed hands and I just don't think either of these (non-spunky) players would bet at that time on the river with a hand that couldn't beat AA.
After limping preflop and checking the flop, I was pretty much done with the hand when I called $200 on the turn, as in, I'm not putting any more money in. Ideally the button would fold on the turn and then the turn-bettor check the river. That was a very possible scenario.
Gawd this game is gnarly. Snippets of info to piece together in a hurry.
Tommy
I would only reraise on the turn if my opponent would only reraise with the nuts. If he is an aggressive player who would reraise with two pair than I think calling and trying to outdraw him is your best course of action.
It's hard to criticize a player for slowplaying when there are only two cards in the deck that can get him into trouble. Them are the breaks.
Bruce
< Agreed. But even with his huge hand, the concept of not-getting-called-unless-beaten still applies here. Only two hands beat him. AA and AK. Those are exactly the kind of hands I might open with UTG.
I bet on the river. If I was bluffing, his raise is irrelevant. If I had AA or the more likely (given the betting) AK, he should just call. The only hands that I could conceivably have to pay him off with are the straight (AJ) or a smaller full house with K-10 or K-x, or a tie with K-Q.
Did he think that I would pay off a river raise with a straight? I don't think he thinks I would, but I also don't think he thought that far. Surely he had an understandable hair trigger after slowplaying his hand so many times already.
One thing it took me longer than it should have to figure out is that paired boards are a REAL good time to not play too quickly at no-limit. I mean, think of all the times you've seen full-house vs full-house at limit. Does someone go busted every time those come up at no-limit. Answer, amazingly, is no. It's possible to get off those hands sometimes, or get out cheaper than seems possible.
What a great play he could have made by just calling the river.
Tommy
I'm having a problem with this 2 pair concept. What 2 pair is he likely to hold? Both K-9 and J-9 make him a VERY loose pre-flop player. K-J is loose enough, but he wouldn't slow play top pair with a random kicker; he'd probably bet the flop. Q-T for the straight isn't too likely unless he was in late position and you were on or near the button (you didn't say).
How about K-K? Lots of players like to slow play a big pair before the flop. With top set this same player might wait for the expensive street before dropping the hammer. K-9-x doesn't look too dangerous.
Fat-Charlie
I'm having a problem with this 2 pair concept. What 2 pair is he likely to hold? Both K-9 and J-9 make him a VERY loose pre-flop player.>>
Not in California! It makes him loose, but not VERY loose.
< Q-10 is a routine limping hand for many players. I'd agree with you completely if it were known he played by the book. At the time the only indicator I had was that I hadn't seen him before, which means the chances wer that he plays shakey hands from any position. It turns out he did play many pots and limp often, making it more likely, after the fact, that he had K-9 or J-9 or Q-10.
Tommy
Playing PL blinds 25-50 at Horseshoe a couple days before WSOP.I have about 5000 on the table.2 limpers for 50,I raise to 275 with AKd,bb(a loose playing Chinese guy,who was way stuck)calls, 1 limper calls. Flop is AK4 no flush draw.It's checked too me,I bet 150,don't wanna scare anyone out.Turn is a 7,we all check.River is a 9.The bb bets the pot.I thought for all of 1.8 seconds and called the 1300 and raised the rest of my chips(and cash),he calls and shows me pocket 7s.How bad was that to raise the size of the pot?Any player worth his salt would have just called,knowing if he can call he can win.Turned a 1700 loss into a 5000 loss with deplorable play.
I would of bet the size of the pot on the flop. Do you think he still would of called with the 7's? He was stuck so he just might of. Anyway, you already know you made a bad raise on the river, but it's nice to have a forum to blow off some steam.
that is all,
danny boy :o)
In the stock market there are Bulls and Bears. And there is a saying "the Bulls make money, and the Bears make money---the hogs make none. Jim
You're focusing on the wrong mistake.
Your mistake was to slowplay this hand.
Bet the pot on the flop. Anyone with an A-big will probably go with you, especially the loose-stuck big blind. Give them a chance to make a mistake.
What you DON'T want to do is give them a chance to catch up with you for cheap and then go all in once they've shown you that you let them catch up.
There's $825 in the pot on the flop and you bet $150? You're GIVING a gut shot (QT and JT) proper odds to call you. You should only do this if you can get way from your hand. And you could not.
Underbetting the pot by so much on the flop, and then checking the turn were big errors. (I realize he caught his set on the turn but you didn't know that, and you should have bet the turn).
Yes, you should have merely called the river instead of raising, but that's moot in light of the flop and turn errors. If only you had both filled up on the river eh?
natedogg
Not sure I agree with you here, or below, nate.
In limit poker, slowplaying is really dangerous. You generally stand to make an extra bet, at the risk of the pot. You need to be damn sure that you can lay down or that you're unbeatable to do it. It still has its moments, but in general, in limit, slowplaying is a bad idea.
Big bet poker is different. You are risking your stack to win their stack. It's too easy to drive someone out early, winning a small pot.
Trapping is useful, since by showing early weakness, you can get someone to put *way* more money in than they should.
It's possible that it gets overused, sure, but I think you overstate your case.
In the above example, I do think he slowed it down too much. Top two is good, but it's not amazing -- I really don't like to slowplay with two broadway cards out there. But in the below example (tommy's post where someone slowplayed a flopped full house), there is only one hand that someone could have that would even have *outs*, and then only two of them. Well, maybe three at most.
In that case, I think slowplaying is a great idea. You shouldn't be worried about losing the pot -- you're almost never going to lose that pot. You should be worried about how to bust someone. That he got busted instead was unfortunate (except for tommy :), but that's not the point. Slowplaying a flopped top full house is really reasonable in NL.
- target
Target, you said
"Big bet poker is different. You are risking your stack to win their stack. It's too easy to drive someone out early, winning a small pot."
Target, there is already 700 or 800$ in the pot and you flop 2 pair. Aces and Kings, I'm betting the pot and hope he folds. Just my 2 cents'
that is all,
danny boy :o)
You flopped top two. The other way anyone would call a pot-size raise is with AA,KK, AK, A4, K4. Though I highly doubt the last two would be calling a $275 raise btf. On the flop, I would bet the pot and hope to take it down. God forbid, no one is going to give you action unless they turn a monster hand. You hold the A and the K. BET the POT!
As for slow playing. I keep it simple. I only slow play MONSTERS. Nothing else. Big fullhouses, quads, and straight flushes are the only thing I will slow play in any game (limit, pot-limit, and no-limit). Apart from that I don't ever even want to give the remote chance of someone sucking out on me with even 1 out. AK is big hand on this flop, but not a monster.
Oh well, no one ever said poker lessons came cheap.
Better luck next time.
Lawrence ng
with the pot at $800 and someone bets $150 i would give a call to turn a set.with AK i bet the pot everytime.even with a set of aces a 150 bet might be to low just on the off chance some peels a card to make broadway.
Months ago I asserted that one should virtually never slow play AA before the flop and was universally chastized by the nitwits on this forum. Now it has cost Dewey the WSOP, I rest my case.
I also prdicted that a non american would win the WSOP.
Where does the line form to kiss you ass? You are God.
p.s. I prdicted the Yankees would win the World Series last year. However, I have predicted that every year since 1976.
And if you were wrong this post would be titled...
As usual, only the right speak up.
KJS
1. Limping with aces preflop: I think Tomko made a mistake but I also think the end result was inevitable. He should have raised before the flop but I don't think he should have raised all-in. Both players very probably would have seen the flop and at that point, all the money is going in.
I agree that it is almost ALWAYS a mistake to slowplay AA preflop. However, there are some people who disagree with that who are not nitwits. Dewey Tomko would be one example of a non-nitwit who thinks there are times to slowplay AA preflop.
2. EuroChamp: The european chauvinism is as lame as any other kind of chauvinism. Not that it matters but Mortensen learned how to play poker in the states anyway.
Here's my predicion. Next year's WSOP champ will be a white male! Woohoo! Go white males! I'll feel so much better about myself and my poker skills if a white male wins the WSOP.
natedogg
pobody is nerfect! Slow playing AA in a headsup situation is not perfect, nor is it terrible--regardless of how any one hand ended. Dewy's decision just did not work that time,and as prior post stated, it was probably inevitable regardless how he started the action. I do not have software to run simulations, but my guess is that a run would vindicate the slowplay. Jim
Dewey got all of his money in when favourite. I think that vindicates his play.
I would like to back Tomko in a heads up match with Limon.
Cheers,
Keith
What an excellent discussion my comments below have started about slowplaying. I decided to write down all my thoughts about it and start a separate thread.
I think there are very, very few situations in NL/PL hold'em where the decision to slowplay is clearly more profitable than otherwise. In limit hold'em, I cannot think of a situation where you should ever slowplay.
My objection to slow playing is not entirely based on the fear of suckouts. In fact, fear of suckouts has little to do with it. It's a matter of how to most profitably play your hands. And in NL hold'em, I think betting is always the way to go.
The biggest problem with slowplaying is that you give away your hand by doing so. Whenever somebody "wakes up" in a later round it's pretty obvious they were slowplaying. I'm not talking about when a scare card comes like a third flush card and they move all-in. If somebody wakes up at that point, they are representing a flush, not slowplaying a set. So when somebody wakes up on an innocuous turn or river, you can be fairly sure they've slowplayed a monster. This usually means a set or a straight. If you are even THINKING of slowplaying two pair then you really need your head examined.
It's simple really. Somebody is MUCH more likely to commit their stack on the flop with a hand like top pair than on the river. So if you've got a monster, get top pair to play aggressively with you right there on the flop. Another problem is that by slowplaying you often pass up a chance to get ANY chips because somebody with a hand like top pair who would have played with you will have to slowdown once the board gets scarier. Now you've lost profit because the board is too scary for anyone to do anything.
By not slowplaying, you also put more doubt into your opponents heads, especially if you have position. If three people check to me on the button and I bet out with the nuts, I'm MUCH more likely to get action than if I wait until the turn or river. The button should bet out with quads as far as I'm concerned. You are (hopefully) betting aggressively from the button regularly, so there's no need to disguise a big hand when you have it.
The other problem with slowplaying is that your opponent either has NO chance of catching up or a SLIM chance of beating you. Let's say the flop comes KKQ and I've got 99. Even if a 9 comes on the river, I'm not putting in much money. MAYBE I'll call a pot size bet if I'm in a bluff-catching mood. I'm certainly not going to call an all-in bet by the button who suddenly wakes up.
So even when you let them catch up slightly, you don't make much. But you lose your whole stack when they catch up enough to beat you.
By betting you also look like you're protecting a vulnerable hand. Then, you might actually get action from somebody who improves because they won't think you have such a big hand to begin with. Like with the 99 example. Let's say I have the button and the nut full house bets the size of the pot. We've both got huge stacks. I might call because I want to make a move on him if he checks or I might think he's bluffing. If a nine comes on the turn and he bets again, I'm MUCH more likely to commit or at least raise a good amount. Instead, let's say he checks to me and I bet the flop. He calls and check-raises me all-in on the turn. Even if I hit that nine, I will release more often than if he had started out as the aggressor. I'll put him on a slowplay.
Many other players love to slowplay big hands. That's why I think it's best to keep betting with big monsters, because they expect you to slowplay like they would. You will get action from people with decent hands. On a flop like KKQ, you might get action from a queen if you bet from the button. You might get action from a straight draw. You might get bluffed by someone who just doesn't believe you have a king. And you MIGHT get action from some fool who slowplayed QQ preflop or from some poor bastard with AK or KJ or KT or K9 or K2 if the players are bad enough. I've made HUGE pots by betting on the button with a monster. Somebody comes over the top, and it's over.
If you want to induce a bluff by slowplaying out of position, it's just as valid to induce a bluff by betting. If I flop the nuts and Sam B (an aggressive Bay Area player) is sitting behind me, I'm going to bet the flop and bet the turn and check the river. He will move in on me roughly 90% of the time with nothing. I would say you'll get bluffed just as often when you check or bet, so you might as well bet when you have the nuts.
So, while slowplaying can be a profitable move, I think you make MORE money by not slowplaying. The concept of sucking people in for more money when you hold a monster doesn't hold water in my opinion. You want to instigate action, you want to induce people to make a play at you, you want to get the other guy who was slowplaying the second nuts to finally wake up. If all the money doesn't go in until the river when you flopped the nuts, you are not in good shape. Why is all that money going in now? With a board of KKQTA, if I have KQ but all the money goes in on the river when that ace shows up, I've got to be worried. It's obvious to everyone that I slowplayed a big full house or that I MADE a big full house. So if somebody is there with me, he must have me beat.
The extra few chips I might make by waiting for someone to take a stab at the pot will not make up for the times when I can double my whole stack by instigating action.
So there you go, that's why I think slowplaying is almost always the wrong move. I KNOW I'm going to get hammered for this one. :)
natedogg
No flame from me. I agree with your thoughts on this subject. The idea is to get a worse hand pot-committed as soon as possible. If you can't, who cares, you still take it down. Good post.
i agree with this view on slowplaying. there are spots to slowplay for sure, like when you have all the good cards. (flopping high quads with a possible flush draw for somebody else, or something.) betting flop, betting turn, and checking the river is a good way to get someone to try to make a move on you. also, by betting your big hands, people may give more respect to your bets post flop which gives you much better chances at stealing if you call pre-flop and make a move on the flop. but somebody help me out with this one. im in a no-limit tournament, mid-late in the tournament. i in the big blind, i get AA and get a limper. i raise about the size of the pot, and get called. flop comes 669 rainbow. i bet half the pot, and my opponent folds. he shows T9suited and says my postflop bet was too much and he suspected a lot of power. i had just been moved to this table and played one hand that i raised preflop and took it down uncontested. where was my mistake?
It's not clear to me what you mean by slowplaying. Check calling? Making a bet that could conceivabley be called?
Let's say three see the flop in an NL game. There is 100 in the pot and all three players have 2000. If UTG flops top set and bets the pot, is that slow playing? Does he want callers? Doesn't it depend?
I think it is a big mistake to make slow playing a black and white situation.
slowplaying can be very costly -- never say never -- slowplaying can be very profitable -- this is another of those "it all depends" situation. Jim
natedogg, good post and i agree wholeheartedly with the majority of what you say, but the one situation that tends to arise when "slowplaying" has seemed to be very profitable to me is against limit players that are new or poor at big bet poker. an example of this is that i have had limit players move in on me after two checks and a bet on the river or even by just checking the flop. it is important to remember that a lot of weak players view a check on any street as weakness and do not fear the "slowplay" nearly as much as seasoned big bet veterans. this comes into play especially if you have the very aggressive table image that most of us want for maximum profit in these games. slowplaying is not the supposed to be the meat, cheese, or bread of anyone's poker sandwich, but it can be the spicy mustard once and awhile and make things taste very good. great points made in that betting will make everyone more profit in the long run and anyone who flames your post would be easier to play with than you, that is for sure. J.
What you are describing can be done with less than monster hands. Your are correct when you say there are players who view a check as license to steal. Against these guys, slowplaying does make some sense if you are out of position. But, still if you bet into them, two good things happen. One, they call with a worse hand. Two, they may raise with a worse hand. This plays into your hands. In N/L, I agree you likely can wait a little longer than in P/L. But, in P/L you want to build the bet over time. So if I have a monster, I would tend to lead bet versus a check/call.
I totally agree with you here, that is in a full (or at least not 2-3 handed) table NL cash game.
Although you did not adress it here but since it's the WSOP Dewey play that's started the whole thing, let me add this:
There is a BIG difference in a fuller table and heads-up play. You know that. I think slowplaying at fuller tables is a major leak in many players. It should, as you have stated, rarely be done.
When you are heads-up at the end of a tournament, though, you usually get crappy hand after crappy hand. You have to steal with nothing. When you actually do get a great hand such as aces, with a 80% win rate against any random hand, then this is when I like to vary my play, if the money is deep, of course. You'd like more than the blinds, you'd like a big chunk of the opponent's stack. If the blinds are very high as at the end of PP tourneys, then raising is most likely the best play since you should be stealing with crap anyway, the most obvious play is raising since just calling could send a signal.
But against an aggressive opponent, why not sometimes flat call preflop ? This assumes that you do flat call with other, more average, hands too. The likelyhood of the opponent hiting a hand that now beats you on the flop is slim. Let him bluff you or let him get trapped. He could have anything, let him catch up. If he does have something, then he'll most likely bet anyway on the flop, so any equity you lose preflop should be made back on the flop and maybe more.
The point is, heads-up, anyone should vary his play a lot, IMO. At the WSOP, Carlos hit a monster flop, in fact, one if not the best flop he could hope for. Better than KKQ, because Dewey could have released his hand with that flop. Dewey got his money in when he was a favorite and that's what counts.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
One thing I haven't seen mentioned much in this thread is taking the size of the pot into consideration when you decide to slowplay. Also the number and type of opponents you are up against is very important. I have always used the rule of thumb that it is
!SOMETIMES! OKAY TO SLOWPLAY IF THE POT IS SMALL.
The bigger the pot, the faster I play. I want to win a big pot RIGHT there, no matter how big my hand is.
It is also okay to slowplay if the player in the pot with you is very agressive. Because of my style, I end up folding to more agressive players a bunch. This is the time to get those bets back + a few more.
SMALL POT + GOOD POSITION + FEW AGRESSIVE PLAYERS..I will consider slow playing. You may even miss bets from those agressive players if you use this formula. However, it will put a little fear into them and they won't always bet into you when you check on future rounds. Depends a bunch on the type of agressive players they are. They may also draw out on you which is a true tradgedy if they would have folded to your agression earlier.
This hand is an example.
ME = Button, AK Clubs AP Agressive Player early Q10 Hearts
Preflop AP calls, I raise, everone else folds, AP calls
FLOP
A K 2 all hearts
I love this flop against one opponent. He checks, I bet, he calls (slowplaying his nut hand)
TURN
Ah Kh 2h 7c
His call scared me, although there are a lot of hands he could just smooth call with here. Plus, this player NEVER just calls. He is either drawing at the hearts (which is kinda bad heads up) or he has them already. I cannot give him a free card if he has a single heart. He checks, I bet into him, he just calls!? (still slowplaying his nut hand)
River
Ah Kh 2h 7c Ks
He bets (woohoo!), I raise, and we go four more bets before he just calls. He turns over his hand and smirks and says "I had the nuts".
Had he not slowplayed his hand, I may have let go of top two on the turn. Against this player, maybe not. Still, this hand illustrates (even though he was sort of following my rule above) that it is BAAAAD to slowplay. Had I not hit my card for the magic full, I still would have given him action. If he didn't slowplay his hand, I may not have been around to draw out on him at the river. Had it been a tight player in the pot with me, I would have given even more consideration to laying it down on the turn..it is hard to lay down top two heads up though.
It was soooo very bad for him not to raise me on the turn. A huge costly mistake. At least it was now that the hand is over. :) He was waiting all the way to the river to stick it in. Even if I do decide slowplay, it is only for the flop..never past the turn. (In limit hold'em anyways) It would have put me in a major quandry if he would have raised the turn and it may have saved him a bundle.
If that was an actual hand, your opponent played it about as badly as possible. That's not even a slowplay, it's just an uneven, stupid play. It just makes no sense.
Why would he check-call the turn in that situation, and then bet out (and then 3-bet) on the river when the board pairs? That's just ludicrous. I don't think you're ever going to fold top 2 there, but if you don't hit a 4-outer, he missed at least one big bet.
Good post, Nate. I agree with every concept, but not entirely with your conclusions.
First, the word "slow play" is not clearly defined. Example, if I flop top pair and two players check to me and I bet $20 into an $80 pot, is that a slowplay?
No need to answer that. You can see there are infinite degrees of slowness. And oftentimes there is no clear line between "slow play" and "cautious play."
Second, I question your absolutism because each one-on-one matchup at a full no-limit game is like a seperate game unto itself, with it's own history, long range and short, and being flexible has value on its own.
Yeah, I'm stretching to find any sort of rebuttal. Good post.
Tommy
Actually, there are many slowplay situaitons in limit HE. the giant implied odds are generally not there for you to worry about.
Strategies which feature the word "always" are rarely optimal in a game as complex as limit HE.
ok, i don't have too much experience in no-limit hold'em, but i do have this observation: slowplaying a big hand like a flopped flush by check and call, and then betting out on the river is almost taken straight from Rounders. final scene, you all know the one. mikey flops the nut straight, check-calls teddy to the river, where teddy goes all in. mike, then proceeds to call his all-in and show down the nuts. however, too many people think that this move is so freaking good, they will try it with any decent strong hand. having QT flush with the on board is pretty strong, but it differs from the famous hollywood hand in a couple big ways: first, it is not the absolute immortal nuts. mike's straight couldn't be beat. im sure teddy had outs, but he didn't hit them. (some say he had pocket tens in that hand.) in our example hand, our hapless slowplayer had the nuts, until the river when the second king made a full house or quads possible, and probable. second, instead of check-raising on the river, he bet out, then 3 bet it. mike got lucky to have teddy bet all-in against him on the river, but had he not bet it, mike still would have made a killing on the hand. this guy's check call was way more suspicious than a raise because the caller is not going to draw with just one heart, and then bet out when he doesn't hit, especially when you have been betting the whole time. and a call won't get you to fold, but a raise will, so a call is more indicative of a strong hand than a raise. in my opinion anyways.
I do not know why your post is under mine, but it is almost certain Teddy KGB has pocket aces on the final hand.
He bets his hand strongly, but not too strongly, on the flop and turn, then goes all -in hoping he hit set-over-set, which is what he probably puts his opponent on after he calls the large turn bet.
Dan Z.
im not sure why my post ended up right after yours, probably because i posted it after reading the whole thread. but pocket aces almost certain? no way you can say that. it is possible of course, but other hands are possible and probable as well. the pocket tens that have been suggested are possible. but to assume what a character in a movie is hoping that his movie opponent will do is far from an accurate science. your scenario is one possible scenario of many. i say it doesn't matter what he had really. for one, he misread mike. nobody in their right mind would go all-in with an inferior hand if they knew their opponent had the nuts. i think that is the point of the scene, that mike prevailed in getting teddy to misplay his hand, no matter how strong it was. so either teddy thought he had the best hand and mike would call, or he thought mike might throw his hand away. either way he would be wrong, and that is where mike triumphs. he mentions that mike might be on a draw. probably the straight draw evident on board. if he put him on that, and then saw that his card could not possibly have come, then he most surely wouldn't bet, because mike couldn't call if he missed a straight draw. instead, if he had any hand that could beat a busted straight draw he would have checked to induce a bluff from mike. but he bet out, indicating he was either betting for value, or bluffing. either way hi misread his opponent.
Your strategy is horrible in that a perceptive player could steal from you everytime you checked behind or "represented slowplay". Since, you never slowplayed, any sign of weakness would mean exactly that and prevent you from playing any hands that missed well.
Still do not know why I cannot win against amateurs in no-limit HM.
9 players or so.....
The usual thing is, I am ok for the 1st hour, then i will win or lose a hand that may get me behind or ahead but even so, i tighten up at this point, is that normal?
Droopy
You should play tight, in the first 2 seats in particular. Review the "big" hands that turn your results one way or another. See if you can notice common patterns between them. Another variable to consider is maybe you should "mix-up" your play to deceive your opponents. If you play too linear, your opponents will detect this and adjust correctly to your play.
Do you get bored after about an hour? There are some players who start making huge errors to relieve boredom. They can't focus on an "A" game for more than 90 minutes. Forcing hands out of position is the normal problem, or in otherwords trying to create action.
Lets say 3 limp to you in $2-3-5 pot limit omaha and you also limp with Th 9c 8h 7c. Players are reasonable but no experts. Is this a mistake to limp? I hope not cause I would!
Anyways that's not the main question.
Now the aggressive player to your immediate left raises it up. $35 to go. Damn. But to your surprise, it's back to you and many of the later positions have cold called the raise. Those tenacious blinds defend. Some of the original limpers fold. Say 7 players including yourself.
The pot now contains $215. Let's say that I have $500 in front of me. Let's also say that my bankroll easily handles this game. A few of the other players don't like to completely gamble when it's big dollars, so you think a huge raise before the flop will get many of them to lay down.
To prepare you for the question I'll present my case with a few points:
1. A large raise will cause many to fold and there will be plenty of dead money.
2. The cold-callers (in a "reasonable" game) imply that many face cards are out of the deck, making it much easier to make a straight or two-pair with my mid-range cards (I know I know, in Holdem this factor is minimal but in Omaha where 40 cards are in opponents' hands perhaps it is more important?)
3. My position is not great, therefore I would like to end the decisions before the flop.
Would a reraise the size of the pot be out of the question here? Is this possibly a good gamble?
Just wondered if I could hear some comments from you experienced (and inexperienced) players and stir the shit heap...
Jim Roy
seems to me that you are focused on wrong question. With that weak hand, the question should be "shall I call the $35 raise?". the size of the pot might make a call OK, marginal at best..if you got perfect flop, then would be the time to consider pot size raise... but remember range of your cards may connect to some bigger cards. good luck Jim
I disagree that this is a weak PLO hand. I agree that it isn't a strong Omaha Limit hand, but with a pot sized bet you can get people to lay down. I love this hand in PLO. In Ciaffone's book I believe there are stats about 6789 double suited, and it is 3:2 against A's. Here you are getting odds to go all-in.
Derrick
If this is a weak hand......... Keep dealing me weak hands please!!
And yes with a short bankroll I would raise allin here.
Cheers,
Keith
What happens if you reraise big, and the flop comes 10,J,Q rainbow? Would you be pot committed or lay down if someone bets big representing AK? Just curious, I wouldn't know what to do.
that is all,
danny boy :o)
Hrm, just wanted to make sure I'm not crazy for considering an all in here.
To answer Jim Browder, I would definitely call because if the raise had been only $5 more I would be getting the same pot odds as calling a $35 bet (just different implied odds, and I was assuming that the stacks are moderately deep).
I was thinking that a pot size bet here might oust a higher flush, get somebody playing semi-scared to make an incorrect fold with possibly a dominating hand (so that a two-pair might stand up more), and perhaps be called by a couple of poor "pocket aces" or "pocket kings" hands. Also, if my bankroll can handle the occasional big bet, and my opponents can't, isn't this good also? Plus I enjoy raising a few eyebrows once in a while (in other words vary my play, image ect).
Of course these advantages have to outweigh the good in just calling. This is a multi-way hand, and you can hit a flop pretty damn hard, but you can also miss a flop pretty hard also.
What about making only a moderate raise (of say $100)to make it a mega-pot? Is this weak?
Jim
You are getting proper odds (with the money situation as you describe) with this very good hand whether against aces or the whole field, but if you raise regularly in this situation your bankroll better "easily handle this game". Eventually you are going to hit a spell (which may last months) when you need all of it.
Jim Browder wrong, a double-suited 4-in-a-row hand such as yours is a premium hand. You could even raise the first time (although with Aces apparently behind you it is better you did not). Go ahead an raise all-in (it's good for your image) or alternatively just call...in the first case you are apt to be heads-up against aces getting 2-1 odds or better, in the second action will be multiway and if you flow two of your cards you have a huge hand.
well guys it seems I need to improve my hand evaluation--which sure could be true--dont have wealth os experience here--matter of fact, I just ordered book on omaha. anyway, I have been trying to avoid hands which could easily be 2nd best-- yes, 2 flushes are here but neither is big, as to straights, I like bigger wraps,,,,if this were limit rather than P/L, the I might go with this hand, but pot limit????Jim
Jim, I'm afraid you have it backwards. This is a much, much better hand in PL than in limit. In limit both your flush draws are usually useless and it is difficult to win with 2 middle pair against several limit opponents. In pot limit you are usually only against one or 2 opponents after the flop. Your flush draws are your backup hands which are probably good against one or even 2 opponents and 2 pair have a much better chance of standing up. A "big wrap" that you say you prefer is what you flop, not what you start with. Technically, you can't flop a wrap with 4 consecutive cards anyway, only 2 pair and an open end straight draw. You CAN flop many a monster with this hand and get an opponent to put all their money in with only a chance for half the pot. You may have multiple freerolls for all the money.
thanks Jere, I see what you mean. Jim
40-80 HE Commerce whee hours of the early morning. The game is incredibably live with several players stuck big time on tilt. I've been playing for around 3 hours and have played hardly any hands. I seem to be getting my unusual share of T2o etc. For the session which is unusual I did not see a pocket pair bigger than Eights. Anyway I am on the button and there are four limpers and neither blind seem anxious about their hands. I was able to tell almost every time if they would raise or not by their body language. I look down and have a monster of a hand, 97o. Partly I must admit because I was totally bored and also partly because of the game I decided to play the hand. Normally in a situation like this I will almost automatically pass
. Anyway to make a long story short I flop a straight and am up against a flush draw, set draw, and two pair draw and I win a monster pot.
Questions and comments appreciated.
Bruce
Like you said, the game was incredibly live.
Drawing hands go up in value in the position and situation that you describe. 9-7o really doesn't quite qualify. You want either suited connectors, suited one-gappers, and unsuited connectors. 9-7o is not quite "junk", but I'd like to be sure all the callers in front of me play really poorly before coming in with it.
Brett-
When was the last time you made a strategy related post?
Just curious,
Guy
In the long run you would have been better off if someone sucked out on your piece of cheese. When someone gets away with murder once, attempting it again becomes easy.
Jim Brier wrote : "In the long run you would have been better off if someone sucked out on your piece of cheese. When someone gets away with murder once, attempting it again becomes easy. "
I believe it is incorrect also - but even if it is incorrect, how big of a mistake can it possibly be, even in the long run? I just don't see it being that big of a mistake. Mistakes need to be classified as "horrible mistakes", and "slightly bad mistakes".
you are so right: it was an only marginally weak call and it's safe to assume a solid 40-80 player who reads two plus two will have the self control to pass in other situations (esp. because he said he would).
jim brier's constant tight-PASSIVE advice is the only piece of cheese around here.
Individually it is a small mistake. But if repeated often enough it becomes a leak in the long run. Why stop with nine-seven offsuit? Why not eight-six offsuit, seven-five offsuit, or six-four offsuit? People who get bored and like to gamble play these hands all the time. But most of them are not winning poker players. It is like people who play any two suited cards because there are a lot of other players in the pot. Once in awhile they get to make a flush and win a large pot so they think it must be right to play ten-five suited if there are other players limping in.
Again I think the best preflop decision depends on how well we read hands, stay out of trouble, and gain the maximum after the flop.
The reason I fold almost every blind and UTG hand is that I suck at playing out of position. The reason I play so many hands from the button is because I've got a good feel for things from back there. This trend is self-reinforcing because I get little practice from up front and plenty from late seats.
Here's a weird looking hand from a couple days ago. I had 8-5 on the button at $20-40 and five of us took the flop for one bet. The flop came A-9-5, rainbow. All checked to the cutoff, an excellent player. He bet.
Two of the players left to act behind me were passive and would only check-raise with an ace, so I called, drawing, sorta, but also just to see what happened. Two players folded and one called. Three of us remaining.
Turn: an offuit ten.
Check, the cutoff bet, and I raised. My thinking was that he would have likely raised preflop with any ace, even with one limper in, to blow me off the button because he knows I'll call one bet, and because both blinds were capable of mucking preflop to a raise.
He also knows I might not raise preflop on the button with an ace, and I might not raise on the flop with an ace with a scattered board like this one, waiting til the turn to put max pressure on.
Both players folded on the turn.
Does that mean I played the hand well by coming in with 8-5? Of course not. That's results oriented. All I'm saying is that these situations only present themselves once per round, so I tend to carpe diem.
Tommy
If you cant play 9/7 in this spot, where do you recommend playing it (if ever)?
You can play it from the small blind if there is no raise, you get several limpers, and the small blind is 2/3 of a bet like in a $30-$60 game.
A medium, unsuited "one-gapper" like this is not worth paying a full bet to take a flop. Having a lot of opponents is also a mixed blessing because the likelihood of having your hand hold up in the rare event you make anything against a large field goes down dramatically.
Nice hand. Hey, 97 on the button with 4 callers and no raises is not that awful a play. Plus you hit the flop and jammed it.
For what's it worth I usually draw the line at 98o in these spots. That is I play the 98o but fold the 97o. So in my opinion you made a very marginal incorrect call.
Mason-
I would think that a guy would have to play poker very, very well in order to make 98o playable here. So, while this hand may be profitable for you, I doubt it is for other players will less experience, even if they play well otherwise.
In the game situation you described I would call preflop every time and feel good about it.
Your statement was "I got bored and decided to play and wanted to gamble." Then take off the skirt and raise the hand!Oh yeah I would not put the chips in with this hand.Although I do know they like to gamble in Ca.Very Lucky Nice hand
I took a shot at playing 50/100 HE at the Taj last night. I am normally a 20/40 player who after some great mentoring just recently has learned how to win.
After sitting in this game for about 5 minutes I realized this is the toughest game in which I have ever been. Every pot was raised and wound up head-up on the flop. If a hand was shown down (not often) it was big hand against big hand.
I played tight for a long time went, a few hours with out having a playable hand. If i had a hand to steel the blinds in the cutoff or on the button there would already have been a raise in front of me. My image became weak tight if i had a hand i got no action. After a few hours i had some opportunity to steal the blinds but inevetably would get check raised or three bet.
I have a number of questions about this type of game. How does one find a playable hand? OR do they just trade small pots back in forth until some live player comes into the game or one person goes on tilt. How often are people playing with nothing--if so how do you fight it? Do big unsuited cards-- that i very rarely play--- like QJo, KJo and QTo go up in value? Is it possible that i played well just couldn't get my fair share(that is what it felt like)of good cards?
Thank you, ahead of time for your responses.
Eric
BTW--i came out of the game winning about $1000 after 4 hours. Some of the money came frome putting a bad beat on a strong player (things got easier after that--and i don't understand why.)
you are trying to win pots with good hands and they are winning them by playing the situations. in loose games the best hand wins the pot and how you play it determines usually how much youmake. in tight games with good players the best hand wins in the showdown pots, but when the hands are close but no good the best player wins the pot. its a different style than you are used to but it gets old hat after awhile.
We don't have this old hat.
This the book you could and should write.
When you play at these limits, do you make yourself forget the dollar value of the chips? I get mad at myself when I lose a $100 a night. I think I would be giving the shaking hand tell the whole time I played 50/100.
the first few times its scary then it becomes my old hat saying. nowadays i get nervous at around 200 400 even though the money is meaningless kinda. the highest limit game i played was around in 1980 when i played a bunch of 1000 2000 seven stud. then i was a punk kid and nothing fazed me as it was just a game. but no matter what the limit if you are sitting there you must make the correct play no matter what and if you cant, leave.
why don't you think you got your fair share of cards you won 1K?
I put a bad beat on someone who floped a straight when i had nothing but middle pair bad kicker--turned trips and the board paired again on the end.
This hand raises some very interesting questions about play and playing the players that goes well beyond the technical aspects and into the feel for the game. Were you about to bust out when you took the risk? Or just tired of being pushed around? Did you take the opportunity to celebrate your good fortune by whacking your opponents with a coup stick? It is surprising to me how easily some expert players go on tilt after a miracle hand like yours. You might have been able to take advantage of that. Or did you just rack up? Which might have been advisable after being outplayed the way you were. (And, yes, it has happened to me, both being outplayed and then lucky)Beyond a certain level, and at all limits sometimes, how you play matters more than what. I saw something similar last week. The losing player offered a hundred bucks to anyone who could give him the odds of this bad beat happening. When I did he refused to pay me. Insult to injury I guess. I also saw a guy who flopped quads and take down a huge pot by slowplay go on complete tilt when I slow rolled him with AK off heads up. You never know.
Final table four people left. Tourney leader with ~20000, me in second with 7000 and last two hanging on with about 1000 each. I'm on the button with AhKh. Blinds are 250 and 500, tourney leader UTG raises to 4000. I think for about thirty seconds and decide that I want to finish second and don't call. Both blinds call and lose to UTG's two pair with J10. There was no queen so I wouldn't have won the pot but I still question my decision to fold there. I went on to lose to the tourney leader and finish second. How bad a decision was it? Please feel free to rake me over the coals.
you would have gotten second anyway i think. as you had most money. so actually if i understand this correctly you couldnt lose by calling here. unless a small guy won and you also were beaten by the utg person. you are thinking along the right lines but as you can see a little knowledge is sometimes worse than none. these situations come up alot at the final table and if you dont think alot about what to do in them it doesnt make sense to even play in tournaments. also you need to know the diffences in payouts as it may pay to call as you would most likely have the opener in a bad spot and it is a good chance to make you the favorite to win the whole thing.
Your point about playing in tournaments is well taken as I was really dead money when entering this tournament, I had played in one previous no-limit tourney and I have read supersystem twice. I only entered the tourney because my friend wanted to play. If it makes a difference the payout scale was 600 400 150.
Considering the strange payout scale this is a very borderline hand. 2nd pays a lot more than 3rd, and 1st pays only slightly more than 2nd, so trying to solidify 2nd place before hoping to get lucky for 1st is not a bad option here. Once you get heads up get all your money in with any reasonable hand or pair and see what happens.
I disagree with Ray in so much that I don't think that you'd have finished second anyway, if I'm in the small blind and I see you call the chip leaders raise, I'll fold anything that isn't AA or KK and hope that you get busted by the leader moving me up a position on the payout. The BB is probably going to call anyway with half his chips committed.
If as you said that you were happy to take second place, then a fold is the right option, hoping that the leader busts one or both of the short stacks (as happened here). If however you were going for first (this is obviously payout scale dependant), then I would probably just smooth call and see what happens otf, but you'd be pretty much commited to this hand anyway.
you are right one may not have called i read the question too fast. but the rest of my answer works i think. but do reconsider what you say about folding everything and hoping for a bust out. if it doesnt happen you end up giving away most of your first place chances
n/t
Can anyone tell me the best software to learn the games? Thanks!
wilson
recently began playing plo in my home game. none of us are experienced. would appreciate any thoughts on the following hand.
by the turn i'm heads up with one other player. the flop is Ac-Kd-8d-10d. my opponent bets the size of the pot and i reraise basically all in with pocket aces, one of them a diamond. i have no other diamond. (his pot bet was about 200 and all i had to reraise was 300 more). my opponent calls, no help on the river and he turns over a straight, (no diamonds) and takes it down. did i play this like a moron? thanks
I'm not much of an Omaha player myself but as far as I can see you shouldn't have to much trouble getting your money back. How he can call the reraise with an outlay like that is anybodys guess. Maybe "home game" is the phrase that carries in it some of the explanation? Hang in there.
TT
As I understand it, he bet 200 into a 200 pot, you called 200 and raised 300. So he had to call 300 to win 900 (200+200+200+300). So he had 3:1 odds. Granted, he is drawing dead if you have the flush, but is your play such that there was a reasonable chance you were bluffing? If so, his call was not so bad at all. Perhaps he had a read on you. He only has to be right more than one time in four to show a profit.
It would obviously have been completely different if you both had 2,000 left after his 200 bet. Then he would be so much more exposed.
In general, you have to be a bit careful with small bluffs (small relative to the size of the pot). Especially when you are going all in. Unless you are the kind of player who bluffs very very infrequently, you are looking to get called too often.
RFL
Ray Zee - since it is clear that you played real high in the 80s, and with the interesting cheating posts on RGP (whether they are true or not is unclear right now to most of us)...I was wondering if you are willing to share any insights...for example - was there a good amount of cheating back then? is there still? how did you combat the cheating - did you just stay away from those games?
I am of course presuming that you, Sklansky and Malmuth weren't one of these scumbags, as it is clear you guys can win and win alot on the square.
don't want to scare away the fish.
n.t
Just a hello from Russ G....we used to play in Oregon, Montana, Tahoe in the 70's... remember??
yeh i remember you well Russ. even back when we played at the stardust in 1970 when we were just kids. the oregon games were something else in those days and will never come back. i never run into any of those people anymore and wonder what happened to some of the bigger players like bruce brown. it looks like you have the whole poker world shook up. i hope you know what you are doing as some people are probably pretty hot even though you dont owe them anything.
i just don't get it...why not say something?
hmmm...interesting post by those GCA people about Ray Zee on RGP. Now, I wish Ray Zee will respond to thsoe allegations, andwhen he does, I hope he is MUCH LESS CRYPTIC than Sklansky.
Geez, is Mason the only honest guy in Poker?
this is not like the situation in the movie "The Contender" ... for those who has not seen that movie, I recommend it.
is there anyone you dont know, russ? bitchass
40-80 HE So. Cal. Real good game. I have been playing for about two hours and have a pretty tight image. I have 78s UTG. Ninety five times out of a hundred I will muck this hand and only rarely will I raise with it. It just seemed like the right time to make a play with this hand and I raise with it. The player to my immeadiate left reraises. He plays aggressively, is on tilt, and frequently reraises me trying to take advantage of my tight image and make a play at the pot. The cutoff caps it and the button calls. Both blinds fold. I call and we see the flop four handed.
The flop comes 2 3 9 one to my suit. The player to my left bets and all my opponents call and I call. Am I correct to take a card off with a backdoor flush and straight draw.
On the turn a Jack comes. There are no flush draws. I have a gutshot to the low end of a straight. Again there is one bet and I am last to act. Do I call? I could be drawing stone cold dead, but the pot is laying me a nice price. I could certainly be up against KQ. This is So. Cal. and the players put in four bets before the flop all the time with this hand.
I briefly hesitate and call. The river brings a Ten and I win a monster pot. My opponents looked at me in utter disbelief and needless to say I got lots of action later the evening and had a monster session. This play certainly enhanced my image and I took full advantage of it.
Questions and comments appreciated.
Bruce
Pre-flop: I can't argue with your raise, provided, as you say, you only do so once in a while. If you do get to show the hand down, it can do you a lot of good on future hands, as you pointed out happened later in the evening.
The problem with calling two more bets is that you have a drawing hand. You want to be able to get to the river as cheaply as possible to have the greatest chance of completing your hand. With a reraise, a capper, and a cold-cap-caller behind you, you can be assured it's going to be expensive to draw. However, I count $840 in the pot when it comes back to you and of course original reraiser is going to call, so you're in effect getting 11 to 1 to put in two more bets. I probably would have done the same as you, held my nose and thrown in the $80. I'm shocked there was no further raising on either the flop or turn.
On the flop, there's now $1160, so you're getting 29 to 1 to draw to your backdoors with no posibility of being raised. Call seems correct.
On the turn, assuming all have called to you, there's now $1460 in the pot, so you're getting 18.25 to 1 to draw to (presumably) 4 outs. Even cutting the odds some to make up for the fact that A) you may hit and lose; and B) some of your 4 outs might be in someone else's hand, you're getting about the correct odds to draw to your inside stright draw.
Nice catch! Isn't it great when that happens? Let them all bitch and moan and now make them pay for it on future hands, as you apparently did.
Speaking of capping with K-Q in So. Calif., I was in a 30-60 game yesterday in which the pot was raised UTG by pocket 2s, reraised immediately to his left by pocket 7s, cold-called by T-9 offsuit and capped by As-2s. Flop came Js-7s-2; pot was capped with all players in. Turn was a blank; pot was capped with all players in. River was an offsuit 8. T-9 hit his gut-shot and I can still hear pocket 7s complaining.
Andy,
You can still hear the 7's, so that wasn't your hand. Did you have the T-9?
I wasn't in the pot. I only call with T-9o for two bets cold, not for three. :-)
I certainly wasn't thrilled about putting in two more bets with 78s. However my hand was well concealed and it was unlikely anyone else was holding my cards. Well let me take that back, this is So. Cal. and the guy capping may of had 67s.
Bruce
No doubt your hand was well-concealed, and, as I say, I probably would have done the same thing and tossed in the $80. But the fact that your hand was well-concealed is not a reason for playing. After all, you could have had 7-2o and the flop might have come 7-2-2. Surely no one would have figured you for a full house; your hand would have been well-concealed. But it would still have been foolish to play this hand in a capped pot. An extreme example no doubt, but the point is that your hand still was something approaching cheese in a capped pot. Still, suited connectors go up in value in these types of pots and I would rather have called the cap with 8-7s suited than with, say A-Q.
Were you playing in Commerce?
Yes- last night.
I was there last night (until about 10:30) playing 30-60. The must move game, when I was in it, was terrible. The main game was unbelievable; it featured the hand I mentioned (UTG raise by 2-2; next player reraises with 7-7; cold call by T-9o; cap by As-2s). Viva California.
We probably crossed paths because I started out in that game and then moved to the must move 40 game. The must move looked like a pretty sorry game until a live one from San Diego sat down who plays mostly low ball. I hadn't seen him in a while. I used to occasionally play with him in Oceanside.
Bruce
Well, now that I know we might cross paths (although I don't play 40-80), I better watch what I say. :-)
I rarely get a chance to play at the Commerce these days unfortunately. The action I see still never ceases to amaze me. I saw a guy win a pot with Q7o in a capped pot before the flop with five way action when he made a flush on the river with his Seven. I saw another player throw his hand away on the river when there were five spades on the board, he bet, his opponent called and he mucked without showing his hand, and he assumed his opponent had a spade in his hand. He may have, but it very well could have been a split pot.
Bruce
"I have 78s UTG. Ninety five times out of a hundred I will muck this hand and only rarely will I raise with it"
you realise of course that know one here believes this right? ;)
obviously you had odds to go for your gutshot once the ragged flop came, as andy pointed out in detail. i really think you shouldve folded preflop when it came back to you capped.
There are three players who will put in four bets and my call will complete the action. Folding when I am almost certainly non-dominated for two more bets is unthinkable esp. in a very lively game. If it was four bets cold to me with three players only in the pot than I would most definetely pass.
Bruce
how do you do this hat trick ?
THE PAPA
Should you check-raise, check-call, or bet the river in this situation? What did you do?
I just played in my first PL hold'em game and the following hand was the first significant pot in which I got involved. I suspect it is a routine hand, but would appreciate confirming or conflicting opinions. It was a loose 7-handed game with a couple of overly loose-aggressive players. The blinds are $1 and $2. I call from the button with 7s6s after two limpers; five players see a flop of 8s-Tc-3s. All check to me, I bet $10 into the $10 pot and am called by both limpers. Limper 1 was unfamiliar to me but seemed loose/inexperienced; limper 2 was one of the overly aggressive players. The turn card was 4s. L1 checks and L2 bets $40. At this point, I had about $90 in my stack and my opponents had me covered. Due to L2's boldness, I ruled out folding. I felt there was a good chance she was semi-bluffing with the ace of spades in her hand, in which case a raise would not protect my hand. I also felt there was a small chance L1 would call $40 with a nearly or totally hopeless hand. Therefore, I called. L1 mucked. After a blank fell on the river, L2 again bet the pot. I called all-in.
BTW, if these stakes aren't high enough to interest you, feel free to add a zero to each dollar amount! ;-)
im sure you're beat on hte end but the pot is too big to fold. CHIPS!
Actually, I won the pot. Do you think I made a mistake on the turn by not raising...or not folding?
sounds like you are up against a lineup of limit players. if you are going to call the river you should raise the turn. sur she wont fold an ace but she will pay max price to see th river, there is also a good chance she has a set make her pay to draw.
RAISE not that i know anything. I've only played pot limit twice.
I've come to think I should have raised as well, primarily to discourage the other limper from calling with a higher spade.
T.J. Cloutier’s no-limit advice in “Championship No-Limit & Pot-Limit Hold’em” served me well in relatively small buy-in NL tournaments. I’m not sure how much faith I should place in the pot-limit section of his book, however. I may post a few of his statements for discussion, but for now I would welcome any opinions from PLH players who’ve read his book.
Played plh for the first time at Binions in Vegas over the Memorial Day weekend. Highest Ive ever played before was 6-12 but was on vacation so took a shot and bought in for 300. Please rate my play.
Hand 1: Blinds are 2,5 and I have about 290 in my stack. Utg, I limp in with 9,10 spades. 4 callers including button and both blinds. Flop is Q,9,4 rainbow. It is checked around. Turn is 10. I bet 25, all fold except button who calls. River is a blank. I bet 40, the button raises the pot. I think for a while and muck. I find out later that the guy is a habitual bluffer who soon busts out. Doh!!
Hand 2: After a couple of more players enter the game I take out more cash and now have about 500 in front of me. Dealt A,A in the sb. 4 plyers icluding button limp in. Flop is 333. I bet 25 all fold to late player who raises 60 more. I fire back and raise the pot. He thinks for a minute and mucks. I was thinking I should have waited until the turn or river to try and trap him.
Hand 3: A,3 suited utg, I limp. Guy to my left raises to 20, all fold, I call. flop is 3,3,x. He has about 2k, I have about 600. I check he bets about 50. I hesitate for a second, peek at my cards and call. turn is a J-no flush possible. I check, he bets 100, I raise the pot. He thinks for a while and then mucks. He tells me later that he had a high pocket pair. Again, should I have waited?
All in all, It was a fun experience. I thought I would be a little intimidated, which I was at first, but as the cards were dealt and I got into the flow of the game, I felt that I wasnt too much the fish.
Steve,
Though I also just had my first PL experience, I'm bold enough to offer some feedback. For what it's worth:
Hand 1: Your value bet on the river would be routine in a limit game, but I think PL requires more caution. Against an unknown or unpredictable opponent, I would have check-called the river.
Hand 2: I think it was a mistake not to raise before the flop. I'm not sure how large a raise should usually be made (i.e., a small pot-building raise or a large field-thinning raise)...I imagine "it depends." After the guy raised you on the flop, I agree you should have waited for the turn or river to pop him.
Hand 3: I think you probably should have folded to the preflop raise, as there is a good chance your hand is dominated.
Regards,
Mike
I enjoy P/L so much more than limit! Didn't you? It gets the juices flowing.... regarding your hands: (1st)your 2 pair were too good to muck, probably should hae reraised. (2nd) AA is the hand we all love, but experienced players would rather be against just 1, or 2 others...should have raised BEFORE the flop --you were in best position to raise before the flop, and after the flop not in best position...raise at least a third of the pot, probably half, and some would say to try to win it right here by betting max (3rd) I am not fond of A,little--even when suited..may be OK for a limp, but maytimes it will just get you into a trap..what are you going to do if an ace comes on the flop...remember this is P/L where you can lose it all in one hand...may be OK to chase in hopes af catching a 3 in limit, put not P/l. But after you were in and got the supper flop, you should have waited till river and let him lead one more time. lol Jim
PL is certainly more exciting, and I think I would enjoy it more once I feel that I know what I'm doing.
I'm very surprised you think Steve should have reraised that first two-pair hand. Even if I knew the guy was the biggest fish in the ocean, I would never consider reraising! Though I think your suggestion is too aggressive, perhaps my approach to value-betting the river is too cautious.
Michael, about the two pair--you did not say whether you would have mucked as Steve did. An interesting question would be---which ONE do you choose, muck or raise??? of course in a game that might depend upon our knowledge of the other player. lol Jim
I advised check-calling to avoid having to make that decision! :)
decisions, decisions--they sure make life difficult don't they! and in hold-em we are forced to make a lot of tough ones-- wish my track record was better.....Jim
Been winning very well in limit $5/10 games (around 4.5 big bets an hour over 90 hours), but where I live that is the giggest game except for a $2/4 blind potlimit holdem game.
How much do i need to sit into this game? What can I expect in terms of pot sizes and river bets in an 8 handed game?
I have virtually no potlimit experience, but a lot of nolimit holdem experience (for relatively small stakes mind you). How similar are the skills needed for potlimit and nolimit?
first let me say that they are allmost two different games....but, if you have become good at one you can probably become good at both. the $$ needed can varry a lot even for games with same blinds, depends upon how tight, how aggressive, etc. why not go to that game and observe stack sizes, bet sizes, etc;???for me the P/L game is much more interesting. Perhaps the biggest difference is that in P/l you need to be far more aware of pot odds vs. outs odds. good luck,Jim
Thanks. The game is normally played 8 or 9 handed and pots are usually 2-3 handed for the flop. A couple of players play very aggressively, and many others tend to be too tight-passive, only calling with very strong hands. Thankfully, i have played a lot with the most aggrssive players, and can read them very well.
I was thinking about $500 for a buyin. Is this typically adequate?
The amount needed can vary wildly depending on the players. One thing you might try is, look at the game about five hours after it starts. Figure the average stack size, double it, and bring that much to the next game.
Tommy
based upon size of blinds, your 500 may very well be OK, but remember two of us have now said --look at the game. there are other good reasons also--perhaps learn a bit about how some of them are playing, etc., and if it is super tight, why bother? lol Jim
Tommy's advice is good for an experienced player, but you haven't ever played PL. I recommend you buy in for $250 or $300. You are bound to make mistakes, and they are much less costly when you have less on the table. After you get used to the game and the playing styles, you will have a better idea of the correct buy-in.
similar skills for pot and no limit. but if you are winning 4.5 bb hour then you have been overly lucky, way too aggressive and hitting, or they play extemely poorly. if the first two apply you will lose at no limit. id guess the 2/4 pot limit game would play about like a 5/10 or 10/20 sized limit game unless it was real tight then it would be smaller.
In the $1 and $2 blind PL game I played, bets of several hundred dollars and pots over $1000 were common. It was populated with loose-aggressive limit hold'em players who appeared to have little idea how to adjust to big bet poker. It also had one totally clueless maniac. It was the first time they spread a PL game at this casino, and it was bigger than the 15-30 limit game.
and ive seen ten limit games where it was required to take every raise if you called and it played like a 50 100 game or bigger. so.
I played in a 5-10-10/20 for several months. It was populated mainly by no limit players. They'd flop a pair and start firing nickels at the pot to protect their hands. The 100 buy-in allowed you to play one hand, then, if you missed, it was reload and wait for the next deal. A reasonable player could be down 300 or up a thousand in the first 20 minutes.
how often does that game go when does it start.
Stay away!!! :-)
Okay, I'll tell you. The game started Friday around 6:30pm and lasted 7 hours. It restarted during the Saturday dayshift and lasted past midnight. No game Sunday. It is not yet clear how regularly the game will be spread, but I think you'll have a good chance of finding it on Friday evening, Saturday, and possibly Thursday evening.
"In the $1 and $2 blind PL game I played, bets of several hundred dollars and pots over $1000 were common. It was populated with loose-aggressive limit hold'em players who appeared to have little idea how to adjust to big bet poker. It also had one totally clueless maniac. It was the first time they spread a PL game at this casino, and it was bigger than the 15-30 limit game."
I'll bet they don't spread that game much anymore.
that is all,
danny boy :o)
Thanks to everyone. I played last Sunday, sat with $400, got stuck $180 before finishing up $900. I played again on Monday and won $1,270.
And the 4.5 big bets an hour is no fluke. The general level is poor but there are a couple of guys that are worse than drunk monkeys. They routinely lose $500 in a 6 hour session, and have never booked a win. I don't know why they keep playing.
>>I don't know why they keep playing.<<
Keep playing. You'll figure it out.
I saw this hand last night and I'm curious what most would do. Board is rainbow so suits don't matter.
You hold 2-4-5-x (didn't notice the 4th card). The board is A-3-9-8. Your sole opponent is a good poker player but has little PL and O8 experience. He raised pre-flop and has led out thru out the play. His most likely holding is A-A-x-x.
He bets the pot ($350) into you. You have about $1300, he has about $3000. What's your play? Scroll down for an additional question. > > > > > > > > > Would you change your play above if you knew he would not lay down any reasonable high hand?
Now let's put you in the other seat. You hold A-A-8-2 and your opponent (an excellent, deceptive player) plays back at you for $1000 more. What's your play? (No fair saying you wouldn't bet the turn in the first place).
TJ
The 2-4-5-x is almost certain to have the low locked up, based on your read of 'bare' Aces. With a 9 card freeroll for the high, I would move in here.
If I had the AA and someone moved in on me, I would have to give a strong consideration to folding. I have no chance to win the low, so I am probably playing for 1/2 the pot at best against who knows how many redraws. Betting the turn was not a good idea.
I have to jam here with 2 4 5 and try to get it all in. I've got an unbreakable low, low is made, and I've got him on AA. I'm sure to get half my money back if he has AA24 and a blank hits. It's likely that I'll at least get my money back, and I've got a virtual free roll at nine outs to scoop.
I WANT him to call.
Example 1: clearly go all in assuming confidence in your read that he has AA. You are freerolling. If you just call on 4th he might be able to pass on the river if you hit. That well outweighs the only advantage of just calling, which is to bluff if a scare card which misses you comes - there are not many. Note however that there are raising hands other than AAxx which he could have which have you in some trouble, e.g. A234, A248, A249 which all remove 2 of your drawing cards and make a 5 a split. AA24 just seems to unlikely to worry about much, though.
Example 2: I assume you mean you bet 350 with trips As and two useless sidecards, and your opponent re-raises 1000 all in. I think this is just a case of mathematics. You obviously cannot win low. So you are calling 1000 to win 500 (approx.). Just looking at straight draws, your trips As will stand up more than 2/3 of the time against any reasonable drawing hand including a 2 and a 4, which you can assume your opponent must have. So you should call, although you don't like it. If there is more money, and/or there is a flush draw you don't have, then it might be different.
Oh no!! Not again!
I was playing in a local small blind ($0.50 and $1.00) No Limit Hold'em game this past weekend and have a hand I'd like some comments on.
Play is 8 handed. UTG raises to $6. Two callers in mid-posistion. I call with 6c4c in late position.
Pot is $25.50
Flop K 5 3 rainbow.
Raiser checks as do the mid position limpers. I bet $25. Original raiser calls and the other two drop out.
Turn is 7 - Ding! (Now two spades on board)
UTG checks and I bet $75. Raiser comes back over the top of me for another $150 all in - easy call.
River is another 5. I show the straight and he mucks - so I don't know what he held although I know it wasn't a set - most likely AK or AA.
Nice but here's my question. What should I have done if on the flop he'd come over the top for another $75 or so. I mean my only outs are the straight cards (no backdoor flush in my suit possible) so I think I would have to dump this hand in this situation - unless of course the money was much deeper to increase the implied odds.
Thoughts?
What do you think of the bet on the flop? Should I have bet less in this situation or should I have taken the free turn card?
I'm new at No-Limit so I always try to remember one key hand and analyze it each session.
Any advice is much appreciated.
Thanks
Matt
check the flop. when it comes K high and an early position raiser checks bells should go off. the chances of getting check raised are very high. you will break him on hte turn if your card hits anyway.
hi, i'm interested in where you play at? i play a similar game except the buy ins are about 50 bucks w/ just 50 cent blinds...
as for the hand in question, i routinely fold 64 suited in late position w/ only 2 callers after an utg raise...then again, 6 bucks doesn't seem like that much w/ about 150+ in front of you guys...so i guess can you can gamble a bit.
you made a gutsy bet on the river opening yourself up to a checkraise from utg, what would u have done if he put u all in on the flop? fold of course, so take the free card on the flop next time. the raiser made a huge mistake not betting the flop [dunno why, wasn't slowplaying 3 kings b/c he woulda won when board paired up and to slowplay anything less top boat or quads and higher esp w/ 4 to a straight is a huge error...] so let him commit that huge error and take the free card.
rest of your play on the turn is straightforward, u have the nut on the turn so bet and call his raise.
Nice hand...I agree the bet on the flop was shakey but the rest was routine...Nice seven..I also play a similar game here in Seattle wheres your game???
dan,
Can I get in the Seattle game? I can tell you about some home tourneys here too. Cheap stuff, $20 buy-ins, etc.. Good players looking for experience.
Email me:
kscullin@hotmail.com
Kevin Scullin aka KJS
More details discovered....
Board Kd 5s 3h Turn 7s River 5c
UTG raiser had AKs in spades. That expains him coming over the top of me on the turn, but I think he made a grave error in not reraising on the flop. I don't understand why he would want to give the other 2 players a chance to try for this pot plus this kind of check-raise would have put me in a tough spot.
Anyway, in hind-sight I think that I should have probably taken the free card on the turn. If I had a couple of more outs then I think my aggressive flop bet would have been correct.
Thanks for the responses.
Matt,
You should not call a 6X BB raise with bad cards like 64s. That is a recipe for trouble.
I would check it though on the flop and get as much of my money in the middle as I could on the turn.
Really though, just don't be in there to begin with.
KJS
kjs....It's me naz...you already play with me
Check out the views at http://members5.boardhost.com/bet4cash/
They seem strange!
heads up pocket qs vs ak clubs. 1000 in pot both players have 5000 in chips. flop q27 with 2 clups. ak first to act whats the play from here.? what if qqq was first to act?proper bet and action to max ev? thanks
The best play depends on how the players behave, and how they play against each other!
But first a caculation
P(AK win)=P(AK makes flush w/paired board)+P(AKmakes straight)= 1/[45C2]{ 8C2 + 8(27) + 15)= 259/990
However the AK may believe he is favorite on the flop if he thinks the other player may only have top pair w/o A or K.
You need to pose your question better and give postion and preflop action, and player profiles to get some kind of answer.
I just started playing pot limit triple draw lowball and a hand came up. It was after the 1st draw and all the money went in. The hands were a 7234x draw vs. a pat 97543. Who is the favorite and by how much? Thanks, Jedi Ps If anyone knows where I can get a book on triple draw please let me know.
If anyone knows where I can get a book on triple draw please let me know
There was a great post on triple draw by Jim Geary in the other games forum a month or two ago. You can get to it from the 'archives' button.
Who is the favorite and by how much?
I'm sleepy, but with 14 outs in 42 remaining cards, I have the draw a .56 favorite.
It seems you have 14 outs and 42 unknown cards. Ignoring that other players (folded) hands tend to have higher cards in them, the draw misses both times 28/42 * 28/41 = 45.5%. Thus the draw is a modest favorite. Depending on how may players are dealt in and if all others folded immediately, the draw could be a bigger favorite.
The draw will beat the pat hand about 35% on one draw. That means it will beat it with two draws {1-[65%x65%]} or about 58% of the time (not exact since the second draw has a slightly better chance). However this assumes that the other hand stays pat even when the four card hand doesn't draw the last time. If instead the pat hand throws away the nine in that case (and is never "snowed" into doing that), he gains back about 5% up to about 47%.
Cloutier writes: “a great player like Bobby Hoff” will “bring it in for a baby raise every single time” when on the button holding small suited or unsuited connectors. I am guessing he means some great players will do this regardless of the number of limpers. [I find I must often guess what Cloutier/McEvoy mean due to the imprecision and disorganization of their writing.] Though I believe the statement is an exaggeration, I would like to understand the rationale behind this expert play.
What is the benefit of making pot-building raises with inferior hands, other than to provide cover for the times you wish to make similar raises with stronger hands? Given the risk of being blown out of the pot by a reraise, however, I wonder how strong a hand is needed for a “baby raise” to be immediately profitable. Opinions?
Bobby may not do this every time....but the value of this play is SURPRISE. Generally we expect raiser to have big cards, therefore when the flop does hit your hand you may be in a position to win a very big pot....inP/L, you can afford to miss many times because the win can be so big. And depending on flop and opponents you may be able to beat them even when you miss. as to how strong of a hand to have....may not be a pat answer for this....remember in P/L, or N/L you are playing three elements (1) cards (2) $$$ (3) the players (or people)....it's how they all mix that makes the final result. Bobby's play (above) may illustrate this. lol Jim
When a player raises on the button with virtually every playable hand, I would not be surprised if he had small cards.
After winning his first wsop, a reporter asked Stu Ungar "what advice he would give to play no-limit holdem" his reply was "never let them know what you got". It is not the number of limpers but WHO limped in. True the statement is an exaggeration,but against a player like the "Wizard" who will MOST of the time make a "baby raise" or a raise or a call on the button it is up to you as a player to understand the rationale of that type of play and most importantly to do something about it and if you wish to blow him out of the pot with a reraise do so at your own risk. Good Luck!
Hi, Carl, first time seen you on here...where are you now?? was good to see Larry W. make some $$$ at the WSOP... I recall 10-16 yrs ago when gldn nggt still had trnmnts... i had a piece of you and Larry, you and him were 2 of final 3....Phil H. knocked you both out in the same hand!!! Have some memories about Steve too, of course you have more. best regards Jim
Cloutier repeatedly states in his book that he would never make less than a full pot-sized bet or raise (unless he's going all-in) so as not to let them know what he's got. So apparently, he would not employ the "baby raise" strategy against limpers.
this play in late position doesn't really risk that much but it stands to gain a lot. if someone plays back big, you let it go. if not, you see the flop which a) might come big and if checked to you a bet can take it down. b) might come small which actually hits your hand and could allow you to win a huge pot.
also, when you raise with legitimate hands in late position, your opponents don't know what to think! they could put you on a similar small suited connector and they'd misplay it again.
his thinking is probably--you have the position, get in there and take advantage of it.
Perhaps I am underestimating the value of late position in PLH. In order for this play to make sense, the money has to be fairly deep. The rationale seems to be that small connectors on the button are usually at least as valuable as earlier position limping hands. Do you think somewhat weak and/or passive opponents are required for this play to be profitable?
i don't think opponents need to be weak or passive. in fact, an aggressive opponent is the kind you could win a big pot from if you hit your hand. they're more likely to be betting into you. also, a tight/good player is more likely to be able to muck a hand when you bet. however, keep in mind that the good player can and probably will sometimes play back at you and try to get you involved when they actually have a hand. so you have to be able to let it go.
But, Broomcorn, when against one as strong as Steve, he may just POP it back!! Jim
Most of the mid-limit hold’em players with whom I played PLH appeared to make the following adjustments to their play: they limped in with more hands; they called more initial preflop raises; they did not attempt to steal blinds; they bluffed more after the flop; they were more likely to slowplay (check) strong hands on the flop and turn. However, they did not adequately adjust their post-flop calling standards, tending to call pot-sized bets with the same weak hands that they'd call with when facing a single bet in LH. Is this a typical pattern of play for PL novices?
In response to their play, I also limped in with more hands when the money was deep; I did not reduce my raise-calling standards, however. What adjustments would you make to exploit the playing style of these PL novices?
reminds me of the old debate--if players are lose, do you tighten up , or go with them?? one thing which I hate about this situation is that they don't fold when thet are supposed to! I lean to tighten. Jim
Here's three things off the top of my head that I notice when limit players play pot limit.
1. They play draws from up front. When you think someone has picked up a draw on the flop, bet the pot at them. Hit them again on 4th street if they don't make a hand. Unless you have shape you want to flop a hand, not a draw, in pot limit. It takes a while to figure out how inexorable this rule is. Punish draws.
2. They don't watch stack sizes. If you have 500, he has 500, and it is fifty to you, you may get ten to one for your call. If he has only 100, you can only get 2:1. If it's his last 50, he can't push you off your hand later. Look for foolish bets pertining to stack sizes.
3. They defend blinds. Look for players who will call a $45 raise to defend a $5 blind. You won't believe the number who will. Blind defense is a limit or tourney concept. Make sure to teach them the error of their ways.
Played in the local 10-15 Omaha game last night. Winning 4500, almost ready to quit. (You know how this ends already.) Picked up QQ99 single suited. Made it 50 in late position, got 3 callers. Flop is nearly perfect, 9 3c 2c. It's checked to me, I bet 200, small blind raises 600. I just call, with the intention of raising on the turn if a club doesn't come. Turn is a red jack--a good card I think (not as good as a 9,8,7,3 or 2 of course, but better than an A 4 5 6 and way better than a club). He leads into me for 1500, I raise 4500 he appears to think briefly and raises my last 800. Of course he has Ac Jc Jh 3d. I still have 3 outs but nothing comes. I live ten minutes away, but it's a long ride home.
Looking back on the hand, and comparing my play with the obvious alternative of re-raising the flop, I think both have merits and I stand with my choice--at least until you readers convince me otherwise.
Thanks for listening.
what's there to convince you of? you played it swell. sorry that happened to you.
First of all playing QQ99 thats not the best starting hand. When he make it 600 I should have going all in and show the cards. Then he SHOULD fold. Betting 200 very weak.
Spotting when a random overcard has made someone trips in PLO is always hard, unless the overcard is an A (or perhaps K). Perhaps you might have guessed what was going on here, owing to the stop-start nature of the betting on the flop and turn: your opponent clearly had a biggish hand to call your raise on the flop, and the nut flush draw is an obvious part of his hand.
But what would he have to call the re-raise and then bet the turn when his draw does not get there? I would say the only options are a nut flush draw with cards which, with the J9 on board, also give him a big straight draw, or a hand including JJ. I still cannot see why a player with the former hand would want to get all in though, so JJ was a likely candidate. This was not the kind of hand where a player suddenly bets when an apparently irrelevant card falls (when the usual explanation is that he had it all the time), since you had the boss hand on the flop.
This is all really hindsight stuff, though. Basically you were just unlucky that he hit his "backhand" in a very concealed fashion.
Did you consider the possibility of JJ? If so, why did you rule it out or think it unlikely?
Oh no!! Not again!
Ohnonotagain: I didn't reraise the flop (perhaps I should have, particularly given the Jack!). So he is merely continuing to lead.
Other than that I agree.
Tough beat, you did nothing wrong imho. BTW if a club hit would you have folded?
I played plo for the first time last week. i loved it. i want to know where they spread it at. please help me find a game. please post the blinds and days they spread it
The Horseshoe in Tunica has a 10-25 PLO game with a Mississippi straddle (straddle from anywhere and the action starts in front of the straddle on the first round) that is spread at least from Thurs night to Sun night. There is also frequently spread a 5-10 game sometimes with Miss. straddle and sometimes without it. That game has become more frequent recently.
I believe that they also play 1/2 PLO and 1/2 PLH daily in Oceanside, CA. I understand that the blinds are 5-5-10 for the PLO and 10-25 for the PLH.
thank you jere.
With regarst to the posting of VERY long no limit report by Bobbycho dated 1 July 2000 4:05 am:
Iwould like to state that this man is wasting his time playing 1-4,8-8 hold em.
Few people have the ability to see the overall picture of no limit holdem and he is one of them.
Knox
Cloutier makes the following statements regarding the difference between PL and NL hold'em:
There are more opportunities for trap plays in PL. “You can slowplay hands a lot more in NL because you can bet any amount that you want at any time. But in PL…you have to build the amount that you can bet.”
PL is a less aggressive game than NL; you cannot run people out of the pot with a big bet like in NL. When you have a raising hand in PL, you want to build the pot--NOT limit the field.
I understand why one can slowplay more in NL, but I'm not sure what Cloutier means by PL "trap plays." Is he referring to calling a preflop raise with small cards in hope of catching a flop and punishing an overpair? I'm also skeptical about not wanting to thin the field with a raising hand in PL. Please help me see the light!
Good questions, Michael. I can't decide what he might mean by trap hands. But concerning the statment "--you want to build the pot-NOT limit the field", my interpretation is that the more you limit the field, the more difficult it is to build the pot for a LATER big bet.
Also, my guess is that he was talking about a ring game, not a tournament. Jim
I also assume he was talking about ring games and not tournaments, since the concept would be obviously incorrect in many tournament situations. However, I'm not sure it makes sense to want everyone to call your raise when you have a big pair. Though you would indeed be able to make a bigger bet on the flop, you may only be called by hands against which you are drawing thin to beat.
thats sure true. It would be hard for me to embrace that concept, and I've played a lot of pot limit. Jim
Thanks for responding to my PL posts. I suspect that Cloutier might also not believe in this concept; it may just be a product of his careless rambling writing style.
In another part of the PL section of his book, Cloutier wrote that you cannot protect big pairs unless you limp in, there is a raise and a reraise, and then you can raise again to force some people out of the pot. This implies that typical PL players routinely call a pot-sized preflop raise (or two) with the same sorts of hands with which they'd limp. Is this true? Is this good PL play? When the money is deep, is it often profitable to call pot-sized raises with small cards in hope of catching a flop and "trapping" an overpair?
Regards,
Mike
If there was a full raise and reraise after I limped in with QQ/KK, I'd be more likely to fold than reraise! Am I off base? Or do you suppose when Cloutier wrote "big pairs", he really meant "pocket aces?"
yes, many of those who have called the forced big blind bet will call a preflop raise--of course some will fold their weaker hands. I think perhaps this is because they had a good hand, or would have folded to begin with. In P/L you will not find many who limp with trash (as happens in low limit games).
No, it is not OFTEN profitable to call a raise with small cards...but smaller suited connectors, in late position, are sometimes attracted to the big pot...and can be very profitable.
No, I don't think he was talking about just AA. I know him-have played ring games with him,etc., and I believe he will tell you that he remembers people and how they play various situations. Thus much of his action is guided by his fantastick memory. Jim
"In P/L you will not find many who limp with trash (as happens in low limit games)."
Due to the relatively huge implied odds that are often present in PL, I believe it is less incorrect to limp with trash (when you don't expect a raise) compared to limit play. When I tried PL, I limped with some hands (e.g., small unsuited one-gappers in late position) that I would have routinely mucked in a limit game.
"I don't think he was talking about just AA. ...he remembers people and how they play various situations."
But Cloutier appeared to be speaking in general terms, not in relation to a specific type of opponent.
I just reread another passage in the book (which I had forgotten) that discusses the play of KK. Cloutier provides an example in which you smooth-call an open-raise with KK. He writes that if a player reraises behind you, you should either fold or call. You should not reraise due to the risk of being against AA, and because “you want to see if an ace hits the flop before you commit a lot more money.” So when Cloutier suggested making the third preflop raise with a "big pair," he may not have meant what he wrote.
Regards,
Mike
yes, I agree with your "less incorrect" thought...in low limit games you see people playing things like J,4o...pure crap.. thats the sort of thing which you will see less of in P/L because generally you face more experienced players. I like that, for one thing, they are more apt to fold when they should!
T.J. is a better player than writer, and of course some things in there which do not seem to match up are probably explained by that poker expression "that depends". lol Jim
"Thanks for responding to my PL posts. I suspect that Cloutier might also not believe in this concept; it may just be a product of his careless rambling writing style."
My understanding is that TJ talked into a tape recorder and McEvoy/Dana Smith transcribed it. There's a lot of good info in CNLPL but it is very poorly organized, and there are a few contradictory passages. It also bounces around btwn tourneys(all different kinds) and ring games, as well as btwn PL & NL.
The Omaha book is much better, and judging from the table of contents, the LHE book is tightly structured(I only read Seidel's intro while at the GBC in LV).
I'd be embarassed to charge $40 for a collection of disorganized, ambiguous, and occasionally contradictory ramblings. I feel a bit cheated.
if you aer a winning player at 80/160 - say $120 an hour, what would you be able to win in a 400/800 full game? does the player's skill actually increase between those two levels? (obviously it depends on the table, I know, but just in general). I would think the $120 per hour winner in 80/160 can win $400 an hour in 400/800 in Hold'em & Omaha (not talking stud here).
In the 400-800 games I have observed (I don't play that high), there are so many good players that I think an excellent player might not make even $200 per hour.
I can't even figure why anyone would play $400/800 professionally.
At mid-limits I consider 1000 big bets to be a safe bankroll if the goal is to make it the grave without a job. At $20-40, that's $40,000.
I would think that the huger a bankroll is, the MORE cautious a pro would want to be with it, since it would he harder to recover such a huge wad working in the real world.
At $400-800, my formula would require an $800,000 bankroll, at least. Let's call it a million. Invested in a diversified blue-chip fund, one could safely expect to earn $100,000 per year on such a sum over the long haul.
So why play at all? If the reasons are social, which is a valid reason in my view, then why play so high, risking significant chunks of net worth?
Tommy
when you have $5 mil or $10mill or $50 mill (as someone suggested Doyle and Chip has), I guess playign 80/160 jsut doesn't make sense at all. So the natural question is why play at all - I guess cause they love doing it - why does Bill Gates still work? same question.
That's why I stopped playing....I am a lurker here and there on the week-ends. I love poker but there is too much cheating and bad luck factor in it for me. I am worth over 7 figures and I made most of it in the markets (starting from 1986) - I play but if don't even want to play mid level and the better(juicier games are more fun but too much of my money to risk. I don't mind risk but vis a vis reward. I find that(risk adjusted reward) is far better in the markets depite the IRS ;) Tommy makes a point that S&M may steal one day he he he
"bigswingingdick". Did you work for Salomon Brothers in the 80's? Is that where you made your 7 figures?
if he worked for them there, then he'd be a sucker for only having 7 figures. if he was a real BSD, he'd have 8 figures, and wouldn't bother with this forum.
I was a stock-broker in 1986, after the crash no-one would talk to me. So I got my license (series 3) and from my inheritance I bot SP contract(one contract) on a big dip after October. I never looked back since made $150,000 on one contract just by sitting on my hand (and rolling it the month after month). I now trade NL funds and futures. Don't play poker anymore.(I play craps however ;-)
Nobody who actually worked at Salomon would call himself a big swinging dick. The term was coined in Liar's Poker to highlight arrogance, greed, and hubris of the 1980's fixed-income gunslingers. Sort of like "Master of the Universe" in Bonfire of the Vanities.
Only losers, wannabes, or lucky gamboolers would ascribe that phrase to themselves.
how much have you observed though? since you don't play, it is possible that you have missed alot of the juicy times - maybe you observed the session(s) when there were no big fish around.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm just saying maybe there's more to it than what you observed.
one of the reasons I asked, is because Annie Duke mentioned on RGP that she makes 1.5 bb/hr - and she thinks the 400/800 limit is the softest (vs 200/400, 300/600 and 1000/2000). so she makes $1200 an hour at 400/800 - nothing makes me not believe her statement.
I'm a recreational but fairly serious player from Europe. I've played both the levels you mention, and in between, at O/8 (actually 75-150 rather than 80-160 in fact). I've got a good winning record at O/8 at those kinds of levels (all in LV), over a few hundred hours. I don't really play hold'em much. I've played much more 75-150 and 200-400 than 400-800, but I think I've played enough of the latter to make some reasonably reliable observations.
First, at all these levels you will find people who are playing up or playing down from their most usual level. You will find people in the 75-150 or 100-200 who usually play bigger, and you will find people in the 200-400 who are taking a shot, etc. At least where I have played (LV) there is a big gap down from the 75-150 to the next smallest game (15-30 or 20-40), and people don't cross that gap nearly so readily.
Second, my experience of 75-150 is that while the players obviously differ in skill, nearly all of them are quite sound, and the number of bad players is very small. There are not that many tourists or visitors.
Third, subject to the people who play varied limits, 400-800 is very different in the line-ups you find in the smaller games. I think it is a function of a number of things. One is that that game is sometimes the biggest game in the room, and fairly often the second biggest game to the grotesquely huge game. So a lot of people play in it for that reason alone, including some visitors and rich people who want to just play in the biggest game around for ego reasons. Another is that people without iron discipline or unlimited wealth are bound to go broke in that size of game; in the 75-150 kind of limits, there are players who lose their balance occasionally but still get by.
Also unlike the 75-150, in the 400-800 type of size of game, I have observed a number of really bad players. Some of them are clearly regarded locally as the "mugs", the "value", the "stars". So much so that if they are top of the waiting list, the players in the game will make it ten-handed to get them in quicker. I do not know where these players get the money, but they are huge losers and don't seem to care.
You will often see the 400-800 game break soon after the above kind of players leave.
Leaving aside the tourists/visitors/terrible players, I would say that the skill level in the 400-800 is appreciably better than in the 75-150, but not massively so; the good 75-150 players are very good already.
Why play 400-800 at all if you are adequately bank-rolled (Tommy Angelo's question)? I think the answer is partly ego, and partly because of the increased opportunity to get the money off basically terrible players who are eager to play in the biggest game for ego reasons of their own. Also 10%, on 1 million is "only" $100,000. Enough to live in comfort and be safe, but not nearly as much as can be made as a consistent winner in that size of game; 0.25 BB an hour at 400-800 = $200 per hour = $400,000 a year if you play 2,000 hours, which is only about 40 hours a week.
Oh no!! Not again!
"Why play 400-800 at all if you are adequately bank-rolled (Tommy Angelo's question)?"
For the record, my question was not "Why play?" The reasons people play poker are vast, at any level.
My question, reworded in more general terms, was, why play PROFESSIONALLY at a level so high that an adequate bankroll = a retirement nestegg.
I chose an example of a $1,000,000 as a nestegg/bankroll because that would be plenty big enough for ME to stop playing professionally. For others it might be 2 mil or 3 mil or whatever. That's a factor of age and life-style and too many things for a one-size-fits-all number to apply.
If I had $1,000,000 and continued to play poker, I'd play at a limit plenty low enough to insure that my nestegg would not be jeopardized by a months-long losing streak. I might still make money playing, but I'd no longer be a professional.
Tommy
some people may choose to play professionally as a challenge. for example, let's say that you got your $10/$20 million trust fund at age 30 - what are you going to do with the rest of your life? sit by the beach sipping cocktails? well, you've done that for the last 30 years already, that's old hat. maybe a challenge of some sort...and poker would be considered a challenge.
If you had $30M in the bank and were risking some of it at hold 'em for the "challenge", I wouldn't really call that playing professionally.
well, what do you call being a professional? Is Bill Gates a professional? because by your definition, he is not...since he is worth x Billion , and is only risking x million when he works.
I agree with Bobby's latest post. Your Bill Gates analogy doesn't apply because PROFESSIONAL-owner-of-an-enormously-profitable-business is not anything at all like PROFESSIONAL-poker-player.
The word "professional" shifts meaning with context.
I am a "professional" writer in that I sell words that I write. But the writing provides such a miniscule percentage of my income that one could argue the word "professional" is misleading if I met someone at a party and introduced myself that way. See what I mean?
If a doctor makes $400,000 doctoring in a year and $10,000 playing poker, would you call him a pro poker player? I wouldn't.
If a cab driver makes $8,000 in a year driving a cab and makes $10,000 playing poker, would you call him a poker pro? I would.
Tommy
I would suspect that most "professional" players at almost all limits are severely under-bankrolled. I would bet that many of the players in the 400-800 have less than $100,000 dollars to their name.
I have nothing to base this guess on but human nature. People who think that they are good enough to beat a poker game are often unwilling to play a small game until their bankroll is big enough to support the bigger game.
You wouldn't play 400-800 with less than $1,000,000 , and I agree that your judgement is very rational. I just don't think most players are as self-controlled as you.
"I would suspect that most "professional" players at almost all limits are severely under-bankrolled. I would bet that many of the players in the 400-800 have less than $100,000 dollars to their name.
I have nothing to base this guess on but human nature."
You might be right about the higher limits, and your reason makes sense. Still, how can the same pros show up everyday (at the mega-high limits) if they are so severely underfunded? Statistics would predict lots of them going broke when they hit a bad run.
As to pros at the $20-40 level, I don't think it's possible to be "severely" underbankrolled, just because the minimum requirements, say, 10K or so, are so small. It's possible to go years and years playing full time 20-40 professionally without ever going broke and without ever having more than 10K.
Tommy
Maybe the reason underbankrolled players don't go bankrupt is they are willing to drop down in limit when they hit a losing streak.
what if a man made $200,000 off of interest in his municipal bond funds, and made $75,000 playing poker.....is he a professional poker player? I think so. what if the man made $2,000,000 off of interest in his muni bond funds, plus another $10,000,000 (+ or - $20,000,000 on any given year, sometimes more) on his stocks...and made $1,000,000 playing poker - is he considered a poker pro? I think so.
I think some of the issues here may be that some of us who have a lot less money may think we would live our lives very differently if we had $10mill....that we would no longer be going to the card room nearly as much.
Do you see any slowdown in the LA Area ? How about up north ??? I used to play around but lately I have been hybernating....in Sacramento. I used to play NL in the Bay Area and I rather keep my "bigswingingdick" alias cause I took some of your money he he he .
Sorry it should read "big bet" - what's up with this site ?????
Who is he he he or is that laughter like hee hee hee?
I am looking for a pot limit omaha game. where can i find one ?
where do you live???????
i play at home games. i play at mt pleasant (michigan) once a month.
Well at Mt. Pleseant. They have high and low stake ohmaha Hi/Lo. If you play high you have to 8e aressive
Where in Michigan do you live? E-mail or post 8ack.
Cartman9111@aol.com
In the course of one of the cheating threads on RGP, Annie Duke claimed to have beaten $400-800 & $600-1200 for a big bet and a half over a period of several years. It's an amazing claim, esp in light of S&M's writings on win rates and expectations. I believe her, and I'll tell you why.
I was discussing this claim with a couple of old-timers who've known/seen/dealt to/played with every elephant(i.e. GCA, Spilotro, Sarge Ferris, Ray Zee, Caro, Doyle, Chip, Puggy, Stu, Pat Callihan, etc.) and watched 'em all die, as the saying goes. They've got no agenda and nothing to prove. They told me that win rates move in a sort of U shape. Very large win rates(4-5 BB an hour) are possible at $3-6(as Badger has claimed) then when you get to $40-80 about 1 BB/hr is the max, 3/4 at $75-150, etc.
However, once you start getting to about $400-800, the games become more like PL/NL and "people skills" are more important than math skills. Therefore, 'Dukie's' claim is quite believable, esp. in light of(according to 'the elephant hunters' along with virtually every other poker expert) her world class people/technical skills.
Remember, Mason himself has said that a fish has no chance against an elephant in PL/NL(one of the reasons he doesn't recommend cardrooms spread them; another being that accusations of cheating pop up.....), so a PL/NL expert's win rate can be virtually infinite.
This leads me to conclude(as David once mentioned in a different context), that someone who can beat/is properly bankrolled might actually be better off staying at $30-60/$40-80 rather than moving up to $75/150 & $80/160, AND should consider taking selected shots at & selling shares of themselves(if necessary) in order to play in juicy $400-800 and higher games, as Annie says she does for $2K-4K and higher.
And before you ask, the elephant hunters both told me that virtually everything GCA has posted about cheating from the mid '80s backwards is true(yes, that includes the stuff about Ray), but they also say that GCA has no clue about what goes in the big Bellagio game; that anything below $40-80 is 99% safe; and that 99% of cheating is team play, usually of the clumsy, easily spotted variety, done by bad players who are still going to lose despite it.
They also said that they don't care for a lot of the "moral absolutism" they've seen on this issue; they told me, "Remember, the poker world was entirely different 25 years ago and these guys were all young once, and had different motivations when playing than they do now(or that a young player would have today)."
FTR, I didn't ask(duh) either if they ever cheated(duh), but both have dealt/managed(very well) extensively in many cardrooms and are totally honest as far as I can see in every respect. FWIW, I'm 35, have been playing since '93, have never cheated and have never played higher than $30-60 and .25/.50 NL.
In Super System Doyle says that 40-80 type limits are much more difficult to beat than the real big bet games. reason is that there are many very talented but poor people in the mid-limit games and there are many rich but careless people in the big games.
Absolutely; I left that off. "ohnonotagain" also mentioned it in the thread down below.
Who would you rather play: Mason & Roy Cooke or Andy Beal & Mark Cuban? I need a backer!! :)
Bill:
Though I have no first hand knowledge as to Duke's results at $400-$800 (or any game for that matter), I would expect that some exaggeration is present.
Mason
how about just a lack of information - I mean, it is clear she doesn't play 40 hours a week - maybe she only gets in 400 hours a year....in that case, just two or three really lucky sessions could really adjust the numbers from .5BB to 1.5 BB.
Its sort of like a golfer. When someone tells you there a six handicap, I will bet my life they won't break eighty when I golf with them. They'll have an "offday" and shoot 83.
Annie's win rate at 400-800 is 1 1/2 big bets per hour? Thats 9,600.00 in an 8 hour session; one million, two hundred thousand in a 1,000 hour year of playing,
and she need backers?
may be fudged a bit, and may be playing shorter hours..so say 5,000per day for four days per week...not much but I guess it would add up in a few years. Jim
she uses backers? do you know this for a fact?
Mason,
I remember an interview w/Annie in CP, where I believe she said that she played fulltime after leaving college, moved to Montana when she became pregnant the first time, and now goes to Vegas 3-4 times a year for 2-3 weeks at a time.
From her post on RGP:
"I played in the $200/$400 thru $600/$1200 games for a few years and made around a bet and a half an hour. That seems like a lot if I was being cheated. Since I started playing the really big game I haven't played that many hours (I've been in Montana) so I don't really have reliable stats."
"....as for me poker is my primary source of income. I am married and my husband has some income of course but poker is our main income."
"I have no motivation to cheat not because of my financial situation but because I couldn't live with myself. ..... Do morals only apply if you are rich? Geez...."
"I play up to 2k/4k but when playing higher than 1k/2k I generally sell off part of myself to someone not in the game with me."
"I prefer the $400/$800 games because they are softer in general but when a juicy bigger game comes up I will play."
Did she say what she majored in in college? And how has her major contributed to her success as a player?
She majored in English. Her brother, Howard Lederer, taught her how to play, and ~may have initially bank-rolled her.
which reminds me of another gal who played high... married, baby, Montana (or somewher up there). Anybody heard from Betty Carey??? Jim
If this is the same Betty, which I think it is, she plays mostly 40-80 at Hollywood Park. She is in a relationship, don't know if she is married or not, with Sears.
Bruce
here's a hand I played against Betty in 40/80 at Hollywood :
I am in the cutoff in a full game with QQ...everyone folds to me...I raise. THe button, a very aggressive preflop raiser three bets (this doesn't mean much, could just have AJo).
Betty is in the Small BLind - she makes it 4 bets.
I am 99% sure she has AA or KK...I fold.
Later on, she shows AA.
Betty is a reasonably solid, capable player. She is susceptible to tilting. I think her biggest problem is putting in some really long sessions, where her play begins to suffer.
Bruce
this was when she was in the game for an hour and was up some.
wasnt that a mistake? would she have just cold called with QQ? or folded? would she have auto folded JJ or AKs?
99% sure?
wow..
she would've just called with those hands you mentioned.
last i heard Jim, was she is still living a life in wyoming.
?
let's see - 3-4 times a year (let's say 4), and 2-3 weeks at a time (lets say 3) = 12 weeks a year...at 50 hours a week, that's about 600 hours....which gets to the point where the numbers start to mean something, although I would imagine it can be pretty far off from "expected" due to luck.
Have you misspelled "counterfeiter", or is it a subtle reference to another word?
thanks for the correction, but i'll keep my handle as is
Why are people skills more important than mathematical skills at 400-800?
I've never played higher than 75-150 but have a close friend that plays all limits and I've watched him quite often. The higher games have giant variances due to the very large ante structure and gambling personalities of those who play. I don't really think it's possible to beat that kind of game for anywhere near 1 1/2 BB/hour but the 'long run' in those games is extremely long due to the variance, so it's certainly possible to win at high rates for a long time and not even be a winning player. I once saw the worst player at the table beat up a tough (average six players--> 3 of them excellent by all opinions) game for well over one year. It was amazing. And I can assure you this player wasn't cheating. Just shows how streaky poker, especially stud poker with a high ante, can be.
That's just what they told me, Russ. Maybe Annie just had great game selection skills! I don't think she'd lie about her rate, but you never know.
Did Anne Duke say how much she brings to a 400-800 game? What would be the minimum a player would need to sit in a 400-800 game?
JEH
Hi all,
I am still looking for a place to PLO. I only recieved 1 reply so far. Help me out.
I think most places in Europe have pot limit. Certainly in the UK its all Pot limit.
Thank you piers.
mike, your question is too broad--give some geograprical limits or something, then you will likely get responses. Jim
LOOKING FOR PLO GAME IN CHICAGO AREA.
that's much better, Mike. Now I know not to bother to tell you that there is usually a big one in Tunica,Miss. at the Horseshoe. Hope you find one close enough....makes a great (but brutal) game!! Jim
Mike, There is a PLO game (5,5,10) at Harrah's in East Chicago. They spread it one day a week. I can't remember the day... give them a call...
Dru
I am new to pot limit omaha and am hoping that some of you experienced players can help me out with the following senario?
I am under the gun (seat 10) with Ac Ad Qd 6s I have ~800$ and am about 8 hrs into my first pot limit omaha game. All players ante 2$ the button 7$ I call 5$ as do 5 other players. I have been playing very conservatively ( as I realize I am a novice! ) The play in general has been very poor with alot of reckless play, and very poor hand selection. There are only 3 players in the game who can play.
The flop was Ah 8h 7s
I checked as the table has been making jokes about how tight I have been playing and feel my only chance of getting action on the hand is by trapping. Im not suggesting this is a good style of play but given my lack of experience would rather be safe than sorry.
A wild player in seat 3 bet 20$ ( he has ~900) this is not unusal, he has been playing 85% of his hands and is betting often. My strategy to this point has been predicated on taking advantage of the action this creates ,as the players behind him are prone to getting involved with him with less than great hands and I am hoping to come over the top of them when they play with seat 3.
As it turns out that is exactly what happens, as seat 7 an experienced but loose player with a short stack raises 75$ more all in. Remaining players fold.
My question to you now is what is the best play?
More often than not seat3 has nothing and although there are flush and straight possibilities ,it seems unlikely that he can call the 75$ raise let alone a re raise should I elect to go that route. Obviously I would like to double up, there is 140$ in the pot.
Should I flat call and hope neither the staight or flush makes it on the turn,then lay him a bad price on the turn for him to draw? (pot would be 290$ if he calls) Or should I put a small raise in on the flop ensuring he gets way the worst of it at every stage with the added bonus of tying him to the pot if he calls say 160$ on the flop? Keep in mind that seat 3 is way out of line (85% is no exaggeration) and I would not be at all suprised if he would call 75$ with open ended straight or just about any flush draw.
Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated, I hope my description is not too convoluted.
Thanks
KT
The flop was Ah 8h 7s
You've got a set of aces with a heart draw and straight draw on the board. Seven outs to a full house or quads. Any non-heart Q, K, 3, or 2 is safe on 4th street (12 cards).Eight hearts plus 18 other straight cards make a straight or flush possible. You're a 19:26 dog to like the turn card. You might consider trying to take the pot on the flop (or at least chase #3 out).
Obviously I would like to double up, there is 140$ in the pot.
I wasn't there, but normally you don't have a double-up hand. A double-up hand is more like A A 9 10. If a J comes on the turn, you can put another 9, 10 all-in, and then hit your full on the river. You can also lose to a heart on the river, so it's even nicer if you have hearts.
Should I flat call and hope neither the staight or flush makes it on the turn,then lay him a bad price on the turn for him to draw?
How much do you want to gamble if you get you neutral card on 4th street? If you want to go all in, you have to raise the appropriate amount now. Do you want a big side pot? If the all-in player hits, you may be able to take a big side pot down. My guess is that the all-in player has both hearts and a straight draw. An advantage of betting on the flop is that it may keep #3 off of you if he stays in and a scare card hit 4th street. Even the #3's of the world can flop big draws in Omaha.
Generally speaking, if I flop a set of A's with no draws, I start building a pot. When there are also a couple of draws out there, I start pounding. That's why it's nice to raise a little before the lay. It gives you a bigger bet when the flop hits.
Player 7 probably has a big draw, since you have the top set.
If player 7 has a big draw e.g. KJT9 with nut hearts, that doesn't leave much for player 3 to have. So you are probably right that he made his bet with only a weak hand such as a weak flush or straight draw. To my mind that means that you should NOT let him in. You both have plenty of money left, and he has position on you. If he has a slim draw then he perhaps has implied odds to call the 75, or almost.
So I would re-raise the maximum to protect yourself. If he calls then you might have to play a guessing game on 4th street if a straight card comes. If a blank comes, you will be able to get all-in.
Oh no!! Not again!
because we are putting the good player on a big draw, you very well may not beat him and will win nothing unless there is a side pot...so if you bet and get called it may be good cause now you can win a side pot...but you really would prefer that he get out...so make a big bet of at least $100. if turn is a blank, bet all you can, Jim
Hey, wait a minute, I was in the 3 seat?????
wait a minute...if that's THE "T.J.", then fold.
Thanks for your responses guys.
Obviously Phat Mack makes a very good point, ideally I would have some backup to my trip aces so that I might be free rolling should certain straights come on the turn. I did have back door nut diamonds though so some of the straight scare cards that might come on the turn may improve my hand significantly.
If I call 95$ and raise 235$ he is still getting 2-1 on the nut flush draw. His implied odds are my ~500$ stack, however if the flush makes it on the turn, I can get away from my hand when faced with a pot bet.( so does he really have any implied odds?)
The advantage to just calling the all in raise is that if seat 3 calls, the pot is 290$, and I can bet the pot should I like the turn, hope that he under bets on the turn should he make his hand (which he very well might do, 150$ for example) allowing me to see the river.
The concensus here is that I should raise the pot. As it turns out seat 3 has Kh Th 5s 6c and is not going anywhere! The all in player has As 7d Jc 3s.
I raised 75$ more, seat 3 called. Turn was a nightmare 10h, I checked, seat 3 bet the pot, and I folded. River was 7c not that it matters.
I have been playing limit poker for years, and although I lost 875$ in the game I had a great time. There was lots of tension and drama and it truly makes limit poker look like a grind (which it is!).
Thanks again for you replies
KT
yes, limit games just don't get the juices flowing like P/L.
KT
I suggest you play at a different casino that only uses a 52 card deck.
Adam.
8:)
Greetings all:
Anyone ever play at the Stone in Upstate NY on wednesday night in the No Limit game? Wondering if there is any action, how the game moves, blinds ect...
-JC
I don't believe that there could be that much action at the turning stone no limit game. Don't take my word for it tho. I haven't been there for a while but when I did, the highest limits there was 20/40
On the weekends they often spread 25/50, 30/60 and sometimes 50/100. There is actually quite a bit of action at T.Stone these days. There isn't a NL hold'em cash game on wednesday nights -- but there IS a NL Hold'em tournament. I believe it is $50 buy-in, $10 entry fee and limited to 20 players (I think).
Greetings all,
I recently relocated from the poker rich Southern California to Chicago. For the past four months my win rate has dropped to exactly zero given that I can't find a game. I have found a few casinos outside the city but the poker rooms tend to be pretty weak as far as having high rakes and rarely having games spread. I was hoping anyone who's played in the Chicago area could give me some suggestions. My preferred game is hold'em, usually 10-20 to 20-40 limits, but I'd be happy to locate a respectable game anywhere near the city... any suggestions?
Supes
I visit CHICAGO EVERY YEAR AND POST THE SAME THING....I HAVNT AS OF YET FOUND A GAME IN THE CITY...AURORA..THE RIVER BOATS ETC ARE ALL IV'E FOUND...GOOD LUCK. PLEASE POST IF YOU DO FIND ONE
They spread up to 20-40 HE and the action is usually great. Sometimes comparable to the action in SoCal. They also have a 40-80 HOSE game.
On certain days they spread PLO (5,5,10) and PLS...
I can't help thinking there has to be some rooms in the city... like in NYC, maybe not officially licensed, but openly tolerated. In the mean time I guess Harrah's it is... Thanks guys.
Where are these rooms in NYC? I thought that for the last year or so poker was no longer played in say the mayfair. Is this not correct?
Please let me know, though i don't live very close to NYC it is closer than the casinos in conn...
Thanks alot,
No, sorry to get your hopes up...
That's what I was refering to. I haven't been NY in a couple years. I did hear that both the clubs I played at there were indeed shut down, but they had been openly tolerated for some time... I was hoping to find a similar setup in Chicago.
ist x playing pl
blinds 5-10 we all have about 2k
2 world class players in game
a lot of limping pre flop
gets aggressive post flop
i have AKs in ep i bet $45
button calls, former world champ calls in BB
flop Q-6-3, w/2 of my suit
bb checks, i bet pot, both call
turn is 10 not of my suit, bb checks
i'm not sure what to do so i bet the pot
any suggestions on what to do in this situation
should i just check the turn
i know i'm beat w/out 3rd suit and any A or K
probably no good.
I agree with the pot-sized bet here for a few different reasons. You said the game was aggresive, so with both players checking you may just take it down now and we can all go home... I imagine since you posted the question that's not what happened... but I think a solid player would recognize that people had been playing hard and gambling it up and bet a strong hand to build the pot and make your flush draw pay. More important with a hand like this I like to bulid the pot so if I hit my flush or gutshot it pays. If you wait till the river and then make the nut it's going to be tough to get paid off unless, maybe, someone has some kind of weaker flush, that seems unlikely unless someone is taking a page out of Doyle's playbook and calling the raiser with low suited connectors. I think the guy who does that though would also put in a little action in front of you with his draw. Once you bet, if someone comes back at you it's down to pot odds. If you stick around and hit you win a nice pot... if you don't hit it's a judgement call as to whether you can by it.
I'd be interested to know how it played out...
supes
button folded
bb flashed AQo and threw into muck
Wow. Obviously you made the right bet on the turn, although, what would you have done if either player comes over the top?
I'm trying to figure out the world champ's play from the blind. Q high garbage flop is about as good as he could expect w/ AQ, but he check-calls the flop and folds to a bet on the turn. He puts you on AA/KK, but it costs him $200 to do it, and he ends up making the wrong read. This is one of those hands that emphasize how difficult it is to play out of position even when you get a good flop.
-Oz-
i thought my only chance to win was to bet
i would have called all-in if bb
came over the top
as i said this was my 1st x playin pl
but saw a lot of plays like this
i'm sure i looked weak and scared
so for me to bet like that i had to have AA or KK
I'm trying to figure out the world champ's play from the blind.
Good grief! You and me both. His play on the flop baffles me. The only reason he can check the flop is to re-pop it. Is he paranoid about the flush draw? That makes no sense when he checks the blank hitting the turn. World champ at what? He's got the perfect flop. He's first to act. What's he doing?
You were not raised, so how do you know you are beat?? could be they missed too. Allways hard to decide, but frequentl best to just keep on betting... they may decide you have AA. Jim
ist x playing pl 2 world class players in game
I hope after winning this pot you left the game. Even though their play doesn't suggest world class action, you're way in over your head for your first pl game. Run away with your winnings and get back to the beatable 20-40.
here is the response I received from CCCpoker.com about pot limit holdem:
Dear Mr. Ward,
thank you for your interest. In fact we will offer potlimit omaha and hold'em games within the next few weeks For further news please chack aur website at: http://www.cccpoker.com
note; i don't work for these guys...just sharing my info with the group
kick ass.
thanks for the heads up.
http://www.cccpoker.com is another one of these sites which requires a download and only supports Windows. Does everyone shill for Bill Gates?
Fat-Charlie
What are you using an Amiga? :)
No he's got an Atari ST
Here is a play that came up in a no limit game that I thought was ABC, but another player who I respect disagreed with me quite adamently.
Blinds are 2-3-5 . An obviously inexperienced, tightish player raises in early position to 25. Solid middle position guy cold calls and a double-tough, agressive (but not overly so) player on the button reraises to 125. Early player huddles and then calls, leaving himself only $150. Middle player folds. So there is $285 in the pot.
Flop comes Ace high, two babies and two suited. Early position player now bets all-in for his last $150. He has AQs, with a backdoor flush draw. This guy is a friend of mine who was playing no limit for the first time ever, so I took him aside after the hand and told him this bet was a fundamental error.
He is only likely to get called if he is beat and he is WAY ahead of the hands he can't beat, such as KK. I say he should check-call the flop. He should also check-call the turn and then bet the river if it is checked behind him again as he would probably get called by a large pocket pair after showing weakness twice. No-brainer, right?
At least one guy I know disagreed, stating that since "your are goping to call anyway, you should bet." That seems dead wrong here.
Results: Not that it impacts the analysis, but the button DID call the flop with KK, and hit a K on the turn. This sort of spoils my read about him not calling with a worse hand, but he pretty much aknowledged that he folds 95% of the time here and only called out of frustration since it was the third time in a row his pocket Kings had been cracked. BTW, this player was Sammy, the tough Bay Area player.
I believe there are very few times when you should not bet in no limit.
This is one of them.
Knowing your opponent is so key here. Against Sam B., if I see the flop heads up and my stack is less than the pot, I check and call all-in because he WILL put me all-in 95% of the time, especially when an ace is out there and I've shown weakness. He'll believe his KK is good at that point.
The key point here is a heads up flop against an opponent you know who loves to pressure any kind of weakness.
Your friend made a slight mistake by betting out instead of check-calling, but he made a HUGE mistake by calling half his stack from out of position with AQ against a very good player.
natedogg
I understand why you consider the pre-flop call bad, but I'd like to ask why leading after the flop is so bad?
I'm trying to learn NL and it seems like this would be the right play....Doyle advocates betting out in Super System. I understand that you could possibly be up against a better hand, but this is the best hand you could hope to flop, so why not bet out and if necessary, take your lumps.
As I said, lumps may come more frequently with this type of pre-flop call, but again, what better hand could he hope to flop?
I respect your play and enjoy reading your posts...just looking to learn a little more.
Respectfully, Mike
Basically, the reason for check-calling rather than betting is that if you bet and get called, you are likely to be losing, whereas if you check, your opponent will bet a wide range of hands such as KK, QQ etc. that are second-best to yours. This makes check-calling the optimum method to get your money in with the best of it.
Regards,
Richard
The bet is not bad. It's just not as good as checking and calling. Unfortunately, there is only a handful of possibilities that your opponent can have. AK, KK, QQ and maybe JJ. He's not going to raise that big preflop without something that good (generally).
So now if you bet, only AK will call you as a rule.
However, I don't think that's the biggest reason to check and call. The biggest reason is that you are pot committed.
You have about half the pot in front of you so you are not going anywhere. As Tommy says, "it's the whole pot-stuck/thresholds thing, watching them approach and choosing bet sizes with them in mind. Hardly anything is more important."
In addition, you have the nut draw. You're not really afraid of giving the possible flush draw a free card because you have the nuts.
Since you can't fold no matter what, you probably have the best hand, and you certainly have the best draw, just check and let him put the money in for you.
If he has AK, both of you are putting 150 in the middle regardles.
If you bet, his money is probably only going in if he has AK. But if you check, and maybe even check twice, the money will go in if he has AK and possibly all kinds of other things that you can easily beat.
natedogg
Nate....thanks for the kind response...
Mike
Good explanation, natedogg. Just to clarify, the AQ did NOT have a flush draw. He had AQs and only one of his suits was on the board. He had a runner-runner flush draw only.
I don't think it changes the analysis at all, as there was no way the button was on a flush draw. He had a big pair, likely QQ-AA or AK. I guess AQ is a longshot possibility.
Michael and Nate,
I heard about this hand from Alex yesterday, before reading your posts. He agreed with checking the flop, but his strong opinion is that the flop-betting should NEVER have taken place at all. Fold or raise all-in preflop.
He said something like, "I'm not ever calling 40% of my chips before the flop. That's a terrible play. Impossible."
I agree with him, that the more important topic coming from this hand is the preflop play. Sometimes we tell a poker story up to a certain point in the hand and ask opinions about the play on a certain street, when other streets of the same hand are actually more interesting and noteworthy. In this hand, that would be the preflop decision.
What do you think? Try to devise a scenario where you would call 40% of your chips before the flop. Let's assume we know that it'll be heads up.
The only hand I could picture doing that with is AA.
Just so you know, Alex would have checked the flop with the AQ if forced to call before the flop, and in the uni-mind of Tommy/Alex, he's the no-limit heavy weight, so I would have checked too. :-)
Tommy
I agree with both of you that the preflop call with AQ was a bigger of the two mistakes. However, that was a pretty simple one to communicate to my friend. You know "never call a reraise out of position for over half your chips with AQ against a strong player." Pretty hard to come up with absolutes in nl poker, but when you do it is easy to explain them.
However, I still think the flop play is a powerful concept I wanted to teach this kid, too. Alex went out of his way to disagree. If he know says otherwise, he is engaging in revisionist history. When he got cornered on the error in thinking, he switched the argument to the flop play. No big deal, people use this kind of escape hatch all the time when they are losing a debate. But that is another story.
However, I disagree with you here too, Tommy. The preflop play is not "more interesting and noteworthy." It is even more of a no brainer than the flop play.
Michael,
Unlike Alex, I can lose a debate and know it. :-)
"However, I still think the flop play is a powerful concept I wanted to teach this kid, too. Alex went out of his way to disagree. If he know says otherwise, he is engaging in revisionist history."
LOL!
"When he got cornered on the error in thinking, he switched the argument to the flop play. No big deal, people use this kind of escape hatch all the time when they are losing a debate."
You're right about everything and I can easily envision how the whole thing went down.
"However, I disagree with you here too, Tommy. The preflop play is not "more interesting and noteworthy." It is even more of a no brainer than the flop play."
Very bad word selection on my part without adding clarification. That the preflop error went against a rare-poker-absolute makes the preflop error easier to fix. You're right about that. But that also makes it more important that it be fixed first and fast. Maybe that's why Alex was so forceful. The "interesting" thing I had in mind was not what to do preflop, but why. It's not a tough concept, but it comes up all over the place, deeper into the play of hands than just preflop, and it comes up far more often that checking with AQ with top pair and a flush draw. It's the whole pot-stuck/thresholds thing, watching them approach and choosing bet sizes with them in mind. Hardly anything is more important.
Tommy
I am relativly new to poker (only play Pot Limit). Could you explain a bit what you talking about here, as ˙ou say it is all important:
"The "interesting" thing I had in mind was not what to do preflop, but why. It's not a tough concept, but it comes up all over the place "..."It's the whole pot-stuck/thresholds thing, watching them approach and choosing bet sizes with them in mind. Hardly anything is more important."
Thx.
Gatlif,
I have very little experience at pot limit and from what I can tell, the "approaching thresholds" thing comes up far less often at pot limit than at no- limit, simply because the range of bets in pot-limit is so much smaller.
For instance, let's say the blinds are 5-10 and the only shortstack is in the BB. He has $140. At pot limit you could open for $40 and no more and when everyone folds to the blind, he could call the additional $30 and then still get off his hand after the flop. Whereas at no-limit, seeing the small stack in the blind, I would tend to open for $70 with a hand I'm willing to go all-in-with if he comes over the top, and open for $40 with a hand I'd lay down to his all-in raise.
Pot limit does not offer these options, so I'm not sure how much of the threshold thing would apply to your games.
Tommy
"I agree with both of you that the preflop call with AQ(s) was a bigger of the two mistakes."
Why?
Tommy, I agree that the preflop call is bad, but I think that raising all in would be an even worse play with this particular hand. I'm wasn't sure from your post if you were suggesting this is a better option than calling in this particular situation, or if you were just speaking more generally. Raising all-in here seems poor because your opponent appears to be pot committed since he's getting more than 3-1.
Shawn
No calling is by far the worst play pre-flop. Folding is best with A-Q, and Moving all in is second, for a very clear reason:
Many people use the fallacy that says "Well A-Q is even money to J-J (if he even has J-J)" Well this is only true if you see all 5 cards. What if the flop missed the A-Q? What then? So many chips already in the pot, unless the flop comes K-5-9 with none of your suit I think you have to fold here. You are giving up A LOT playing this way.
NEVER NEVER put half of your chips into the pot on the call of a raise unless there is a special reason for it (ie with aces, or when you have Q-Q and you ARE SURE your opponant has A-k).
Here I think I would clearly muck A-Q (I hate that hand anyway). But once you play it it all has to go in. Furthermore, once you call you are definatly compounding the error by moving in with it when you hit the flop--I am Shocked the K-K called, except he also saw some element of the pot stuck syndrome we discussed.
I wasn't suggesting that raising is better. Just that calling is the worst of the three options by far, whatever the cards are, anytime the amount of the call is roughly half your stack.
Im sorry Tommy I was not responding to your post. Clearly we agree it is a move in or muck thing, and mucking is better. Calling is not even close. Kind of like on a scale of 1-10, folding is a 8.5, Raising all in is a 4.5, and calling is a 1.
here is a hand I played like a real pansy and lost some money.
I have KK and limp in early position. 5 players limp and see a flop of K-J-x rainbow. I decide to check and see what happens. guy on my left bets $35 and everyone folds, I call. I have around $400 and the bad guy (BG) has about $500.
The turn is a 9. now I'm really kicking myself. I check and BG bets $35! I thought for sure he had Q-10 and was trying to milk me. I mean why else would you bet $35 into a $120 pot? I just called. the river is a rag. I check and BG checks. obviously my hand is good.
all comments appreciated.
I like limping under the gun with KK and AA. But if I'm even one more position to the left I don't think limping is a good idea. In a 9 handed game, if UTG folds and I'm next with KK, there's only 7 players who will hopefully raise you now instead of 8 when you limp UTG. That's over a 12 percent drop.
If you're facing very good players behind you, the limp-reraise is such a dead give away that I prefer to open for about $40 even UTG and see if somebody reads me for AK.
On the flop you made a fairly serious error in my opinion. Not as bad as calling half your stack with AQo from out of position against Sam B., but bad enough.
The guy to your immediate left bet out $35 and everyone folded to you. You have the nuts. This is your chance to make money on the hand. He bet out early into a field of limpers with a board like KJx. He has something and will probably play with you. If he has a set, two pair, QT or AK, you will likely get all-in and hopefully double up your stack. Even something like KT or KQ could call a $100 raise from you.
If he has anything less, you can't get much more out of him anyway. You make more money by raising him right now. I'd raise about $100, and PRAY that he plays back.
Also, I'm assuming it was a killed pot, $20 to go and six people limped. Otherwise, how did the pot get to $120 with you holding KK and not being all-in?
natedogg
I agree with Natedogg. The limp is fine preflop but on the flop you have to play fast. Anytime I have a set and there are 2 broadway cards out I am playing fast. You basicallygave that guy a free turn cars (he bet after you checked, but his money was gone, you need to make him pay to draw).
A SET IS A VERY VULNERABLE HAND. I will generally only slow play a set if there are NO SCARY draws out against me.
"I like limping under the gun with KK and AA. But if I'm even one more position to the left I don't think limping is a good idea. In a 9 handed game, if UTG folds and I'm next with KK, there's only 7 players who will hopefully raise you now instead of 8 when you limp UTG. That's over a 12 percent drop.>>
There's a better way to look at this.
Let's say you're on the button with AA and every player so far limped. If you limp, what are the chances that someone (one of the blinds) will raise behind you? According to your way of thinking, you just do some arithmetic and pop out a number based on the number of players left to act. But obviously the only useful answer in my scenario must be based entirely on who the players in the blinds are. Some guys will raise here over 50% of the time, some will never raise unless they have QQ minimum.
In your example above, the 12% figure is useless. The first place to look is the last place to act, which preflop is the blinds. The more they are prone to get spunky, the more likely a limp-trap is to work. Heck, I've seen guys limp with AA after two or three others have already limped. That's a VERY deep trap, and even more effective than open-limping with AA because it doesn't set the alarms off.
It all depends on WHO is left to act, not how many.
Tommy
guy on my left bets $35 and everyone folds, I call.
Why do you call here? Are you trying to let him catch up? Catch up to what?
Are you trying to represent a draw so he'll bet out, or bluff, if a blank hits? What are you going to do if a blank doesn't: you can't bet and neither can he unless you're beat.
I think his $35 on the flop is as good as you can ask for. I'd raise here and hope he plays.
limp. trap. etc. jabber, jabber---whats wrong with putting something in the pot before the flop,don't bet the moon, just try to build, get something out there to at least make a small payday, heck why not bet again after the flop, they don't know you made top set....if nobody has anything, well tha't the breaks---but you might make some money.... Jim
You know what you did wrong. Raising huge with the nuts seems so simple that its stupid- but since you didn't raise before the flop and no one else called behind his bet, he might see your raise as an overbet. If he is the type of player who will bet a draw, but actually has a decent hand (probably AJ-KT), he may believe that since only you and he are left, you figured him for a draw and are trying to get him out right now- so he plays back at you, and you come back huge. The point is, put the pressure on him, and try not to let a scary card like a 9 hit the turn without making him pay the wrong price. So you might only make a few bucks, but you take control of the hand and set up an image for later hands as a player who "only bets big when he has something" (If you end up showing). I only play small no-limit games, but when I have the nuts I usually want the pot right then and there if there is something that could come to outdraw me fairly easily. Make him do all the thinking- make him react to you.
Just starting to dabble in live No Limit play at my usual home game. Games are often 5-8 handed, everyone buys in for $100 and we play with $1-$2 blinds. Players are mostly good (4 solid players each week, rotating cast of fish). We are all young and hungry (30s) and are playing to improve our games without a rake. The money is nice but getting better is most important.
One thing that has come up several times. Game is getting tight, everyone folds to you in the SB and you have a small or medium pair, say 44-88. Player in BB is also solid. I am having trouble finding an appropriate raise here. If I raise a bit (say $6), they will call with two big cards and I am out of position and the flop will probably be multiple overcards. If I raise bigger (say $20) I will pick up the $2 more often but I may also get played back because they correctly read me as not wanting a flop or lose much more when they have a monster and reraise big. Just calling seems silly, as does throwing in 50X the BB to win $2.
I know there are no absolutes in poker but I do well with some general rules of thumb when learning new games or new aspects of hold 'em. Does anyone feel like sharing their thoughts on this situation?
If you need a hypothetical, imagine you each have $100, you have 66 in the SB. BB is yet to act but will defend with JTs-KQs, KQo, A9-AQ, 77-88 reraise with bigger pairs and AK.
Thanks in advance,
KJS
Call every time, never raise and call any reasonable raise from the BB to show him that you wont get bullied out. I know every time is always an dangerous thing to say, but the disguise combined with the fact that you will call a raise will slow down the BB in the future. He will be forced to let you in cheaply to see a flop. If you have guts, you can limp and jam if he raises--he will only call with a very big pair so he is likely to fold and will ave to repsect your limp in the future.
I know it goes against the grain, but you are investing very little to take his whole stack. I really dont care much about risking 10 to make 2, I want to risk 1 to make 100 even if it is only 1 in 20 times (figuring 1 in 7 to hit a set plus he has to have something or bluff at it)
If you miss and he bets and you fold you will lose $1 for your call. If he has a big pair and you flop a set you will break him. You also give him the chance to hit with cards he would not have played (ie 10-4) when a flop may come 4-4-6 (when you have sixes). As bizarre as it sounds his position almost becomes a disadvantage. He id forced to be an aggressor and when you hit a set (or miss one) you will check (or bet)and he will have to decide what to do. Over time you will develop a much scarier image than just raising to get the $2
The number of colluders in an online game of pot limit HE???
If it pays to collude in limit... just think what they will make in big bet HE.
Ill be staying away from cccpoker.com thankyou very much.
btw my line is u/o 6.5
cheers,
Keith
i'll take the under.
It would seem that pot limit HE would not be optimal for collusion. Omaha, maybe, because mucked key nut cards can be signaled.
Only situation would a come around to AA. I agree though that I could never trust an online casinos. I've taken too many bad beats over the years in honest games with dealers I know and trust.
Like most long time players, I trust my ability to protect myself. I could never take the headfucking that would happen in online PL or NL when the inevitable bad beats occur.
Her's a hand that came up the other night that I saw and would like some opinions on how to proceed. The game is $2 ante, $5 on the button, 5 to call. It's a loose game.
You have A-Q-9-9 (no spades) in early position and see a flop of 9s-6-2s. There's $60 in the pot and you bet $50. Next player raises all in $160. UTG checkraises and it's $540 to call (you have about 650 in front of you). What's your play? Both your opponents are good players, and UTG is tricky. No fair using a time machine to fold pre-flop :)
Raise the pot.
Mr.Peterson---hoping to buy what when your called? Your facing the draw to nut low,nut flush,wrap around straight and possible set of sixes or deuces,this is a hand your done with after that much heat I believe.
Since both your opponents are good players, is there any way you can put them on a hand? If you're up against two A3's, you're golden. Likewise if you're against two other flopped sets. If you're against a flush draw and a big straight wrap, you're in trouble. I always assume that there is some kind of flush out there.
I'd have trouble not calling and pushing the remaining 110 in here, but it would depend on my opponents. This is more of a game of reads than of math. I'm guessing that the short stack had a low draw, and UTG had a low and nut spades. If they both have spades it helps you.
Wha' happened?
What if you knew UTG would make this move with a weak 2 way hand, say 2-3-4-6, for bottom 2 and a weak low draw?
If he'll make a move with a 2nd best two way hand, then I would be more inclined to play. I still have a shot to scoop if the board pairs and no low comes. I'd be more likely to get it in against this player, thinking I'd have a good shot at a side pot, if not the whole thing. The thing that worries me is spades: even if he has 2 tiny ones they give him extra strength.
kiss the original $50 raise goodbye, and ask yourself what you were thinking about....there must be a better hand comming up for the balance of your $. Jim
You say UTG is tricky. If he is the sort of player who is likely to make this play with 2nd or 3rd set then this is what you want. Spades are a problem, but most of the time they won't come. I'd take my chances on no spades falling, and hopefully no low, or a counterfeited low for UTG.
I'm assuming you can just reach back into your pocket if all doesn't work out. If you are willing to play junk preflop, you have to be willing to play it postflop if it hits.
I'm not an Omaha player, and probably showing my ignorance. But...
You say:
"Spades are a problem, but most of the time they won't come."
Does anyone know the probability that, given two of a suit on the flop, no one has two of that suit in their hand? If no one answers I'll write a simulation.
In Omaha, 0%.
I think this is very solid advice. PLO8 isn't always looking to exploit a marginal situation. When the money goes in, it's nice to have a monster.
It would be helpful to know TJ's overall strategy, i.e. what image he is trying to project; how much money goes into the game and how he intends to win it.
I wasn't involved in this hand (and I wouldn't have been as it would have been in the muck pre-flop). I'm new to Omaha and PL so I play a careful conservative game.
I have learned that a set is worthless with a low draw, a flush draw and straight draws on the board. I would've tried to get to the turn as cheaply as possible had I been in this hand.
Given two low cards on the flop, what are the odds of a possible low coming?
Hey TJ,
The best advice you got was the first response. "Raise the pot." You can keep the time machine. I would be happy to be in your spot.
You flopped top set. If you had bottom set, I could understand your trepidation. You have two opponents and there is a good chance they are holding a lot of each other's cards. If one of them does have a smaller set, yes it hurts you but it hurts him a lot more.
Yes, you might be up against A345 and the nut flush draw but low is not there (and wins only half the pot when it does), spades are not there, and if you are overtaken on the turn, you have a big redraw.
Good Luck,
jrnymn
A hand from this saturday. UTG raises i reraise just behind him with AcKc . No callers but UTG. (very tricky person) Flop T-T-3 rainbow. He checks i bet he calls. Turn Kh no flush draw i decide to just check behind him to make him bluff at the river. River is another T and he checks. I bet and get raised ! Call or what ?
Call. Folding is totally out of the question. I wouldn't reraise because you are either beat or he has nothing and he will fold. If he has a King he will not fold for a raise so I don't think you gain anything by raising. I don't think he will checkraise you with a smaller pocket pair.
Bruce
I would call but very scared that he shows AA
He has Aces or Kings full, or he is just bluffing. Either way it does not matter, you MUST call. If you fold here what he has to know is at WORST A-Q, but is more likley A-K or a pair of 10's or better you are going to get run over all night. This call is automatic, if he wins he wins.
8
hihi
You should have bet the turn. Why get cute in a reraised pot on the expensive street? If he was raising with something like queens or jacks all you are doing is giving him a free card to beat you. You might get called by a hand like king-queen suited or king-jack suited. Some players raise early with these hands. You have to call when raised on the river.
The check on the turn is very good , the risk of the free card is very small if we compare with the size of the pot ; 2 outs for JJ or QQ ( but with those card , UTG is suppose to bet the flop ) and 4 outs for AJ or AQ and 8 outs for QJ . If he has KQs or KJs or JQs; the call on the flop is very marginal (has the raise preflop out of position).By checking the turn AK doesn't have to deal with a check-raise (which could be a check-raise bluff) , and could see cheaply if he has KK ,ATs or TT because if AK check the turn , someone with AT, KK or TT will usually bet the river . And finally if AK check the turn , it will induce AQ , or AJ to a bet-bluff on the river , or induce a call from a hand like JJ or QQ or even 99 .
There is only 1 way he can have pocket kings and 3 ways he can have pocket aces given what is on the board and what our hero has. There are 12 ways he can have QQ or JJ. Who knows how a "tricky player" will play QQ or JJ in the face of a 3-bettor? Now throw in the other hands you mention like AQ, AJ, KQ, and QJ. He is far more likely to have a hand you can beat than one you cannot. With almost $800 in the pot, I think it is worth betting another $160 to get him to fold and prevent a suckout or at least make him pay to play.
I like you call me a hero :-)
How do you think about the play of the Aces. Didn,t he lost some bets here?
Perhaps. I lot of this is a matter of playing style. I don't like just smooth calling with aces preflop even heads-up when I am out of position. I am willing to do it when I have position over my lone opponent since I don't have to worry about missing any bets. But out of position like this, the guy with pocket rockets cannot be sure that the flop or the turn will get bet. Who is to say what would have happened if he four bets preflop and bets the flop? Will his opponent necessarily fold? Keep in mind that a three bettor will frequently have KK, QQ, or AK suited. Clearly with an overpair he will call in a heads-up situation like this and all that money at stake. With AK suited he might well call if he flops a backdoor draw and two overcards. The point is that most players will not make tough folds with a big pot in a heads-up situation like this having a good hand even when they suspect they are beat.
Knut:
I certainly think he did not maximize his profit in this hand. As it turns out, a call by you on the end only earned him 8 big bets when I believe the maximun would be 12 big bets.
If he bet out on the flop and was raised by you (which is not unusual by some folks with AK in this position), he should 3 bet. Now, when the K falls on the turn this card appears to have helped your hand and I would check and see if you would bet. This has the apperance of a holding like QQ and possibly would induce you to bet. If you did, he should check-raise and now has you tied to a big pot with your top pair-best kicker. A bet on the end by him would result in 12 big bets
I believe Jim's pre-flop play to 4 bet has some merits but it might cause you to lose him on the flop. But to extract extra $$ from him, some deception is in order heads-up.
Dugie
Last paragraph:
.... might cause him to lose you on the flop...
why did you bet the river??? either he has you beat or he will fold...only calling hands which you could beat are A-Q, A-J, QQ, JJ. All other hands, assuming he is reasonably tight, would either be winners or automatic lay downs.
tootight
Checking on the turn to allow him to bluff on the end/or feigning weakness and then apparently trying to pick up the pot on the river may have induced a check-raise bluff, which then has to be picked off or if he has a better hand, paid off. That he had aces surprised me, I would be more inclined to think a tricky player would just call with aces and then re-raise if anyone else raised pre-flop.
where does he normally play (hp?) and is he any good? can story like this below actually be true. it sounds like beyond total BS. does this guy have any credibility at all?? anyone played against him?
"Classroom Lectures: Huge Poker Profit from Small Advantages
I posted this true story to my favorite Internet newsgroup, rec.gambling.poker, the day after it happened last month. Before we get to today's classroom lecture, I'd like to share it with you, too.
Getting called for $150 by an eight-high in hold 'em and another classroom lecture
Last night I managed to get called for $150 by eight-high (8-3 suited) on the final (river) card in a $75/$150-limit hold 'em game. The opponent -- a pleasant but boisterous man of about 50 -- had been drinking, but I still think this illustrates the power of some of the psychological concepts I teach. It happened like this...
Before the flop, I call with 8-8 in middle position with no one else having entered the pot. I vary my strategy in this circumstance - sometimes raising, sometimes calling, and even rarely folding when I have a strong-acting player waiting to act - but this time I decided to call.
The man I will eventually coax into making the call on the river with 8-3 accepts a free ride in the big blind. There are no other players active. Flop is K-6-6, two-suited, giving the opponent a flush draw - which would become a likelihood that was apparent to me the second time he checked and called.. He checks. I bet. He calls. Turn card is another king. He checks. I bet. He calls. River card is an offsuit 5 -- so board is now K-6-6-K-5 with no flush possible. My opponent has 8-3 - as I'll soon discover for certain.
He checks. I bet. He starts to fold as he says, "What do you have?" I hesitate and answer, "I have a good hand," in a tone intended to be doubted. Maybe I can get an ace or even a queen to call. Then I add, as if composing on the spot and just wanting to continue with the next hand, "I have a pair of eights." The truth (which would get me a 20-minute suspension in some tournaments that have the ridiculous no-telling-the-truth-about-your-hand rule).
"You don't have a pair of eights," he declares, spreading his 8-3 face-up on the table. He is in the process of folding, of course. Many people would just show their eights here to prove he was wrong. After all, he isn't going to call with an eight-high nothing. Is he? Well, I sense opportunity. "Either that or I have 7-4 suited, " I muse. He hesitates, and I set the psychological trap by feigning slight desperation. "I'm just kidding," I bluster. "I've got that beat really bad… I think."
You need to understand that I don't really expect to win this call, but the feeling is like having some big ol' marlin on the line that is too much for your tackle. You're probably not going to land it, but it's worth a try. "Either I have a pair of eights or I have 7-4 and you'll win," I declare, trying to bring his decision into focus for him as he begins to fold again.
But you can't just leave a statement floating like that or the opponent will think he's being conned and will fold. This is all in the tone of voice and the timing. I ask, "Which do you think it is? I've been playing poker for a long time and I don't usually bet 7-4 in this situation, I'll tell you that!" Now, he perceives that I'm trying to talk him out of the call, not into it. This is key to proper psychology here.
He begins to fold for a third time. But I interrupt his action with, "You don't want to be calling with THAT hand. That's a terrible hold 'em hand." Again he ponders. Finally, again, he decides to fold. But I interrupt this action by throwing a $5 chip across the table and saying, "Let's not slow up the game," although this whole interaction has only taken, perhaps, 20 seconds. "I'll give you that chip if you'll throw your hand away." He immediately declines the chip and calls $150. Perhaps those who think of poker as a purely tactical, chess-like game where psychology plays only a secondary role should ponder that true story."
Actually, I think it's good that you posted this. As to whether it is truly something that Mike Caro wrote my answer is simply I don't know, but it's hard to believe that anyone would write it.
The reason I'm glad you posted it is that it illustrates a point that I like to make every now and then. It is simply that advice geared towards playing in the way that we would like to play poker simply doesn't work. I wish it was possible to play poker as is described here. In fact, if I could play in this fashion and have the exact same long term results I would immediately switch to it because poker would now be a lot more fun. But it doesn't work that way.
I remember years ago reading an article by some poker writer (and I can't even remember who it was) that emphasized the fact that when he played he kept a plastic banana in his shirt pocket. Somehow that banana made all the difference.
Poker is a tough game, and only a small number of people are able to achieve expert status. Furthermore, the ones who do reach this level do it by understanding all aspects of the game, having good discipline, and developing appropriate hand reading skills. That's the way to ultimate success at poker, and I guarantee it takes a lot of work and study for most of those who do reach this level. One plastic banana or some bizarre statements won't make some guy with an eight high pay you off.
I hope some others find this post. I would like to hear comments from some of our other posters.
I have personally played $100-$200 hold'em with Mike Caro at Hollywood Park, though just once, several years ago, for only a few minutes. I saw him playing $75-$150 or $100-$200 hold'em on many other occasions, though he's not one of the players who is there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. His story is rings true on the game played.
I have personally been called by ten high at Hollywood Park. This is itself is not odd for LA, but when the caller's friend lambasted him for the call, the caller went on and on about how his call was justified, saying "I know this type of player. It must be done against this type of player." After 15 minutes of vigorously defending his play, there was finally a brief pause, and then the caller said to his friend, "You're right. It was a bad play." I didn't even induce this call with Caroesque shenanigans, so Caro's story rings true on the hand his opponent called with.
Caro has written about this kind of situation before, where you know your opponent is going to fold (I mean like he is in the act of folding) and you have a strong hand. At that point, you have a freeroll - you can do anything at all to give your opponent a chance to reconsider - Caro suggests you spill a drink, bob up and down in your seat, say something nonsensical, etc.
The only thing you can possibly take issue with is Caro's last statement:
"Perhaps those who think of poker as a purely tactical, chess-like game where psychology plays only a secondary role should ponder that true story."
The bottom line is Caro picked up a big bet there where Mason Malmuth would not have (and I would not have either.)
-Abdul
i read the article on planet poker too. i really have to ask you guys why you are SO hyper-critical of him. it makes no sense to me. he is a good, funny, talented writer who has some pretty damn good advice on poker. he likes to relate stories, and they are usually good stories with good illustrations to them. i have personally been called with a 5 high hand (couldn't beat the board) before. (unfortunately i was bluffing, andi couldn't beat the board either, but i had HIM beat at least. but we chopped the pot. how do you call that? ) this call is believable, especially if you've played in southern california before. it just seems to me that Caro gets ragged on here a lot more than he deserves, and it kind of bothers me. some sort of weird loyalty to a website or a poker expert or something?
http://www.planetpoker.com/mcu/mctips.htm
lesson 14: Bewildering Your Opponents.
just so you know i wasnt making it up, although a Caro imitation contest would be funny, if not a little nerdy.
anyhoo, i have gotten some useful info out of the book of tells but when i read stuff like the above i just have to scratch my head and wonder why someone would thrash their own credibility like that..
Mason, I agree with you. At least in my game, full tabled limit hold'em, I believe things like tells, psychology, and other non-technical stuff is over-emphasized. I believe too many players read stuff like Mike Caro's without having a solid technical understanding of the game and try to resort to gimmicks to get good results.
I believe I have read at least 80% of Caro's stuff, including his articles. I have to say that it is FUN to read his stuff and that of course is part of the appeal. There is very little in the way of solid technical advice. But few know this because relatively few people have excellent technical knowledge. Sadly, even twoplustwoers are not as strong in this area as they should be. I remember a 5-10 player that I played against several years ago that constantly tried Mike Caro style tactics. The very first hand I saw him play he called down with an absolutely hopeless hand and turned it over at the end like it was something special. This was holdem not draw, so his play was very costly.
However, in the hands of a technically sound player, I think some of the Caro ideas are useful. Tells can save or gain bets here and there. Manipulation does work to some degree but only in otherwise marginal situations(but you need to know what marginal is) or in the above case which was a freeroll as others pointed out. Once you have become technically sound, you are less open to make mistakes that a Caro or other writer will put in your mind. You will immediately see the absurdity of the situation. Bottom line, think for yourself first.
Another point is that I think Caro is a good salesman of the game, and that helps all of us. A new player might become intrigued by a fluffy Caro article, that causes him to want to play seriously. Eventually, he may even become technically competent or at least good enough that he plays regularly and for a long time. This is good. This same person could easily read a Mason Malmuth essay "Computing Standard Deviation" and think "huh...where is that blackjack table again?".
All in all I have a simple solution. Encourage all the newbies to read Caro and read RGP (tell them to killfile Abdul and some others). You of course, read S&M and twoplustwo.com.
In all seriousness, I think it would be better for Caro's readers if he encouraged the technical side of the game (he advocates it but rarely demonstrates it). Of course, this might make for a wiser Caro, but probably a poorer Caro. Many people don't wanna here about it. These are the same people that buy your used car without going to a mechanic first.
I don't think it is fair to criticize Caro any more than this while knowing he doesn't post here and won't respond.
Regards.
agreeing with comment that Mike is good salesman, and good for poker...suggest we "give the devil his dues"--Mike has sort of carved out his own little nitch for making $$ from poker--seems harmless to me--I gave up on reading his stuff long ago. Jim
I did not mean to criticize Mike Caro per se. I am sure he is very knowledgeable about poker, a good player, and an all around great guy. I just think that the stuff he discusses is not nearly as important as it sounds.
For me, reading non-fiction is entertainment first and educational second, be it poker or biology or anything. I enjoy Caro and Vorhaus over other poker writers because they keep me reading, I don't have to work, they entertain me.
As to content, I see S%M and Caro as covering poker from opposite vantages. One more technically oriented, the other more people oriented. Combined they do us a great service. I'm glad they stay within their natural nitches.
Tommy
Here's a question then. Let's assume you're a consistent 1.5BB player at your chosen limit. Your technical and mathematical skills are such that you consistently beat the game.
Will it adversely effect your game to add the additional tools provided by the Caroesque psychological games and study of tells? Do you stand to generate a -EV by adding to your overall skill set in the game?
I'm not advocating a novice player deciding that he's going to go pro playing like Caro. If you don't have the basic technical and mathematical foundation for the game, as you said, it's gimickry. But for a competent, skilled player who feels that he's playing his best game, I can't see that it hurts to put more tools in your game.
Caroisms may only add to your expectation in extremely marginal hands or against specific players or in extreme circumstances. What I see, however, are those plays where you're playing 52%/48% on the margin of your game. If Caroistic play gives you 2% in that circumstance, you've just brought yourself even.
Just thoughts, mind you. Not criticisms of anyone's views.
Jeff
"However, in the hands of a technically sound player, I think some of the Caro ideas are useful."
I think you hit the nail on the head. Once you become a pretty good player there are some other things that you can begin to work with that will allow you to win a little more, and many of these things do come under the heading of poker psychology. But skipping over solid play and putting way to much emphsis on this material should prove very expensive. I'm sure that even Mike Caro would agree with this.
Jim, I agree with you, and I wish to compliment you on your CardPlayer columns. I certainly don't disparage Mike Caro's advice or question his poker talent, but as a recreational player I don't glean much useful information from his work. I need to learn how to think about the game, and your columns are EXCELLENT.
I have trouble explaining this concept of learning how to think about the game to others; they simply assume I'm stupid. Mike Cappelletti understands because I've explained it to him as a bridge player. Most bridge players eventually read classics like "Play Bridge With Reese" to gain some insight into the expert bridge player's mind, and Mike is probably better known for his bridge skills and conventions than for his poker expertise. He claimed to be working on a book project, but that was 2 years ago, and I've seen nothing.
I appologize for this rambling append, but I wanted to thank Jim and encourage other poker writers to write about hand analysis - especially for pot and no limit holdem. Ray Zee, are you listening ( :-) )?
Thanx - Fat-Charlie
.
I agree that the road to success in poker is built primarily upon technical knowledge, discipline, and hand-reading skills. I personally put little emphasis on tells because they are generally only useful in very marginal situations anyway (although getting on the right side of the fence on certain tough decisions can sometimes be quite profitable if there are further betting rounds to follow). Besides, I'm really not that good at reading tells other than the most obvious ones anyway.
I do think that some people are quite talented in this area, and some are further talented at manipulating opponents. I don't doubt that Mike Caro falls into these categories and I would not be at all surprised if this anecdote is essentially factual.
I think things like this are by far most apt to work against very unsophisticated opponents. If one is in a game with such super-juicy customers it would probably pay dividends to put some extra effort into these areas. However, most games I play in just don't have such foolish players waiting to be tricked like this, except very, very rarely. Maybe I made bad game selection choices (in the metagame sense) by choosing to play in CT and sometimes in LV instead of making the move to California at some point.
It's a cute story from a good story teller (I assume Caro?), but I'm curious if it was posted with permission.
I've known one or two people with what I'd call incredible negotiation skills. They definitely do earn money with their interactions. Some of the fruits of which are: inducing a check from someone who they are prepared to call when they'd rather not have to put more money in the pot; being able to fold hands that they might otherwise call with; being able to raise with marginal hands on the river, etc.
I don't think that story gets anyone nearer that talent besides maybe getting them to think about it, however. To the extend that it is different than general people reading skills (and useful at all limits), it might more usually be a low-limit phenomenon (I realize the anecdote is from hi-limit).
starting a new franchise--looking for buyers--exclusive--sell plastic bananaanans in poker rooms!!
I tend to think it is true. I have not played with Mike personally, but I have employed many of these tacits to get people to do what I want regarding betting, calling or folding. I tend to agree the psych factor can increase ones win rate considerably. As Abdul said, once he is going to fold anyway it is basically a free roll so why not try.
so ive got kill in a low limit game (6/12; 12/24 now that its a kill).
ive got some piece of cheese. Q2. but the flop is...
QQ4, or something.
anyway board is not dangerous and im heads up on the river; i bet out.
guy starts thinking (and *before* he decides, although obviously if he has to think he should fold, and im pretty sure he is going to fold) and i say "ill show you one", and ask him to pick. while i was doing this i made the mistake of "shuffling" the two cards, since it was going to be 50/50 when he picked.
but he didnt respond. so i said "well, ill show you one anyway." and i flipped up the card that just luckily happened to be the deuce.
now you might be saying, brad, youre a lucky guy who somehow stumbles on to a win; well, you might be right.
but heres where i really hit the home run and made him call. when i turn up the deuce, i say oops. in an appropriate tone of voice consistent with my table image (and really to the guy on my right who i was talking with). like i had J2 or something, and wanted to turn up the Jack.
so he called.
brad
p.s. yes i did win the hand
Many times I read things on this forum and cannot believe my eyes. When I read the column the original poster quoted about 2 years ago, I nearly fell on the floor laughing. My thoughts were it was amazing somone could pull this off, and keep the table freindly. (Eg not get his opponent angry at him...
While Caro likes to chitchat in his column I don't really think his columns are as fluffy as everyone here is suggesting. He doesn't talk about the play of hands very often but he speaks about more general things.
Maybe recently (say the last few months), his columns were chatty about nontechnical things but in the past I always found his column one of the best, and often did contain some technical information. Granted it is presented more generally, but I found it good and useful.
Very few authors have something new to say every two weeks. Caro almost always has new column in almost every issue! And alot of the very reverred authors, if they have a article at all, it is often one that was printed (and appeared in a book before!) before.
Recently I played a PL tournament and found myself in the following situation. There were 65 players at the start of play and Ł2700 being split 60-30-10 for the first three places. I made it down to the last four. There were 54000 chips on the table. Blinds were 800-800. The short stack is to my right holding 1200 chips (one and a half bets) and being blinded away. I have approx. 11000 and the two players to my left have a fairly equal share of the remainder. The big stacks are refusing a deal for a fourth place finish (given the respective chip positions-fair enough). Short stack is on the button. Both UTG and the short stack fold. I have AKo but decided to check. My opponent checks along. Flop :QQT rainbow. I check and so does my opponent. Turn :J giving me a straight. I decide to bet my straight fairly sure I am in the lead. My opponent, however, made a pot sized raise. I thought long and hard about it but, having played fairly regularly against him in the past, put him on a Q with a low-medium side card (if he had the house he would have merely called). I therefore found myself with a decision. Do I fold and still have a healthy lead over the short stack and almost guarantee myself third place or do I get all my chips in while I am in the lead with the prospect of either busting out or putting myself in a position where I can win the tourney depending on the last card? I went for the get my chips in option. He turned over Q8o. The river was a T, filling him up and busting me. Did I do the right thing? Opinions please
even if a win of 270 (10%) is important, it does not seem to outweigh the huge advantage which you had . you got your money in when oppnt had only 7 outs.... I'd like to do that all day! Jim
n/t
In 50-100 short handed game (5 Players)I am in the Big Blind and all fold to the Button (Good Solid Player) who makes it 100 to go. SB folds, I look down and see QQ. I pop it to 150 and button calls.
Flop comes K 8 4 suits not a factor. Not a great flop for me, I bet it and get raised. I call knowing the button could have been on a steal with any Ace in this short handed game.
The turn is a blank. I check, button bets, I call.
The river is another blank, I check, button bets, I call.
Button shows JJ. I show my QQ and take it down.
Because of the overcard and being in the inferior position I slowed down after the flop raise. But because I did not play it stronger, I feel I may have maximized my profits. If I played back at him on the flop or the turn he may have mucked thus causing me bets while drawing to his two outer.
What do you guys thing about this play?
I agree...either you are beat badly or you have him beat badly. So you either don't want more money in the pot (if you are beat), or you want him to bluff (or bet thinking he has the best of it).
Check/calling is best after the flop. Routine.
maybe im way out of line, but since it's SHORTHANDED were talking i believe a check raise on the river is definitely in order. a good short player would call this with several weaker hands a lot of the time, fearing some sort of desperation raise on your part.
since you check-called the turn you knew he would bet the river with some confidence. he may have been correct to check behind you on the river in a full game;shorthanded that sort of passive play is dead wrong. you had a check-raise here for value.
if this was a full game and it ended up heads up post flop then a check-call to the river would be routine, but since we're talking 4 handed (or whatever) you need to maximize profit from those big pocket pairs, overcard be damned.
check raising river? 1.gsl might put you on a steal attempt and reraise with nothing.making you lay down the winner most likely. 2.he'll lay down a missed hand. 3.hell reraise you with a stronger hand. 4.he'll call with a lesser hand. only way i like youre checkraise on the river is if you knew he had jacks. oops you did know you read the post!hindsight must be your best sight....
Hey all. I'm sort of new to PLO(This account is probably my 5th or so time playing). I'm at the Horseshoe in Tunica. Blinds are 5-10. Average stack size is around 1500 or so. I'm still new, so I buy in for about $700.
Hand #1: One right of the cutoff. I hold A-K-J-Q, three suits. Pot was raised ahead of me to $25. I call, as do 4 others. Flop comes K-J-x, rainbow. Check to MP player, who bets $100. I call(probably a mistake here) with top 2, a gutshot, and a backdoor flush. BB also calls. Turn J. Check to me. I bet $300. No callers.
Hand #2: On the button. 6-7-8-8. 6 people limp, me along with them(loose game tonight, apparently). Flop comes 2-3-8, two suits. Check to me, I bet the pot. 3 callers. Turn, 8. Sweet. Check to me, I check(hoping to trap here. Another mistake, I think). River, K. Rainbow board. Check to me. I bet $350(about 1/3 of the pot hoping for a call). No callers. I feel compelled to show my quads.
Hand #3: In middle position. A-K-K-J two suits. I raise to $50. 3 callers. Flop, K-J-7, two suits. A-x in my suit. I flop nut flush draw and middle set. Check to me. I bet $300. All fold to the cute blond in the 4 seat(one off the button, I think). She pauses, checks me out, then calls. 7, giving me top full house. I bet $400. Seat 4 calls. River, blank. Seat 4 has about $500 left. I bet $350(pretty weak, but hoping for a call), she moves all in. I call. She turns over 7-7 for quads. Is there any way I can get away from this hand?
Please post responses to my hands, and how I played them. Again, I'm sort of a newbie still at PLO, so your input is greatly appreciated.
spanQy
hand #1--zit happens
hand #2--error here...you thought your hand was to big to bet? one of the 3 who called after the flop may have had a set, and would have been full when the 8 hit, so likely would have called....point is bet SOMETHING after the turn-there is still a card to come, and thus still room for them to have hopes.. if they dont hit on the free river card, then no room for hope.
hand #3--no way to avoid. Jim
Hand 1: Just calling on the flop is correct, I think. As I read your post, after you call there will be other players to act who checked initially. If the MP player has a big set, or if one of the checkers has checked a big set to check-raise, you will get in terrible trouble by raising. By just calling, you find out. If your top two is in fact winning, there are not _that_ many cards to beat them. Any T and any card 8 or lower will be pretty safe.
Hand 2: You obviously must bet the flop. When you make quads on the turn, I would check. It does not seem likely that the other players could have 33 or 22 and pay you off for much. There aren't that many hands with 33 or 22 in them that people even play. By checking, you might get a call for something on the river if one of the other players makes the straight they were probably drawing to. And there is some chance that an overcard on the river will make someone the top full house, in which case you have a realistic chance of getting paid very well. Usually, I think you should bet a monster hand in Omaha in case someone else has a huge hand too, but here you just have the deck crippled and you should try to let someone improve. The only time I would bet this one would be if my image was such that I looked like I was likely to be bluffing.
Hand 3: There seems to be a mistake in your post because you describe your hand as being AKKJ, then say that you had middle set, then top full house. I think you probably meant that you had trip Ks on the flop. So she called 300 on the flop and 400 on the turn, when the board was KJ77. Unless she is a terrible player, what can she have? Only if she is a terrible player could she have K7 or J7. Otherwise, she must have JJ or 77. You have a J in your hand, so there is only one way she can have JJ and one way she can have 77. If the money was deep, you might think about checking/folding on the river, but as I read your post, there is 1700 in the pot and she has 500 left. You just have to grit your teeth and bet the river. You certainly should bet since you are going to call anyway, and if she has JJ she might just check it out if you check.
Oh no!! Not again!
A couple of months ago I played no-limit for the first time in the little 1-2 game at Binion's. I haven't gotten around to posting it until now, but the details are about right because the hand has bothered me since. It bothered me at the time because I think I played it just horribly, although the result was good. I was the BB and had about $300. UTG straddled for $4 and had about $600. Everyone folded except the button, who called. Button also had $500-600. LB also folded after the button called. I look down and see TT. I just called. Mistake? Obviously the straddler could have anything, but what would the button just call with that I couldn't beat?
Then the straddler raised another $15. The button called. Now I didn't know what to do. I called, thus giving me terrible position against two hands. I really wasn't sure what either player had, but figured the raise out of the straddle meant more than it would in a limit game where a maniac would just raise for the action. I didn't know the player, but he was no maniac.
The flop came Q-7-3 rainbow. I had very little idea what to do at that point, so I bet $20 or $25. I thought that I had a tight image and because I played the hand meekly pre-flop I might get out some hands that beat me. They might put me on a big slowplay. I knew A-Q would not leave, but JJ might or maybe a queen with a bad kicker. I thought I might have had the best hand at that point too. Since I really had no idea where I was I bet. My bet took the pot. The button gave it some thought before folding. So I didn't get to find out what they were playing.
Anyway, any ideas from experienced no-limit players as to this middle pair quandry? I found out TT can be a lot easier to play in the limit games I am used to, although it can be a problem hand there too.
I probably would have bet (about size of pot) to knock out guy who had straddled...and hopefully both of them! If they both call, you really have somethig to worry about. Jim
2 opponent , if the maniac has Q-small he won't fold but raise because is a maniac . If the button limp when nobody else call he his a calling station and will call you ...
Anyway, any ideas from experienced no-limit players as to this middle pair quandry? I found out TT can be a lot easier to play in the limit games I am used to, although it can be a problem hand there too.
I think TT must be easier to play in pot/no limit games. You almost ALWAYS see at least one overcard on the flop, and few players will call a pot sized bet without top pair (or better) or a good draw. If you don't win the pot before or on the flop, you're probably in trouble. In limit poker lots of players call bets (and raises) on the flop with any feeble excuse. This is probably profitable to you, but it's tough to know where you stand unless you've got great hand reading skills.
BTW: when is this game spread? I just got back from LV and played 4-8 and 1-4-8 at Binions several times this week and never saw the game. I only get to LV two or three times a year, and I miss the Stratosphere and Plaza 1-2 games. I'm looking for comfortable replacements where a recreational player can have fun without risking the house.
Fat-Charlie
It may be they don't get the game going anymore. I played it in early April. It was before the World Series, but they were getting some satellites going so there were some players. I, like you, get to Las Vegas a few times a year, so am only a sporadic player there. I have no idea what games they will spread with the change in management I think the poker room is undergoing.
I also don't play much at Binion's. I went there specifically to play the small no-limit. I know pot-limit and no-limit games have a tendency to die out or go sporadically, but I thought there was a decent market for players like me (and it sounds like you) who would like to play some big-bet poker for relatively small stakes. I am not enough of a player to schedule my vacations around the side action at tournaments, and don't have the bankroll to play big no-limit or pot-limit games anyway. I liked the chance to get a little experience in the small game at Binion's. I don't like tournaments much, and aside from small buy-in tounaments it is hard to find a place to get some experience. I also think that live play is much different from the tournaments, so I just don't bother with the tournamets too often.
You played the hand fine.
In general in NL you should not raise pre-flop with medium and small pairs. The value of TT is not its base strength, but rather spiking a set against a big overpair or two pair and getting the other player's entire stack. You might occasionally raise small with this hand to keep the number of callers from getting ridiculous and/or hide the fact that you have a pair, but that's it. Note the huge difference in pre-flop play between PL and NL here. In PL you may want to make a small raise just to make it possible to get all the money in should you hit the set.
On the flop, your cards do not matter. You made a poke bet and took down the pot. A sharp player may well have called behind you on position alone - in this case risking $20 against $65 for the opportunity to steal with a small bet on the turn or river.
Matt
I would think you have the best hand preflop and would prefer 1 player considerably more than 2. If this is not possible then you could play it preflop as you did, but if not I would make a pot size bet somewhere preflop.
Eg after the straddler makes it 15 and the button calls, I would raise the pot or so. The button doesn't have much, and may even win it then.
I was in the game that this hand happened.
I was playing 20/40 at HP one night and noticed Mike playing heads-up 75/150 with a drunk, and went over to watch. This guy was AWFUL. I mean, no clue. I had encountered him before in the 20, and when he went broke he tried to borrow money from me, and several others.
Anyway, the game starts to fill up a little as people notice how bad this guy is. Now, 75/150 is way higher than I normally play, but the drunk had a fair amount of chips, so I went 50/50 with a friend of mine.
I remember the hand vividly, as it happened soon after I sat down. What Mike failed to include, was that the guy would have called him ANYWAY. He was calling to the river EVERY hand, and had just paid me off with ten high. The story in the article was accurate, but I think Mike's imagination might have gotten the better of him. Anyway, the guy lost all his chips and the game broke up.
Adam.
Your memory is not correct.
He was playing perhaps half of his hands, maybe more, but not nearly all of them. He had ALREADY in effect folded by throwing his eight-high face-up on the table to show that he couldn't possibly win (which incited my sequence of psyhological maneuvers). He again tried to fold on several more occasions.
There were many people in the game as witnesses and it was widely talked about afterwards.
I'm not sure why you're trying to say otherwise.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
By the way, the guy frequently chased to the river and bluffed ridiculously often, but I don't think he had previously called on the river without a pair -- he wasn't that sophisticated.
You're probably right about the guy borrowing money. He got $50 from me afterward (reducing my gain on that play by a third).
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
Mike,
As this has been the only time that I have played higher that 40/80, I remember the game quite well. A couple of hands before the hand you talk about, I held AA and the board was QQJ9x, and he called a bet on the tiver with T high. He showed it, saying I was lucky he didn't make his straight.
This was not a typical bad opponent. He was/is dreadful. I remember thinking after reading your article that you did not adequetly point out how bad this guy really was. Not sure if this was to make it sound more interesting, but an important omission nonetheless.
Adam.
I do not know why you're posting what you are. I do not believe the guy called you with 10-high or that you remember it clearly. I do not believe you're posting without an agenda. I have the suspicion that your posted was directly prompted by Mason or resulted indirectly from your desire to cater to him. I believe you will post that this suspicion is ludicrous, and it may be, but historically that is what I have encountered.
If you think the guy would have called me with 8-high garbage and I accomplished nothing, fine.
I have made a big mistake by posting here.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
In leaving, I want to say that I bear no hostility toward anyone here. I'm just confused by a lot of things regarding Mason's attitude toward me, which seem to be reflected in this forum.
I believe poker players are a small community within a large world. We share a lot in common and I cherish everyone who faces the occasional agony of failure in quest of sudden success at the poker tables. If Adam's comments were sincere, then I apologize and respect what he said, even though I know it's wrong.
I hope everyone's future poker adventures are rewarding.
I AM the weakest link. Good-bye.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
Mike:
Welcome to the cult of Two Plus Two. I think cult or cult-like was the word you used. Actually, we prefer the term "Two Plus Two Munchkin."
Best wishes, Mason
Uh,......?
BillM 2+2 GodEmperor
Mike,
I have never met Mason in my life, but I have met you a couple of times. I'm from Canada, and travel down to HP every couple of months for a couple of weeks at a time. Phil and Betty are my friends at HP, feel free to ask them about my character. I think that you are a great ambassador for poker, and have done more to promote the game than anyone I can think of, S&M included.
I'm sorry that you have gotten to the point where you must quit when someone questions your recolections, or opinions. I can only imagine that you must have recieved alot of abuse from others on this forum, and I am very sorry to see that happen.
My opinions, and recolections are different. That's all. Nothing personal.
Adam.
Mike:
Just because something critical is said about you, your advice, or your claims it doesn't mean that I'm behind it. If you want to check through our archives, you will see that your stuff comes up occasionally and that most of the posts concerning you, but not all, are favorable.
Furthermore, you can find literally thousands of posts that are critical of us. Right now Jim Brier has a weekly series of posts (on our Medium Stakes Forum)that is questioning advice in our Advanced Hold 'em book. He spoke to me in the cardroom one day and stated that he had about twenty questions concering ideas in our book which he disagreed with. I suggested that he post one a week because I thought that it would make interesting discussion.
And now for a challenge to you. If you really want the respect that you think that you deserve, there's an easy way to get it. Just begin to participate in some of the discussions on our forums on a regular basis. But let me warn you, we have some very smart people who participate here and they will challenge any ideas that they feel aren't accurate. They do it to David and I all the time. But it's also a lot of fun.
Best wishes, Mason
what you will find here mike is that the posters pick apart your content and strategy unlike rpg where they just nit pick at everything thats written because few are qualified to make a quality assessment of a hand. keep trying here and you may like what yo8u find if not then make your choice. it seems like you have had some had times lately with some of your endeavours with the cheating thing but forget it, i have. as for mason you just have to box it out with him and the end result will benefit poker youll see. good luck ray zee
^
i am thoroughly confused as to why posters on this forum rag on Mike Caro all the time. he has a lot of good things to say. i am not always sure that the guy on here who signs his replies as mike caro actually IS Mike Caro. but that doesn't mean that the guy deserves less respect than other people who post on here. i like Mason's response in this thread.
I'm not sure the poster is actually Mike Caro either. In particular there are a couple of things which cause me to somewhat doubt it...but he could be. If he is I hope he won't leave so easily.
...almost for sure. For one thing MJC always signs his posts with his name *below* "Straight Flushes", not on the same line.
It started out sounding like him at the beginning of this thread but about the 5th post I think (not going back to check now) the impostor started slipping up. All the same , in the remote chance it really is him, it's too bad he won't be staying.
...the signature on the same line could be due to lack of familiarity with how this forum formats messages.
However, given that in a recent thread a poster almost surely attempted to impersonate and lampoon Mike, I still think the chances are quite high that this is just a more sophisticated attempt at impersonation. It doesn't really *all* sound like him, either (although I've never actually heard Mike speak).
It started out sounding like him and ended up sounding like him. Though I was surprised by the paranoid and petulant middle post, perhaps I would be less so if I were more familiar with past conflicts to which he alludes. I think it was him.
Mike' Mike. Come back Mike!
Dino.
Hi, Dino --
I have enjoyed visiting here. The exchange of ideas is intelligent and interesting throughout, and I will probably come back in the future to trade thoughts with the very capable minds who hang out here.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
Hope to see you again very soon!
I read a lot of your posts on rgp, especially the newest about the blind defence (which is probably a leak in my game), so I'd love to see you participate in our poker discussions. The discussion (here and on rgp) made me surely think about my blind defence (and came to the conclusion that it was very poor, because I never had to consider the blind stealing possibility before, until I recently moved up to the 8/16 and 10/20 games at Paradise).
I dont know if you have played online yourself, but if you have; how do you consider the tells online; i.e the use of check-boxes, the chatter during the hand. Are they as meaningfull as in live games, or shouldnt you give any consideration to it because you cant see the face, combining with what they tell/write.
Regards
I love watching your tell videos. When things aren't going that well for me, I watch them again. I remember having a huge winning streak after seeing them the first time. It's not necessarily the tells on the video that worked for me. It's just good reinforcement for playing active instead of playing lazy. I was playing no-limit holdem exclusively then, and I was able to clock several key players to a T.
There was a strange post on cheating/collusion a while back what happened to it. I've been on break and playing instead of two+twoing.
I played in a 6 handed 1-1-2 pot limit hand and got k-k in big blind. Player in cut off, (tricky aggresive player) raies pot i re-raise and he called, eveeryone else fould. Flop is jd-7d-6c i bet the pot and get called turn is qs. I check, player bets out, and i raised player called. I bet my last 50$ on river and player foulded. The player i played aggainst must had a draw. I asked him wath he had and he said Ad-Kd. Since i had the Kd in my hand i know he was lying. And if he had A-Q or A-J he would have called my river bet, or moore likley re-raised me all inn since i only had 50$ left on table before river. The question is, should i have check-raised. Or just betted straight out? The hand he probbably had was 9d-10d, and figgured that i had A-K or something. Did i play the hand well or was the risk too big? Feel free to respond
seems that you made all of the $$ you could have made--because of your earlier re-raise I don't htink he will bet if you check on the river---you did fine. Jim
Actually I think he had 8-9 of diamonds. I probably would have bet the turn. It would be a disaster if he checked behind you and beat you with a disguised straight on the river.
I recently played Pot Limit HE for the first time at the WSOP live games. I enjoyed both sessions. Part of that enjoyment no doubt was having a big hand each session and doubling up.
My question is the different skill sets required for NL v PL? While it seems to me that if one is skilled at big bet games they should be equally competent in both. I know that is not necessarily true.
The June 22 issue of CardPlayer has a poll(from 60 players whom I presume are highly regarded players) of best live action players in various games. Example, the poll lists for No Limit HE:
1. Tony D 2. Doyle Brunson 3. Erik Seidel 4 Bobby Hoff 5. Johnny Chan
For PL HE:
1. Bobby Hoff 2. Tony D 3. Johnny Chan 4. Bill O'Conner 5. Erik Seidel
While the poll is subjective, I understand it is common knowledge that different skills/abilities are required for the two games. So what makes Bobby Hoff #1 in PL and #4 for NL?
Bob
I talked at length with Bobby Hoff about the differences between PL and NL and Bobby feels strongly that PL has more opportunity for skillful play. His most general reason for this view, as best I can recall, is that in PL you can gather more information being making the more critical decisions.
Tommy
Boy, anytime he wants to share his wisdom here... :)
Pity he got sucked out on so bad in the '79 & '98 WSOP's, but I guess us amateurs need a lil encouragement every so often. :)
I believe that Berry Johnston feels the same way about PL v. NL.
I think Ray Zee share the view, as do I. To me, the biggest diffrence is that there is a big river decision in pot limit more than no limit or limit. In no limit, most of the money in big pots generally goes in on the flop or turn. In limit, the pot odds generally make the river play pretty rote when in doubt, call.
Additionally, you can often negate the disadvantage of being out of position by setting yourself all-in in no limit. You can't do this in pot limit. Say you flop a big straight/flush/overcard draw in no limit against a couple of players. You can check-rasis all-in and really put the heat on the others, and see two cards for "free" if you are called. You can't do this in pl as you will be stuck acting first if the turn blanks off.
i agree that they both use some different skills to get the most out of each game. in pot limit as michael says you get to play the hand out with betting and that make the game tougher. overall in no limit knowing whether your opponent likes his hand or not provides a great edge as you can blow him off the pot at will if he has money. in pot limit you need to read the hands much better and put them on a more specific hand as you have to play against the hand with more betting rounds.
Hi Bob,
That was a fun game and a fine day. When will we see you next at Lucky Chances?
Matt
Hi Matt,
I have been at LC a few times since WSOP but we must have missed the same playing sessions.
BTW, I have been lobbying management at Lucky Chances and requested they spread PL HE. I received positive response and assured it will happen. Lets play soon!
Bob
re: PL at LC's.
Now's the time, with Pacific News closing. We'd need to assemble a quorum and pick a night and talk to Scott. I think it'd fly.
Blinds? The NL players will bitch no matter what. That is Scott's arterial [sic] pressure.[loveya Matt] Scott wouldn't want $5-10 anyway because that is legitimately managerially too close to the big no-limit game even without the pressure. It'd have to be $5-5 blinds tops to float.
Tommy
Tommy,
When I spoke to Scott he said it will happen but was not sure how soon. He did tell me he promised the regular $10-$10-$20 NL players that he would protect their game(s).
Let's round up the usual suspects and lobby Scott with an organized effort. Something like a $5-$5 blind PL game would appeal to a lot of middle limit players. Even lower limit players would probably like to take a shot here and again, and again, and again... :)
My preference would be weekends but lets discuss. You have one of the biggest sticks in the joint so I am with you.
Bob
I'll talk to Scott about which nights would be best. Boris suggested Thursday but that's right between the Wednesday and Friday NL games so I think that'll get the quick hook.
One bit of bad news I just learned is that the NL game in Hayward is going strong every night right now. That's where the hyper-tight core of small-blinds NL players are these days. We could use the bodies to get things going, but maybe it's just as well that they stay where they are. :-)
Tommy
Say it ain't so! Marvin was telling me the Palace game runs better than our little Sunday night festival at AJs....
Alex was singing the blues after yesterday's no-limit session at LC's. I kicked his ass at Scrabble anyway because he said he wanted full pain.
I said dude, why don't you play a little $20-40 with us now and then? I mean, with the San Mateo game closed down, and you hardly ever come to AJ's on Sunday, what are you going to do? Play poker two days per week and throw frisbees the rest of the time?
He had an answer: The Palace.
So there's another game I won't be attending. I am physically incapable of playing a good game with him at the same table. Unless it's a Scrabble table. lol
Tommy
How could you challenge our boy to Scrabble after a hard defeat? Just steal his wallet next time and go to a movie or something.
(To the 2+2 crowd: Our buddy Alex, no-limit player extraordinaie, once misspelled tortilla "tortila," which ain't so bad except he was eating out of a bag of 'em at the time.)
2-3-5 NL game at AJ's last night. It's four handed at the river with a board of AAAA5 (quad aces), $100 pot, no post-flop action. Player 1 bets $80.
This hand then generated an AMAZING amount of action. Unfortunately for player #3, most of it was on the adjacent 15-30 table, where Tommy Angelo and several others set up a sizable ac hoc pool over which of the three players who called that $80 bet just happened to - well - not exactly have a king.
Player 1 then mock-earnestly says "Big pair huh?" as the dealer stops his four-way chop and totally without malice or intent innocently holds up a king as if to show player 3 what one looks like.
;-)
hilarious story Matt. who was the dealer? was gonna play but I was stomping through the woods at about the same time the game was getting going.
"Player 1 then mock-earnestly says "Big pair huh?" as the dealer stops his four-way chop and totally without malice or intent innocently holds up a king as if to show player 3 what one looks like."
LOL!! Great telling.
Playing in the 2-3-5 NL game last night, for the first time in a while. I'd been playing limit poker and tournaments, and staying away from the live no limit for the last bit.
At any rate, I'm in the small blind. UTG, tight player generally but will limp with trash, limps in for 10. Aggressive, bad, lucky player behind him makes it 30 to go. Folded to me.
I have 77. I have $240 in front of me. Both players have me covered, the aggro one by a lot. I decide that I don't have a big enough stack to get paid off enough, so I fold.
Matt, sitting next to me, accuses me of being psychotic for laying that down there.
So what do y'all think? I'm trying to find a balance between playing speculative hands that can win big pots, and just bleeding by calling with too many hands that don't hit enough.
Collective wisdom of 2+2, enlighten me.
- target
I agree with your lay down here. If you call too many $30 hands and miss you will be out of money in no time. I use a 5% rule here... if it is < 5% of my stack, and I can double through (someone has me covered) I will call. You have to put in 1/8 of your stack with the first preflop raiser to act (as well as others).
I don't play NL, but I do occasionally play PL, so my opinion is not as valid as some.
Derrick
Dave, I said that without looking at your stack thinking you had near or better than their >$500 stacks. After seeing that you only had $240 with a call of $27 to make and a very low likelihood of a reraise from UTG, plus a trigger-happy aggressive guy in the mix, I would've chosen a kinder, gentler descriptive, like "chickenshit." ;-)
Seriously though, I'm totally just teasing you. No one can fault you for laying that hand down. You were out of position, you didn't feel right about it, and you had nothing invested. A clear fold if there ever was one.
Oh, I wasn't offended. It did make me think that I might not be thinking about speculative hands like that very well.
I'm clearly not a winner in that game after 100 hours or so, and I don't think it's short term variance, so I'm looking for holes to patch.
I may post more lengthily at some point, but I feel like I do fine in terms of small pots, but I lose my stack substantially more often that I double through. This is either due to me making too loose calls, or due to my not playing hands that might double me through well enough.
My guess is both, with the emphasis on loose calls, but you definitely stole some pots from me last night, Matt.
Jerk. :)
- target
Derrick, with a pair I'm willing to commit more than 5% with additional equity, like tilt in an opponent or more than one caller or especially the button. Here I thought the aggressive player was ready to spew some chips or bet with an obvious nothing on the flop, making that 8:1 out-of-position stack problem a little more palatable. Plus in a marginal situation like that, if I (personally) fold and the 7 hits, I'm likely to go on minitilt, playing a few too many hands the next orbit and spilling money that way. So for me it's also a zen maintenance call.
The maximum-stack-percentage-to-call-with-pairs that Alex and I use is 10%. It's higher than the chances of flopping a set, mostly to account for those times that you hit and don't bust the other guy. As the certainty that the other player has a big pair and will play it strong goes up, our required percentage drops.
A ramification of that last thing: In the 2-3-5 game, I'd rather see a flop (with a pocket pair) for $100 with $1000 behind me, than see the flop for $40 with $400 behind me, if the larger bet insures I'm up against a big pair.
The wierd thing is, when I have $5000 in front of me in the big game at LC's (which ain't often lol), there's no flipping way I'm going to call $500 preflop. No WAY! (But Alex would without hesitation if the situation was just right. But then, he's got more years to recover than I do. lol)
We all have our chickenshit thresholds. Ain't no thing.
Tommy
Here's my opinion for its worth:
good laydown given your stack size. At a little over 7:1 to flop a set you are just about even money from an implied odds standpoint IF a) your set is good AND b) you at least double up. just because you make your hand doesn't mean you will get paid off. Now if there was some way you could win without improving you might want to call. The only problem of course is your terrible position and the fact that you will probably get called by the guy on a hot streak.
you might really regret the decision of UTG decides to pull the ol' limp/re-raise trick.
Yeah, I did briefly think about it, but I thought it was really unlikely. He's probably capable of the play, but he gave a clear tell that he wasn't happy about the raise, and I believed it.
Of course, it would suck to call and then be forced to fold to the big raise.
- target
zen maintenance?? it may be important to consider zip avoidence..because considering all factors you described--you may end up with ZIP playing that sort of hand.....jim
Zen maintenace. I understand that concept. I almost always engage in Zen maintenance whenever I CAN draw to a straight flush. - lol
I just found this thread. This is a trip. I am an old low ball player from San Jose- Joe's, Garden city, Victory club - lol, and Articoke Joe's, I saw the Cameo from the outside - lol. I had to learn hold em and Omaha in a state with no clubs, which means house games and books (thank God for Doyle and Bobby - I would have had no chance in California without them - how coud I?) if you don't think that is tough - lol.
I get to play in California and Washington a couple of times a year - Bay Area and L.A. clubs (I like $15/$30 (can't play higher than that with so little game. So I can't contribute much, but I can sure apprecitate the thread. P.S. I don't miss low ball - lol.
Anyway, I really love and appreciate the daily taking of a play and discussing the play to learn what it is.
AND, I am learning a lot and loving it. Thanks everyone.
Mattism: Zen maintenance
It's like an arch-builders scaffolding.
Huh?
Gnite!
I don't really play no limit, but is re-raising in this spot that bad? I guess it depends how bad/aggressive the raiser is, and whether UTG will fold to more pressure. I think if the raiser is bad enough, and will raise with enough hands that you can beat, then you have a chance to get your whole stack in pre-flop with the best of it. Maybe raise a little more to move UTG, expecting the raiser to move you all in? just speculating, though
Dave,
"Aggressive, bad, lucky player behind him makes it. . . "
I'm gut-busting -- "lucky." lol
I haven't been able to get to 2+2 for two days so I'm going to try something new and opine before reading the other replies so that I can backpeddle later.
"Matt, sitting next to me, accuses me of being PSYCHOTIC for laying that down there."
I'm sure Matt could have thought of a more emphatic, and thereby more accurate term. :-)
Did you ever think maybe you have the best hand? You're deep enough to try to snag a seven anyway, partly because if you don't hit a seven, you've still got I'm-going-all-in-and-I-don't-care-because-you-can't-hurt-me-and-my-little-stack power working for you.
As to getting bled in general, consider than if you had a mere $200 more on the table, it'd be absolutely automatic to play these pocket sevens and like it, right? You get to make your own implied odds and you're literally giving them money on hands like this if you had more game-appropriated money in your pocket.
Tommy
Again speaking in general using this hand ...
I think you're fold is fine given your stack size. By no means is it "wrong." But if it could have been made "right" simply by having more chips, then the act of not having more chips becomes a "mistake" as a good opportunity passes by.
This is an interesting point, one that I hadn't considered.
I was trying to keep my losses minimal, since, somewhat like Natedogg, I haven't been doing as well in this game as I'd like.
But that should not extend to playing with scared money (I did go all in twice on calls, once to win, once to lose). And it shouldn't extend to not putting enough money on the table to play the game right.
So how do you figure the minimum amount of money to play in a game? Probably enough to call small raises with hands that can pay off big.
- target
Dave: "So how do you figure the minimum amount of money to play in a game?"
I think that depends more on bankroll and runningbaddedness than blinds and such. All I'm saying is, if you sit down in the 2-3-5 game with, say, $1000 in your pocket and buy in for $500, and a while later you have $200 on the table, Rebuy the other $500. Your money is your tool and your ammunition and whatever other metaphors you can think of.
The way that works the best for me is to just buy in one time at no-limit. Whatever my stake is for the session, I just plop it out there. It's one less thing to think about, rebuying and all, and it just feels good esthetically. Let's say the game just started and everyone buys in for $500. You could say it doesn't make sense to buy in for $1000 because $500 of it is literally out of play. But if course it WILL be in play, the second ANYONE doubles up.
And let's say someone doubles up through me for five hundred. Well, I'm ready to go next hand, now, without the image-crushing routine of calling for chips and digging out cash. I hate that.
Tommy
I did consider the possibility that I had the best hand, briefly.
But I wasn't really willing to play guessing games on the flop with a loose-aggressive player who could hit almost any overcard on the flop. I felt like I would likely get paid off at least somewhat if I hit a set, but unless the flop came all babies, I don't like the hand much.
And even bad players find cards, so I might not be ahead even then.
This is a situation that I don't have a great feel for. I can get away from a hand, or make money on it, in limit, but you have so many fewer bets to make a decision in NL that I was trying to be conservative.
On the other hand, Sam often says, "The more hands you play, the more money you make." And I'm sure it's true for him.
- target
Dave,
Your desire to play a low-variance game completely changes my opinion here. You are highly likely to face a flop bet with overcards on the board. If you aren't in a mood to press a read and use your short stack to advantage, you're left with the odds of both hitting the 7 and getting the other guy all-in, which you didn't have.
Matt
I agree with Matt.
Forget the live nature of your opponent for a sec. In general, calling all-in sucks. Betting or raising all-in is good. If you're not in the mood to make a move, folding the 77 preflop is definitely best, as opposed to being the one guessing later on when the board comes, say, 10-6-6 and you face an all-in bet. It's better to bet all-in and get called by the overpair, then call the overpair's all-in bet.
Tommy
Hi,
I am going to calf. where is the best place to play PLO. Please post all games and their blinds.
Played some sort of Texas Holdem a couple of days ago (ante instead of blinds, and moving button during the betting rounds)in Kathmandu. Game vas half pottlimit with each player (7) anteing about $1 (40 Indian Rs). After six hours the game broke and I had lost about $120. The rake was 5% with no upper limit. A normal pott was around $15-40 and the biggest pott about $440 ($22 in rake). Is it possible to beat this game even if the players are terrible?
I don't think you can win unless you continue to hit miracle cards out off the sky. You are 8asicly antein and losing more money out of the pot than you put in in the long run.
Thanks, Josh
Is ti possible to win? Sure. Is it it likely? No. The players will have to be particularly bad, and you will have to play damn near perfectly. You could make more at McDonalds.
Still the worst rake I ever saw was at a Florida reservation. Everyone (7 people) antied 25 cents--and the $1.75 was dropped as a rake. The house rule was that no POT could total more than $10 EVER. Thus the minimum rake was 17.5%. The maximum rake was 1.75 on a chop.
That wasn't a house rule, that's Florida State law. Any poker game with a pot over $10 was considered to be "real" gambling when the law was made. In the few Florida casinos that play poker, they usually just play $40 buy-in 40-hand one-table tourneys, so each hand is exactly the limit.
Yes you are right it is Florida State law. Still, the game is unbeatable. As to those tournamants, I have played in those as well. Kind of riduculous to play when everyone knows how many hands are going to be played, and 90% of the time whoever wins the last hand (because everyone jams), advances to the next round.
Also IMHO unbeatable, all you have to do is look at how the rebuys work . . . for another thread.
Exactly my thought. I just wanted it verified.
Copy/pasted from RGP w/permission:
"UTG (bad loose player) Raises you smooth call with Ad3d4c10c. SB (bad loose player)calls. BB re-raises (good player playing solid) original raiser caps it. Flop:
Kd-Qs-7d
Both blinds check, original raiser bets....
What is your play, call or raise?"
FWIW IMO discussing the pre-flop play would be more educational, i.e. what would you do if UTG had just limped or if you were first in; what kind of hand is A34T[ds], etc.
I think that A34T[ds] plays much better headsup, as you are much more likely to win the high w/A's up or even A's w/T kicker, plus you might make a dry A2 fold pre-fflop. By the same token, I don't want to put a lot of money in pre-flop unless I can get it headup, so I'da 3bet UTG, limped if he limped, and raised if first in.
?: only 3 raises per/rnd in 300/600?
On the flop, I would raise in hope of driving out A2 hands and buying a free turn card if needed.
Regarding preflop recommendations, I would want to know more about the typical preflop action in the game.
Bill,
I think this situation depends on the kind of players you are up against. What kind of hands do the bad players play? If they play terribly, why try to raise them out of the pot? Or maybe you can't raise them out of the pot.
I think calling the UTG raise will help you gauge your opponents hands. Since, the solid player reraised in the BB, that should indicate a suited ace, a suited ace with other draws, or even a double suited pair of aces.
On the flop the Ad3d4c10c has a draw for the nut flush and a gut-shot, with something for low. I don't think raising on the flop is a good idea if you have weak players that will pay you off if they catch a flush smaller than yours, or they make a set when you get a flush. Why isolate yourself with the better player? Since, he's the one most likely to beat you if you lose.
BTW, I think the Ad3d4c10c plays fine in a multiway pot, except for the 4c10c being suited. If you make a flush with it, you could lose.
blinds 2-5-10. there was a 50 raise preflop. five players including me see the flop.
flop = 7h, 9h, 10c first to act bets 300. I know his play--he has 8-J and not necessarily any backup.
before me, one folds, two flat call. I have 8-J and smaller cards NO backup.
I have about 3,000 - original better has 1,500 - the two who flat called have about 2,500 each.
Do I flat call? Do I raise 1,500 in effort to force out the two who have flat called (they must have bigger straight draw, and, or, flush draw) Do I decide that I just don't want half of this pot and fold? Jim
I folded. when smoke cleared there was both bigger straight and a flush! May not have been bes possible decision though???? Jim
You done good, my son.
(Note: I suck at big bet omaha at the table. I do think my analysis is right this time, though.)
- target
Dear Jellow, The problem you address is rather common in P/L Omaha. It is someimes difficult to play the nuts on the flop when there are a lot of drawing hands out against you and even if your hand holds up, you might have to split the pot. A way to avoid this is by playing only high-quality hands, not necessarily just high pairs or high cards, but four cards that fit together, so that when the flop is favorable, you have four good cards rather than two or three. Had you held QJT8, you would have been the one freerolling here rather than your opponent(s). When the pot has been raised to $50 and the big blind is only $10, how can you ever be still in the hand with J8 small small (or did you have a suited ace of some kind- even if you did, do you think the hand was worth $50)? If you have an overpair to go with your J8, then calling might be a good idea (if your overpair hits on the turn, you've got the nut straight AND top set, an extremely powerful hand). The thing to do (in general) is to avoid the (common) situation you describe by playing quality hands; remember, P/L Omaha is a value-driven game and the quality of your starting hand is VERY important (even though it sometimes seems like any hand can -and will- win). To answer your question, a case can be made for either calling, raising or folding (although folding in a four-way pot wouldn't be my first choice, actually; since the money is rather deep here I would tend towards calling to see if a 'safe' cards comes on the turn, and your opponent and you might be able to charge your opponent for trying to improve to a better hand than the ones you hold). In my opinion, when the pots get big before the flop, it is extremely difficult to get away from your hand when the flop actually comes favorable (i.e. you flop the nuts) and your loose call before the flop has caused the problem you are experiencing now.
Fold. If you're sure you're chasing half the pot, and are up against someone who might have a redraw and various people who have live draws, you're not happy. Some of the time you'll get half the pot, some of the time you'll get nothing. It's hard to put in lots of money in that situation.
Your other option is to raise, if you think that you can blow the drawing hands out. Especially if the original bettor reraises.
But then you're either getting half the pot, or giving the other straight a freeroll for a *huge* pot if he has a redraw. Not really a good thing. And if one of the draws calls with a set and a flush draw, or something, you're a dog to make money.
- target
I throw it away here. It might be difficult to get the other players to drop if you pop it, especially when the other J 8 calls. Any 8, J, Q, K or Heart kills your hand. IMHO learning to lay this down is the first hurdle to get over for a PLO player.
.
let me first say that i'm new to PLO but i love it and am playing in a game with other very inexperienced players.
my question is the given the same scenario, but you're against only one opponent who you are certain is on a draw, what is the play? even with no redraws, are you still pretty much obligated to make it as expensive as possible for the guy to out draw you?? in other words, is that the common/assumed play to bet the pot on the flop and turn (assuming nothing scary shows up on the turn) ?????
thank you for any advice.
broomcorn
if you are playing limit, the pot odds are usually high enough for them to correctly call, so it's not likely to drive them out...but is you face only one other player, then you are the favorit to win so bet. In a P/L game you frequently are able to bet enough so that pot odds make it a mistake to draw, thus you should try to force them out...unless you face the situation of both a flush and straight draw.. then as the say "it all depends"...Jim
Against one opponent who you are certain is on the come, you might play it a little differently on the flop. There's three on the board and four in your hand, so there's 45 unknown cards. 16 are an 8, J, Q or K. If he has a set, 7 more pair the board to make him a full house or quads. And if he has 2 hearts, then an additional 4 uncounted hearts are out there. So of the 45 unknowns that will provide a turn card, 27 of them will scare the bejeesus out of you.
Technically, with the right pot, you might be justified in calling a flop bet if you think you can bet him off it if a blank hits the turn. This is more of a limit play than a big bet play. Better to wait. In PLO you want to get your opponent's stack. Think of how much more fun it would be to have the Ah Qh with your J8o. Or a hand like Jh 8h 10 10. Then you'll really enjoy building a pot on the flop.
Try the 20-40 HE in Bettendorf, Ia Thursday and Sunday afternoon. Starts 2-4pm and lasts till dawn usually. Very loose game.
Charlie K
it's Thursday and Saturday
Charlie K
"Very loose game"? 20/40? Bettendorf? I don't think so. That bunch is similar to the players at Soaring Eagle, Mt Pleasant Michigan. In my opinion, the joints are so "rural", you get the same tightwads, all the time.
Copy/pasted from RGP w/permission:
"I recently played a somewhat interesting hand in a 300-600 mixed game at the Commerce. What I found most intesting about the hand was that Allen Cunningham, John Juanda, and myself all would have played the hand differently. Here it is:
Third Street:
Player A (a great stud player, clearly his best game) limps in with the 3 of hearts. Player B (a great hold'em player playing stud-stud game is suspect) Raises with the J of spades. I have the Ace of clubs up and A-9 of hearts in the hole-I re-raised. Both players called.
Fourth street:
Player A catches an A of spades, Player B catches a 9 of clubs, I catch a 10 of spades.
Fifth street the boards read as such:
Player A: 3h As 3s Player B: Js 9c 9s Me : Ac 10s 5s
As I rember it, either a 5 a 10 or both were out on third street, I don't quite remember(no wonder I suck at stud:-).
Anyway Player B bets. I give her Jacks and Nines. Player A is behind me, but I doubt he would come for 2 bets with a pair of 3's so I rule out trips. Since I have the Ace of hearts in the hole I KNOW the Ace couldn't have helped him. His most likely hand in my estimation was Q-Q, K-K, or a random heart draw. I called, player A raised behind me, and player B called. What would you do?
*I asked Allen Cunningham's opinion. Allen just recently won the $5000 Stud event at the WSOP event this year and is an excellent Stud player.
Allen's advice was to fold here. Actually he said he may have even folded to Player B's first bet on fifth street. I'm assuming his reasoning for this is that my hand was pretty dead and hard to improve. Personally, I thought the size of the pot warranted a call, but I'm not the Stud WSOP champ, he is:-)
**I also asked John Juanda. John is the first to admit that Stud isn't his best game, but he has played with some of the best over the past year at the Commerce as well as the Hustler and been extremely successful.
John thought that a raise might be in order here. His thinking was that he wanted to move out Player A by representing Aces up, and have him fold his possible kings up or queens up for two bets. Therefore getting the pot heads-up and thus increasing his chance of winning, as well as possibly picking up a free card on 6th street. If he didn't get the free card(9-9's would act first) It would likely mean that he's improved to either 3 aces or aces and tens and could value bet 6th street as it would likely be the best hand.
Tomorrow I'll post what each player actually had and also what follwed on 6th and 7th street.
Written as a direct reply to Daniel N.:
You're in big trouble, with the pot now so big they'll both be there till 7th, & you're in 3rd place(and you maybe WAY back or even dead) with a bunch of dead cards. I think 'A' would've moved much sooner with KK or QQ to knock out 'B' if he suspected you of a semi-steal on 3rd. His cold call on 3rd is scary to me holding AA, and gets scarier with a 3rd person in till the river. I think 'A' has either the 3-A canoe or even quads(were I 'A' I'd play quad 3's fast here for deceptive purposes). Even if 'A' does just have K's up, your odds are terrible against two opponents.
Allen's right that the best play was to fold on 5th right away, but John's right that raising 'B' was infinitely better than calling. Would've cost the same as calling does now, and you'd have a lot better info about 'A's hand.
Yuck, whatta mess. :)
I guess I don't see how this over pair against 2 players with 2 underpair each is much worse than against just 1. If you need Aces up to win how bad can it be to let KsUp's 4-card out in?
But, your hand is pretty dead, you may be drawing to a stiff Ace, and they may have some weird combinations like 2-pair (KsUp) and a pair+flush draw.
Your beat on 5th street, possibly real bad, with a dead hand. Throw this one away.
- Louie
"Oops. I was extremely tired when I wrote this post last night. Here are a few more of the particulars. Player A limped in first position as a 2 brought it in for the $100. Player B raised with the J two from the bring in, I re-raised in last position before the bring in. The game was 6 or 7 handed at the time, I'm uncertain. I rule out completely Player A starting with two 3's. He may play a buried smallish pair, but not a split pair against obvious strength. If he has jacks beat, he should probably call a lot of the time in an aggressive game as it usually is. I don't have to have aces here at all in their minds. I could make the same re-raise with a 3-flush, A-K-Q, 5-5-A, etc. One more thing that needs clarification I think. John's advice was to raise Player B's initial bet. Not re-raise player A's bet. I think that may have been confusing the way I posted it. "
RESULTS*****************
Daniel called on 5th, then all three players checked on both 6th & 7th, w/no one improving. 'A' had QQ in the hole, 'B' QT-busted straight draw w/a pair of 9's.
IMO the fact that 'A' wasn't the bringin does indeed make it much easier to dismiss that he has a 3 in the hole, and also makes Daniel's failure to raise 'B's bet on 5th even more of a mistake.
For any stud experts out there, should 'A' have 3-bet on 3rd? What does he need to think the chances are that 'B' will fold JJ and/or that Daniel does not have AA?
Louie's point makes sense to me. On 5th street, it appears that Daniel must improve to beat player B's two pair; it also appears that player C probably has four outs to beat aces-up. If these assumptions are true, how big does the pot have to be for Daniel to want to raise player C out of the hand? (i.e., at what point does the EV of eliminating player C outweight the EV of letting him contribute while Daniel tries to make aces-up or better?) Also consider that there is some risk that player C will not cooperate by mucking his two pair when Daniel raises.
Regarding your third street question, are you implying that reraising would have been a more viable option for player A than folding? What must the likelihood be that Daniel has AA before it becomes correct for player A to fold his KK3 or QQ3?
Playing 7-handed 100-200 pineapple (3 cards preflop, discard one, then texas hold-em). I'm in the cutoff with KJsX. I dump the X. One limper, generally solid player raises, fold to me, I raise. Button, SB, BB fold. Limper calls. Three see the flop. Flop comes J44 (pretty sure it was rainbow). Limper checks, initial raiser opens, I raise. The limper folds, initial raiser reraises, I call (fearing an overpair, not the set since he did raise preflop and most players get rid of low cards on the discard). Next card is the K (no flush possible). He bets, I raise with my top two pair and get reraised. I think he must either have aces or A4 suited or the case jacks. I am really struggling to get a read (and I have a pretty good one on this player), but figure I'm beat. I call. River brings a 2. I call his bet and am shown two black eights. I was the leader the whole time. Did I do anything wrong here? Should I have folded? Any help would be appreciated.
I don't play 100-200, but I have played a little pineapple.
You said: One limper, generally solid player raises, fold to me, I raise.
KJs is not a re-raising hand in regular hold'em. In pineapple it's even less so. All hand values go DOWN in pineapple except for AA. Even KK goes down a little bit. I don't understand why you would re-raise a "generally solid" player with KJ. Are you hoping this is one of the few times he's decided to mix it up and raise an early limper with something weaker than KJ? Your odds are not good for this to be the case. Are you hoping to simply play position on him? From the way he played out the hand, I doubt you were planning to outplay him after the flop with nothing but position. He sounds like a tough player. Pick better spots for a pre-flop 3 bet . This hand is a fold in hold'em almost every time and in pineapple it's going to try to break light speed on it's way to the muck.
You said: I am really struggling to get a read but figure I'm beat. I call.
Why would you call if you figure you're beat? It sounds like your biggest mistake was one of game selection. You're opponents are very tough and they are forcing you to play hold'em the way the fish do: Call and hope for the best. That is not a winning strategy.
Whenever I am in a game with opponents who are so tough and tricky and fearless that I'm constantly wondering what to do, I leave.
To answer your last question: I was the leader the whole time. Did I do anything wrong here? Should I have folded?
You were not the leader the whole time. You were losing before the flop. Your preflop play gets a D. It's not an F because raising is slightly better than calling.
Your flop play is ok because aggression is better than passivity.
You should have folded preflop. Once the turn comes, you cannot fold because you are against a tricky aggressive player. If he were a typical player, you might be able to get away from it even on the turn.
Remember, this is pineapple, not hold'em. Hands like KJ are traps in hold'em and they are DEATH in pineapple.
natedogg
Thanks. I normally don't play pineapple, but someone selected it (so we played it for 30 minutes). At my club (if you can call it that), that's the only way to keep a good game going. I have always thought that KJ is an under-rated hand (I know that most people won't play it for a raise, and some not even for the blind), but lately I've gotten myself into a lot of trouble with it. Well, thanks for the help.
C
Chris, KJ is probably an OVER-rated hand by most limit hold'em players. I'm not talking about experts and most of the people who post here on 2+2. Most 2+2 posters will readily disparage KJ. But the average hold'em player who has a lot of experience but hasn't put a lot of thought into the game will routinely cold-call preflop raises with KJ and will routinely disregard kicker problems when they flop top pair.
It is a "trap" hand. You won't win much with it generally unless you catch your three-outer (i.e. you need to flop KJx against AK to make money) or you will win a small pot when you out flop QQ or something like that (another three outer that won't even make you much money). KJ SUITED is ok in multi-way pots where you have position and you won't face a lot of raising. In a tough game you can almost never play KJ against someone else showing aggression. It is a blind stealing hand from the cutoff and button, or a limping hand in late position after one or two weak-playing limpers, not much more.
As you said, you've been running into trouble with it lately. It sounds like you're playing your hand more than you're playing your opponent. You're seeing two big cards and going with it, and you're often flopping pairs with it or straight draws, and you're running into trouble. Again, I'm just saying this is what it sounds like, I may be wrong. Everytime you call a raise with KJ or are tempted to re-raise think to yourself: "What is my opponent raising with?". It will very rarely be something that KJ can beat/dominate. You will need help on the flop.
Take it easy and best of luck. Would like to hear from others who may disagree about KJ.
natedogg
either you or i dont understand the game. its raised to you by a solid player and you think a reraise is justified-- how about folding everytime in this spot. you are possibly playing with total fools so that this kind of playing can survive. i wouldnt play a straight holdem hand this fast let alone pineapple. good luck and try to tighten up.
There are internet support groups for people with your problem. Move slowly away from the table... keep your hands visable & in the air at all times... don't touch those chips! and run for help.
I have never played this game, but in a regular HE game you have a marginal call or a fold before the flop.
I am a big believer in the following:
"If you draw to a hand, hit it and can't bet it, you probably shouldn't have drawn to it."
You not only paid what was asked to draw to it, you offered an additional bet.
3 cards is a big jump form 2. this is a weak holding.
Dan Z.
Looking for a pot limit/NL or midlimit game in Vancouver during the long weekend. Will be there for about 5 days. Would appreciate suggestions. Thanks.
s
Oh shut up, KJS!
E-mail me. terrence@telus.net
Five handed no limit game. The blind structure is 2-3-5. However, we play cheap. Each unit is in reality a nickel. We end up by having about $50 worth of chips in front of us on average.
One player has been playing fast and loose. Raising all-in with any ace, raising all-in with any draw, etc. etc.
On this hand, two limpers come in, the small blind raises about 40. Only the fast loose player calls.
The flop comes K94 rainbow. Small blind bets 100. The fast loose player thinks for a little bit and then raises all in for about 350 more.
Now the small blind immediately calls.
Fast loose player shows QJo and the small blind shows A7s, for ace high.
Ace high holds up and the fast loose player complains that small blind never would have called if we were playing for dollars instead of nickels.
The small blind agreed. He wouldn't have called if it meant $350 to him instead of $17.50.
I thought this was an EXCELLENT hand and that the small blind make a great read and a tough, correct call.
The point of this is that playing stakes within your means will help you play more perfectly. It's hard to make a great bluff-catching call when you will lose half your bankroll by doing so. The $25 that the small blind put into the pot was enough to make him think about the proper play, but not enough to make him fold out of fear.
Unfortunately, playing stakes that feel too low can ruin you too. The fast loose player felt that our stakes were too low. Our home game's stakes are deceiving because the buy-in is $10 for 200 chips, but you can easily get in over $100 by the end of the night. I've seen near-$200 losses before. He is a regular casino poker player who was just starting to rebuild his bankroll which was under a grand. Because the stakes were deceptive to him, he ended up losing over $100 that night, which WAS a painful sting. On any given hand, losing $10 to $20 didn't seem like anything to him, so he failed to play correctly.
Just some observations on an interesting hand and how attitude about stakes can affect your play.
natedogg
Here's one from Saturday night at the Palace 2-3-5 game:
6-handed, a player with a fondness for making it $100+ to go with hands like 88 and AJ pre-flop out of position makes it $40 and gets called by a decent player who's been busted twice in the first 20 minutes of the game. Flop comes A67. The pre-flop raiser then goes all-in. He's got the other player covered. Mr. B then thinks a good long while and calls all-in for $160. He got the pot with JJ.
and this is posted in the"high stakes" forum?????
and this is posted in the"high stakes" forum?????
Yes, I've suggested a seperate forum for pot/NL betting forms, but nobody was interested. Fortunately, the big guys haven't complained about low limit pot/NL game posts, and they've replied with excellent advice.
Fat-Charlie
STRUCTURE blinds 5 10 20-any raise can be 100 even if not that much in pot-allways round up to nextquarter-P/L but players seldom ask for exact count. THE PLAYERS seat 1. Red, a pro, nice guy. seat 2 Doc, a heart specialist who plays 2 or 3 times per month and usually wins big, or loses big. seat3. Paul, a banker who allmost plays too tight. seat 4. Tommy, a very aggressive pro. seat 5. John, soft spoken, smooth, very likeable pro. seat 6. Lucky, a solid pro player. seat 7. Navy, a retired navy officer. seat 8. Radio, a dentist who drinks too much and tlks too much. seat 9. me,I've got the place to play and I get the game together
we have only been playing for a short time, so all players have near their original 2,000 buyinwhen this hand begins.
Doc is UTG, calls the 20 and raises 50. Paul, Tommy, and Lucky all flat call then Radio calls the 70 and raises another 50. An unusual raise for him- in this spot he would most often raise at leat 100. My cards are As,Qs so decide to call.
back to Doc who decides to play the small raise game and raises 50 more. Paul and Tommy fold. Lucky and Radio both flat call. my turn to act and I am really puzzled by those odd raises and fact we still have four players in the pot--scary, but I also flat call.
there is now about 700 in the pot---the flop is 9s 10s Kh
Doc surprises me again when he bets 100. Lucky calls 100. Radio calls and raises 1,000. he has made the straight....but I have nut flush draw and 3 jacks to make a new nut straight---not bad pot odds, and if Doc comes in, then it will look good, so I flat call. Doc does call. Lucky folds.
turn is 8d Doc checks. Radio moves all in. both Doc and I call, all in.......since there is no more betting we all three turn up our hands Doc Kd,Kc Radio Jh,Qh me As,Qs
The river is a blanck and Doc and I are history....any comment on anybody's play??? Jim
I think you and Doc both played it very badly. You weren't totally clear but it sounds like you are the big blind, radio is the small blind.
I like Doc's open raise UTG with KK. Ideally, he's hoping someone will bump it more so he can come over the top, which he fails to do.
Radio is in the small blind and raises just a little bit with QJs. You are now sandwhiched between an early position raiser (which should denote strength and it turns out it did), and someone raising from the small blind, which also should denote plenty of strength. The betting is now opened up again and ANY of the players behind you can re-raise. You should figure out by now that your ace is fairly dead if not dominated by AK. Although Radio was simply making a pot-building raise with a drawing hand, you normally can expect to see a very strong hand from the small blind in this situation. Radio is either very lucky or far and away the best player in this game. I'm not sure which. He may be so good that he KNEW Doc would play his big pair timidly and had his eyes on Doc's entire stack when he made his little pot building raise. If he knew Doc wouldn't be able to let go of a hand like KK or AA, he is far beyond the rest of the table in his play.
Anyway, this is a clear fold given your position and the betting still being open.
Doc is a fool for not raising the pot in this situation. There is $520 in the pot when it gets to him. NOW is the time to make a pot-sized raise and get everyone out except the small blind. His little bitty raise merely enticed everyone to come play. The only advantage to his little bitty raise is that it deceptively looks like a pot-building raise instead of a hand-protecting raise. Unfortunately, a hand-protecting raise is called for here. Doc is in the IDEAL pot limit situation. A bunch of limpers have build the pot for you and now someone has raised. The pot is huge and you can re-raise BIG TIME. How could he have passed up this opportunity? Do you guys play often or is this pot limit game a brand new poker experience for most of them?
Your flat call on the flop is pretty bad. It's guaranteed you are losing right now. You either have to go all-in and get two cards for your chips or fold. You KNOW you will be pot stuck if the turn comes a blank so raise now if you are going to go with it.
However, you should not go with it. You DON'T know if Doc will call, and if he doesn't, you are getting a TERRIBLE price for your draw. If he does call, you're only getting a decent price for your draw. CALLING on a draw is rarely the best play in pot limit. Calling all-in is bad, but calling just enough to get you pot stuck on fourth street is TERRIBLE. Raising is better but only if you think there's also a chance you can take it down. This hand did not present much of a chance to take it down, so I think it's a clear fold on the flop too. Your biggest mistake was preflop, as is typically the case in pot limit hold'em with trap hands. You got just enough on the flop with your trap hand to get sucked in for your whole stack.
Unless this hand was atypical and he usually stinks up the place with his bad play, I think you should no longer invite Radio to your game. THAT was your first mistake. :)
natedogg
However, you should not go with it. You DON'T know if Doc will call, and if he doesn't, you are getting a TERRIBLE price for your draw.
If you go all in on the flop, aren't you getting at least 2 to 1 on a draw you'll make 45% of the time? You need to adjust this by the chance of the board pairing and another player probably holding a jack, but this still doesn't seem too bad a bet even though your chances of taking the pot on the flop are nil.
Fat-Charlie
here is what I saw when I decided to call the 1000 raise---700 in pot before the flop plus1,300 after Radio's raise means 2100 I could win with my 1100 call. I can catch 9 flush cards or 3 kings equal 12 outs twice (two cards to come) thsts 24 outs which is about even mone to win and at that point pot is paying 2000 to my 1100 for a total of 3100 Plus perhaps more even if I do hit.
But by calling you dpnt have 2 chances to hit. You have 1. If you hit your flush on the turn you get no more action. So it is is 2000 to 1100 but that is based on a 1 card draw. You are getting something less than 2-1 while maybe a 3-1 dog (including staight draw). Plus if you miss the other 1000 is going in. Which MAY mean a total of 2000 to win 3000 if only one caller. (plus your own money back).
This is why calling with a draw is such a bad play in PL. If you hit on the turn you generally dont get paid, and when you miss you MAY be committed to calling again (particularly when you are pot stuck).
Your example of getting 2 shots to hit is only true if you move in here, because then you get paid by default, because it is too late for anyone to fold when you hit. Interestingly you may very well have gotten called in both places. Top set will be more likely to call all in on the flop as he has 2 chances to fill up, and obviously the nut straight will call.
If you want to have any chance of +EV here you need to move in. If you get 2 callers you are getting something slightly more than 2-1 when you are slightly less than a 2-1 dog.
Still I would not even wee the flop with this hand, and once I did I would have folded. Why? Because you have no idea that you are getting called in 2 places, and because you are so deep you are committing far more than the existing pot each time you call. If you had 2X the pot you can move in and even if you only get 1 call you get the odds you need.
I had AA in MP in an on-line free-roll tourney. Blinds were 5-10, and it was early on, so chip positions were relatively equal. One limper to me, and I raise $200 (starting bankrolls in this tourney were $320). Obviously, this was not the optimal play, as everyone folded and I ended up winning $25 on the hand.
What's a better course of action in this situation? I had been playing tight early, and the couple of times I limped with decent hands (AK, AQ in MP/LP/Blind), the flops came up with nothing or worse (pairing a small card).
Thanks,
-David
Raising about 10 times the pot is too much here. It's early and that's a good chunck of everyone's stack. You'll only get called by KK, maybe QQ and AKs. A raise of 3 or 4 times the pot is better. You'll still drive out those behind you (unless one comes over the top which is a good thing) and the limper may now call.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Unless you catch someone who really doesn't know what they are doing, your bet was too high. Put yourself in their position--you know that if you call the $200 bet, you are going to end up going all in. So, the only way someone will call is if they want to go all in in the first place. The only possibilities would be KK or AA (other two), and even if I had KK I would hesitate.
A bet slightly bigger then the standard raise would be appropriate (maybe 4-6 times the BB). That should chase out the drawing hands, and possibly induce a re-raise.
nt
I'm shortstacked with about 150 chips in a five handed game where everyone has around 500 chips.
I am in the cutoff and open for about 20 (blinds are 2-3-5). I have AT. The button calls. He LOVES to bluff and will often bet if you show any weakness.
The flop is all rags.
I check, button bets about 35, I raise all-in. Button calls.
We both have ace high but my kicker is better.
No worries mate! He caught his three outer of course.
Who made the better read/bigger mistake? When your game gets to the point where you are raising and calling each other with ace high, what is your edge? I knew he didn't have to have anything to bet the button, and he knew I didn't have to have much to make a move at the pot after he bet the button. He called me down with ace high knowing I could have rags that matched the flop for a draw or even something like king high.
Even though my ace had a better kicker, we were gambling on THIN THIN margins. In order for my raise to be correct, he could ONLY be bluffing, and in order for his call to be correct, I could ONLY be bluffing. Was this good no limit poker or was it simply two players THINKING they were playing good no limit poker? We've played hundreds of hours together so we know each other well.
natedogg
Well, it seems obvious to me that you both played this hand pooly. If your oponent is such a maniac that he will routinely call your all-in bet with nothing but ace high, why not just settle down, wait for top pair and then bust him? Your huge advantage is that you know he will call with a thin holding, but the mistake is not exploiting that. Let him win a couple of small pots, and then break him when you actually have a hand.
-Aesop
This is a great point. It reminds me of one of the stories in SuperSystem, maybe by Chip Reese? He talks about busting out of a game on a hand where he knew (correctly) he was a slight favorite, so got everything in the pot. Bad luck, he loses. Moral of the story--don't rush. There is not need to go all in when you are a small favorite if you can go in as a large favorite down the road.
You played better then your opponent, but you could do better still.
I'm thinking that what you were thinking about in saying--2 players THINKING--was about right. since the 2 of you knew each other's play so well, it was more like a friendly wrestling match, and you got pinned! lol Jim
xx
Nate? Seriously. Buy some chips. The only reason you get into these funky spots is because you got no ammo. Reload. Then when you get a hunch that your opponent won't call a $100 raise, it won't matter so much what your cards are because he MUST have a hand to play with you if you both have $400 behind. $100 is below the typical what-the-heck threshold in that game. You're playing hang-on-style, like a tournament. There's only so many weapons, and you're handing over the biggest one, the power-play, to the opponent by being shortstacked.
Tommy
8 player pot limit home game, 1-2 blinds.
I limp under the gun with 10-10 (is this the right play with this hand?), one other player limps in middle position, and an aggressive player raises the pot on the button. Both blinds fold and I decide to reraise the pot, hoping to chase out the other limper and get the original raiser, who had been stealing a lot lately, to fold. My thinking was the limp-reraise would signal a very strong hand, and he´d fold any medium strength stealing hand, possibly including JJ, QQ, or AK. How good/bad of a play is this? Results later.
ps. I had about 150 dollars before the hand, and he had a bit more.
if you are going to play that hand seems like you should have made a strong bet to begin with and be ready to ditch if reraised. My guess is that you didn't have 150 after the hand??? Jim
The aggressive player's original raise made it something like $15 to go. Your reraise pot would make it $60 to go and you have $90 left. It is very hard to scare someone away if you don't have a potsized bet left on the flop.
Also your play only works if your opponent doesn't have AA or KK, or he doesn't hit the flop hard (flop a set). Your limp reraise represents a monster, but you may run into AA or KK... or less likely QQ.
Derrick
Well, as it turns out the limper 2 seats behind me now reraises me. Can this mean anything other than AA? The button folds, and I think for a second (for show) and then fold. Ouch.
This result aside, I´m still wondering if 10-10 (or J-J) is a decent enough hand to resteal with against a guy who does a lot of preflop raising. Or is it just not worth it?
10's and Jacks just lick they look very nice but seriously they really do you no good but lose money in no-limit at least that's what I've found.
I agree, I like to play them and hope to flop a set. They can be killers then, but in general there are many hands better, and they are easily beaten by a flop.
Just My Thoughts,
Derrick
In a full ring, I think limping with TT is basically correct UTG. By reraising, the odds are very good you will be heads up at worst. In the best case, he lays down. But, all your opponent needs is AJ or better to either be a small dog or a big favorite. Plus, he has position over you throughout the hand. You did say he was stealing a lot, so if you have a tight image, I think you did the right thing.
I have made similar plays before. But similar is not the same. . . You have just about the worst possible stack size for this play. If you 50-75 you can just push in. If you have 500 you can make the re-raise you made and out fear into your opponent. With the stack you have you are facing a really bad decision if you get called. If the flop comes J high do you move in? Q high? A high?
With a lot of chips you can make a play here and put fear in your opponents. As to the guy that moved in on you, I am not sure he had aces, he could have had the same read you did and acted on it accordingly. He may have had A-K for example. Of course this is not to say he did not have aces.
Still I think you may want to just call the raise by the button here--mostly because of stack size considerations. You can still get like 10-1 to flop a set, and if you get re-popped by the 2 seat after calling the fold is much easier to deal with.
Sorry one more key point I forgot to mention, this play is much better tried when heads up. Three way I would not try it.
The last time I limped and moved in with 10's UTG was against a wild player who raised the button and calledmy all-in with K-Q. I held up. I knew he would call with any pair or any 2 pictures. I figured to be a big favorite or a small favorite most of the time. In your case you can not afford to get called at all.
Here's a hand I played a few weeks ago that I still think about. It was one of the tougher decisions I've had at the table (I just started playing this game a couple of months ago).
Ante is $2 and $5 to call, $5 on the button. Loose, passive game. Most of the players are new to Omaha and PL. After playing cautiously for the first month, I'm now looking to get involved in hands as most of the players play very poorly (somewhat explaining he call pre-flop, I would be less likely to make this call now).
I hold 6-7-8-J (ds) one before the button. The standard 4-5 players call and I call. Flop J-J-8 (no suits). First couple check, a good player bets $40 (he has me covered) and I raise $100. Folded around and we're heads up. Now I think I would just call and hope for a low card on the turn so I could put in a big bet. How would you play it? How bad would a fold be (if this is a player I would like to have avoided)?
Turn is a 10. He checks, I bet something around $180, and he raises me all-in (about another $300). I had to think for a long time. This player is tricky but generally has the goods. I'm seen as a tight player who can laydown a hand. I take a long time to think and end up calling. Would you make this call? Would you have bet the turn?
Results below.
He turns over 8-J-Q-K and misses his free roll so we chop.
This game is very loose and I try to get involved in as many hands from around back as I can, but this may have been too loose(?).
This is a BAD hand to play. Loose or tight game doesn't matter for this hand. You flopped the best hand you could and bet. When your raise gets called he probably has the same hand of a J with 3 over cards. The 10 hitting the turn is a tuff call since a run like 8-9-10-J would give him the nuts on the flop (along with you) with 2 over cards. His bet is part on his overcards but mostly on both your reps. You as a player who would laydown a hand if your beat and him as a player who usually "has the goods." I would have called his bet also and then thanked the poker gods for sparing my money for playing the hand in the first place.
I dont like the call pre-flop. And his check raise on the turn is enough to convince me that a laydown is in order. You lucked out.
How did you do at the end off this session?
I agree that I shouldn't have made the call pre-flop, but I err on the loose side from behind in this game. I play better than most post flop but this hand taught me a valuable lesson in Omaha. Flopping the nuts is great but a backup is important. Yes, I did thank the poker gods when the river blanked.
I don't remember how I did in the sit.
If you are not going to play a hand like this preflop, especially in an unraised pot, you might as well go back to playing limit holdem. Granted, this is not the *perfect* flop for your hand, but *perfect* flops are pretty rare. This situation comes up frequently in PLO. You just have to play each situation individually. I see lots of players call bets on this flop with crap like 67JA or 2sJQK. If you bet this flop and get called by a good player with money and balls enough to take a pot away from you on the turn when an overcard hits, then you just have to play good poker which means frequently laying down the hand.
I was playing heads up for a good sum of money so raises mean't stuff. We were playing no-limit hold'em. The last hand I had A10o in dealer I raised the normal raise pre-flop he re-raised me 20% of his stack (seen him do this a lot though) so I re-raised him coz I put him on KQ suited or KJ suited. He then went all in. I hesitated for a while and then called. The board was all rags and I took home the pot. I was right and put him on KQ and he had KQo. Who did the right move? After seeing the cards I hade about a 1.5% advantage over him but of course I didn't know at the time what his cards were and I've seen him go crazy on KQ suited and KQ off and KJ suited and off suit, but just so I know for the future what would have been the right move to do for long term purposes.
to me, it seems that after your REraise his bluff was very foolish....UNLESS you had earlier made reraises which were bad. Jim
this is heads up before the flop and KQ in a heads up match is worth going all in he wasn't bluffing with KQo pre-flop.
After seeing the cards I hade about a 1.5% advantage over him
How do you figure only a 1.5% advantage? I figure neither of you will pair over 63% of the time. You win ALL of those except for some straights and flushes. You also win half the cases where you BOTH pair. This makes you a BIG favorite.
Fat-Charlie
I was reading it off a chart on www.theflop.com it has the percentages of the times you will win with certain starting hands against a different amount of people and for playing against one oppenet KQo was 61.4% and ATo was 62.9%
actually the site is http://www.theflop.freeservers.com/
This is against *random* hands. By the same reasoning, AA would only be a 51:49 favorite against KK (while in reality, it should be somewhere around 4:1).
Yes, it is a good play. KQ and KJ are major trap hands in N/L. Now, in this scene, I probably would have called only and maybe re-raised if I felt you were out of line. However, being on the button gives you a huge advantage so I have to factor this into my pre-flop play. Folding is probably too weak-tight in this spot.
Though I have no head-up cash game NL experience and though your post lacks some relevant info (e.g., pot size and stack sizes), it is hard for me to believe that you did not overplay your hand...unless your opponent was truly wild. Do you think your opponent may have played AK, AQ, AJ, AA, KK, QQ, JJ or TT the same way as he played his KQo?
we played once before and I made him go all in when he held KQ suited and I had A9o he ended up out drawing me and hit his K on the river. But I thought I had a pretty accurate read on him just from the tells and I was picking up. I knew when he was holding big pocket pairs and such. But I could tell the confidence wasn't there for him to have AA or KK ect. after I raised he would have pushed in it in most likely but he just re-raised me then I re-raised him and then finally he pushed in hoping to buy the pot. But I knew I had an edge. My pot odds were not right but I wouldn't think it matter in a NL HU match. Those were my thoughts and I have been know to put people on hands like that so I followed my instinct well now I'm richer!
Seems like you made a good right-brain play.
this is a pretty good example of hands that come up in N/L where your decision is as much (or more) on the person you face vs the hand you face. Jim
in P/L game, Troy says he allways rebuys the minimum because it helps him hold down how deep he gets into the game. I've seen him rebuy 6-8 times. He also says frequently he is getting all in during eary betting while there are multi-players thus getting better odds on his $$ than later bet rounds.
Overall I believe he wins. Does he really have good points about rebuys? Jim
What happens when he flops a monster and only wins $50 dollars off a guy that he could've won $500. When I play pot-limit or no-limit I like to have the biggest stack on the table or as much as I can afford. You dont want to get cought with short-stacked with nuts.
This may be a religous issue like, "Which editor is best?". Both points have merit, and it probably depends on skill and playing style.
A big stack can win OR lose big and may need to make tough decisions for a lot of chips against tricky opponents. A small stack willing to re-buy is harder to push around because fewer chips are in play.
Fat-Charlie
test
Here's a hand from a PL Omaha game this week end. I'm second guessing myself for betting the flop.
The game is loose and fairly passive. I have a tight image at the table. I hold 8-9c-10-Jc on the button (which posts the $5 blind in the game). 6 players call the $5 and I raise $30. 3 players drop and we take the flop 4 handed.
Flop is J-6h-2h. It's checked around to me and I bet $75. UTG raises $250, all fold and I'm forced to fold. UTG has one of two hands- 2 pair or a straight draw/flush draw.
Had I checked the flop, 11 cards could have given me a stonger hand. On the other hand I didn't want to give someone a free chance on a ragged board. Comments?
Results below.
UTG shows me K-J-10-6 and says , "I had your aces beat."
You have slim chances of winning this pot with 3 opponents if you don't bet the flop. About the best card you could hope for is a 10 (not of hearts). If someone is slowplaying a set then you are basically dead anyway. If someone ,as in this case, has J6 then checks again when the 10 comes then you probably will win. If a J comes on the turn then you have a similar situation as your last post. You missed this flop but have position. As I see it you have 2 options: 1.Try to win the pot now by taking a stab at it if checked to you if you don't detect a trap. If check raised, toss it in, say "Fukkin aces!" and write it off to advertising. 2. Give up on the pot and to check it down. Hope for a miracle card and get lucky.
first let me say that I am one of those players who feel that very, very few Omaha hands justify raising before the flop....and I don't think your hand was one of them. second (and I hate to sound too negative) just exactly what was good about your hand after the flop???? Some call Omaha a "draw out" game...you dont want to flop the best hand, you want to flop the best draw. Looks like your hand was really good enough to see the flop, but then you had no draw, so what good is top pair in Omaha....very little. please accept this as constructive. Jim
Jim, I agree with you that few hands are worthy of a raise in Omaha. But from around back, I like to use small raises as pot builders, esp. with rundown hands. When 5 or 6 people are seeing the flop, can this be a bad strategy?
My hand was not that good after the flop. The hearts were my main concern. But this flop is unlikely to have hit anyone hard and, given my image, I would probably get quite a few better hands to fold. The only real draw on the flop was hearts so I felt that if no one had big hearts, I was likely to win it right there. Is my thinking wrong?
Thanks for the response,
TJ
a preflop raise is a preflop raise....I still believe FEW hands are worth it.
very easily someone could have pocket pair bigger than J,J and also be on a flush draw.
IMO your hand was not worth a preflop raise, nor a bet after the flop.
it's a draw out game...you need a draw...yes you might win this pot, but such plays are not profitable in the long run. lol Jim
Well, wrong again. I still would have bet the flop hoping for everyone to win it right there.
With a board this ragged, and your tight image, I doubt he's playing J-6 or 6-2. You're either up against a nut heart draw or a set. You're bet on the flop isn't terrible...it's checked to you and you do have top pair...but the hearts are there. The fact that the flop was checked to the button indicates maybe a set of 6's, as a flush draw would probably bet out. Please note I'm still new to the game, but this seems right...
Now I'll go see the results.
spanQy
I don't play much Omaha but I would check it. I like your opponent's raise and I like your fold.
On Sept 29th, there will be a huge techno festival on the Vegas strip. Headlined by Fatboy Slim, Crystal Method, and Basement Jaxx. It will be promoted by Creamfields, who apparently run large festivals in the UK & Europe. As it will be the weekend after both my birthday and the Four Queens tournament it oughta be pretty cool. Mark your calendars.
Album update: I didn't much care for Moby's "Animal Rights" but I did like Madonna's "Ray Of Light". Now, I'm fully aware that a techno fan whose two fave CD's are "ROL" & "Play" is like a heavy metal fan whose two fave's are "Pyromania" & "Metallica", but you can sue me, cuz I was a boy in THAT hood before the movie.
Note tae Goat: I'm 35, bored to tears by the old stuff, disgusted by the new stuff, with a lot of time and money on my hands.
fold
.
I'll be there 7/11 thru 7/17. Wearing WSOP warmups over my Snowbird t-shirt. Had to shave the stache though. Say hello.
hypothetical, yet not unrealistic:
everybody has about the same stack size. And its about 125x the big blind. (assume different stack sizes if needed for interesting analysis.)
you have AhKd in mid position at a 7 handed table. Folded to you, you pop the blinds for standard amount. Button calls big blind calls. Flop comes KcTs5s. You bet. Button calls. big blind folds. You have opponent on flush draw. Turn comes 2c. You bet again. You bet enough to punish a flush draw. Opponent calls. River comes 7s (making flush). You check. Opponent bets.
How do you decide what to do?
What if opponent had raised the flop, but you still felt that he basically just had a flush draw, and was trying to either buy it now or get a free river card?
Let me blabber more in hope of stimulating conversation: If opponent is bad enough to make bad flush calls on the turn, does he get it all back if I can't lay down against "made" flushes. Or .... what are the situations where my bad call on end isn't so bad and what are the situations where my river mistake is worse than his turn mistake. Stack size has something to do with this obviously, but it smells like there should be other considerations as well, which are probably a lot harder to think about correctly.
I recently was in at least quasi-similar situations 4 times in the same night. In real life flush draw opponent folded 3 times on the turn and called once, and the river didn't make a flush. But each time as I was making the no-flush-draws-here-buddy bet on the turn I was thinking to myself "what if the scare suit comes on the river" ... I'm screwed if anything other than check-check is what happens. I was actually button twice, and those hands certainly were easier .... but I think the principle is about the same here regardless of position, provided I frequently check the top-pair-ace-kicker out of position on the river so that check doesn't always mean "I have no hand and was bluffing".
would this be a good situation to use pure game theory calling as my strategy? Especially until I don't feel so intimidated by the situation?
It is ALL about your opponent in these situations. This situation is exactly what the experts are talking about when they say they practically don't have to look at their cards when playing no limit hold'em.
If you don't know your opponent here, you're in a world of hurt because you are simply guessing.
Against an aggressive opponent who likes to play position and will punish any sign of weakness, you probably should call 75% of the time even if he overbets the pot significantly.
Against a timid calling station or someone who plays primarily limit hold'em, you should fold more often, especially if he bets big. (I've noticed that limit players tend to bluff with smaller bets, probably because they are used to buying the pot with small bets at limit tables).
Against a typical player, I would call here because most no limit players will push a flush draw on the flop. Since this didn't happen, he may be betting a K with a worse kicker once you check.
Against a very tricky aggressive player I would probably bet out something like half the pot and see what he does. He knows perfectly well I'm capable of betting a flush draw the whole way so he will be far less likely to push all-in or raise at all without something that can beat top pair.
This is one of my favorite and profitable moves in no limit. When a four-straight or four-flush comes out on the board heads up, I almost always bet out if I'm first to act and I have an otherwise decent hand like two pair. This is one of those rare information-buying bets that can save you either the whole pot or your whole stack.
It's a rare player indeed who can raise you on a bluff here in this situation, so if you get raised you can get away from it easily. There's LOTS of players who will call you down with bluff-catching hands that still can't beat your two pair or even a strong top pair.
If you play check-and-maybe-call, you let your opponent put you to the decision and you might make the wrong decision for a lot of chips. By putting out a decent sized bet you actually protect yourself from making a stack-size mistake.
natedogg
I am considered aggressive,(overly, most likley) in no limit. I agree w Nate in it all depends on how well you know the player. Just wish I had more specifics on how much you would bet on the flop and turn.. I (if thinking he was on flush draw) would have made him pay dearly for it...Might have even all in'd the guy on the turn. Just my 1 cent worth...Peace Danaz
bet sizes:
preflop: raise 3times big blind
on flop: usually less than size of the pot (~70%). I usally stick with this no matter what I have. If I do vary I make sure its strictly a function of board cards and has nothing to do with my hand and go with Ciaffone advice ... bet drawish flops more heavily and really uncoordinated ones more lightly.
on turn: more than pot, but not my whole stack ... say 1.2-1.4times the size of the pot.
so while I'm waiting for our flush drawer to decide I've got about 40% of my stack in there.
Due to the coordinated board and early position, I'd be inclined to bet the pot on the flop. If a reasonable opponent calls this bet, I would think a made hand is more likely than a flush draw.
Well, with the bet figures you've outlined, he's not on a flush draw unless he's an imbecile.
Let's say on the turn that you bet $400 into a $300 pot (1.33 times the pot). You've got $750 left in your stack. Even if he were drawing to the nut flush and were 100% sure that you'd pay him off with your whole stack if he hit, his odds wouldn't nearly merit a call.
Now we've all played with fish who will chase this draw anyway, but you didn't specify that he was one of these, so barring that, I think you have a must call on your hands.
If you had $2500 behind after your turn bet, then we might have an interesting dilemma.
first let me respond to your first two more specific questions....where after river card you check and he bets I would have to decide that since he called the bet which I had made to prevent him from drawing to flush, he had other hand and it was not big enough for him to reraise at that point..then I call (crying) his final bet. In my play of this hand, I would have previously decided he was not on flush draw (per above) and I would have bet on the end, and let him decide if I had made the flush.
your other specific was..what if he raised after the flop..I would say either he has a hand or a draw..if it's a hand mine may be the best so I want to make BIG reraise..if it's a draw, I want to make BIG re raise.. either way I want to put pressure here.
you are sure right about this being a typical problem, and I guess we all hate those decisions.....BUT we must also love them or else we would be playing limit games!!!! Jim
thank yall for the advice ... after reading it and thinking about it some I think I have a much better handle on the situation. Two things that stick out most in my minds are :
1) natedoggs advice to go ahead and make a small bet on river against a tricky aggro player. I like this. I've got to figure out some other times to work the small bet into my river arsenal to provide some disguise for my hand ..... but sounds like a good idea. About the only time I make small bets now ... I make real real small bets that are just to be goofy and are practically a check.
2) Knowing player is important. Is he a player that'll make an obviously bad call on turn for a flush draw? Need to know that before you can think thru rest of scenario at all. Like I said in real life 3/4's of these situations ended on turn. Maybe I misread the time somebody did call ... or maybe he had better draw than just a flush draw and it all missed.
I would appreciate any commentary on the following hand...
I'm sitting in a fairly soft seat in a 5-10 blind NL HE game. The game has an optional $20 straddle. I don't usually post a straddle but a very hot run of cards has given me a loose image that I want to retain so I've posted the 20 this round. There are two players in the game who I really respect and know them to be considerably better than myself. I've been avoiding them and taking advantage of the weaker players. Both of these players become involved in this hand.
I have about $3500 in front of me, the stong player in middle position about $2800, and the strong player in late position has me covered.
One player limps, folds to the middle position strong player who also limps, folds to the strong player on the button who raises to $200 (typically everyone had been overbetting the pot). Blinds fold and I find KK. I made it $750 to go. Limper drops, and the middle position player pauses and then stacks off. The button pauses for a few moments, glances at me and stacks off as well. I thought for a long while before finally mucking figuring one of them for aces.
Is this just playing scared? Like I said I had a lot of respect for both players. Certainly either one could have been playing at me knowing I gave them a lot of respect, but with the other player in there I figured at least one of them had to have me beat.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks Supes
I play pot-limit and Ive had sucess with limping in situations like this. If you limp and hit you win big. If you FEEL he has you, you can release em cheap. By not raising the respected player doesnt know you can make that laydown. You'll never go broke on AA,KK,orAK by limping in.
"You'll never go broke on AA,KK,orAK by limping in"
I disagree with this statement like few others. I know TJ said this in his book as well, and I disagreed with it then as well.
By limping with AA you give no concept of the strength of your hand away. If an odd board comes, something like 4,5,9 double suited you may very well lose your whole stack (depending how deep you are). Someone bets you raise, he re-raises. If you only have one more raise here I see a LOT of players put it in. I mean there are so many great rationalizations for it. Maybe the other guy has an overpair, maybe he has a straight draw, maybe he has a flush draw. IE he does NOT have to have a set here. Of course maybe he does have a set, or maybe he has 4-5.
By raising pre-flop you have a much greater level of certainty that your opponent is NOT making this move with an overpair because he will fear that you have a bigger overpair. Thus, in more (of course not all) cases, you can be more confident that you are beat when he makes that 3rd raise.
I see many many many players get it all in with aces on a rag flop. To tell you the truth if had to guess, I would say that AA is the most common hand to go broke on when the player going broke does so post flop. People just dont let them go that easy.
At least when you showed strength previously you can be more inclined to let them go because all of the rationalizations are gone.
As to the question at hand . . . You played the hand well. I am not calling 2 all ins which both (basically) have me covered with KK after I had raised. If one guy has AK, and the other QQ--god bless them, you can still lose. Put it this way if they have precesily AK and QQ (5 outs together) you are a little better then even money (which is just over 6 outs). of course you are getting 2-1 on the call. Now account for all of the times you are a 4.5-1 dog or worse!!! What if one guy does have AA, and the other has A-K? You only have 1 out!!!
I think it is ok to pass on this pot. BTW dont misunderstand me calling is OK of you are willing to just take 1 swing unless you hit your set. But then you are basically playing KK like a small pair.
By "stacks off" do you mean goes all in? If so, I think you made a good play. If they both are good players, I think you were correct in assuming one of them had AA, a fact your bet of 750 was meant to uncover.
If one of them did, I guess it was the button. However, by the tone of your post, I assume that they didn't. If it was AK & QQ, you may consider trapping with your next big pair. Did you show your KK?
By "stacks off" I do mean go all in...
The button did in fact have AA. The other player mucked without showing on the river. I can't imagine what he had given how he played the hand. QQ or possibly even the other Kings. He may have been trying to isolate against me with something like TT or AK given that I did have that loose image going for me like I said, but he knows enough to give the button player some respect, so I think it must have been a big hand (unless of course he thought the button might have been playing to isolate against me as well... who knows?)
Anyway, I would have lost the pot to the Aces, so I felt good about the play, but I still wasn't sure if it was correct. A pair of Kings is not an easy hand to come by and I figure I better be damn sure someone has Aces if i'm going to drop it. It worked out this time, but I don't want to regularly be dropping monster pairs when someone shoves a lot of chips in... I want to be raking those chips in.
I appreciate the commentary.
Thanks Supes
It worked out this time, but I don't want to regularly be dropping monster pairs when someone shoves a lot of chips in...
When I first started making plays like this, I was worried about becoming a target: I didn't want to be seen as someone who was afraid of a big bet. But I have found the opposite to be true. Making a laydown of KK against AA gives more credibility to moves and position bets, and actually makes it easier to move other players off their big hands.
I have been considering learning and playing no limit hold em or lowball. which should i choose? i know of, what ive been told, are good games near me for both. im leaning towards the lowball because i believe the players in the particular game im considering are less educated about outs, odds, etc, and because the stack sizes are small enough so that i would not be constantly bullied around by larger stacks.
(when i say lowball, it's five card draw lowball)
any books, things i should know, etc, etc would be useful.
Where is there any no-limit lowball? Nothern Cal.? If there's a game somewhere, it may indeed be better than whatever NL hold'em games you have available. You'd have to assess that. But bear in mind that there are just about no NL lowball games in general, so if that game drys up you'll be left with no other choices. There aren't too many NL hold'em games either, but at least there are a few sprinkled around.
If you're just learning, I'd recommend lowball simply because there are only two betting rounds so the mathematics of modeling the game are much simpler.
JG
Become independently wealthy, then choose NL hold em and move to the Bay Area. Games running every night, 2-3-5 and 10-10-20, with a 20-200 spread-limit no-limit imitator in San Jose to conform to San Jose's $200 single wager limit.
I always thought the idea was to move to SJ to _make_ your millions; then leverage them by moving somewhere else. Working your butt off elsewhere (say at arizona-type wages) and then moving to the bay area (with much higher RE prices) seems backwards. Having said that that is stupid, I admit that that appears to be what I'm doing at present. Must be the heat.
JG
It's like New York in a way: if yer rich, it's great. And unlike NY, if you're not rich, it's still great as long as you don't commute.
I'm in a game with all PLO beginners. this is a game with no ante and one very small blind with lots of pre-flop callers.
What kind of starting requirements should i have and how often should i realistically expect a playable hand in this game??
Thanks for any help, I'm new to PLO.
as to %, I only know that it is a rather low #.
as to starting hands for a new player, my approach would be for you to play only when all four of your cards are 9, or higher...and remember that pairs are not all that great...you want straight and flush cards, but pairs can result in a full house.
anyway I say to play big only and WATCH to learn other starting hands...this should keep the cost of learning at a low level. Jim
By my calculations, that would only be 5.7% of the hands (one hand every 2 rounds). You probably wouldn't get into much trouble playing that tightly, but you might get uninvited from the game (or die of boredom while you're waiting!). I'd at least add hands with suited aces and hands with 4 connectors eg 6789. Ideally, you'd like to have something else going with the hands that contain suited aces. But even if the suited ace is relatively uncoordinated, I think it's worth a look at the flop if you have many opponents and no pre-flop raise. The times you make the nut-flush will compensate you for your cheap views of the flop.
You should get Bob Ciaffone's book on Omaha it will help you tremendously. You can order it through ConjelCo.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
NL home game .50/$1 blinds, 11 handed. I was dealt 2h4h in the BB. Cutoff and button limp, SB calls. I check. Flop QhQd6h. SB checks, I bet $5, thinking semi-bluff, cutoff calls, button folds. Turn 7h. I bet $15, cutoff calls, I'm becoming concerned. First time I've played with the cutoff, he seems relatively weak.
River is a blank, I check, Cutoff bets $25. What do you do? Results below.
Greg
I call, he shows Qx and I take down a nice pot. Should I have folded on the river? I realize the answer is probably an "it depends" based on the opponent, but I wanted to get some opinions.
Greg
Id never fold that on the river.....theres already too much money in the pot. For 25 bucks you have to call. For 100 its a different story
now that I have read results, I must say he made a bigger mistake than you when he bet into the flush against a player which had been leading. Jim
thanks for the reply. I tend to agree with you, and I think I just got lucky.
I have not read results yet...
first "seme bluff" might not be bad, but not great...after that it seems to be all down hill.
Would I call the 25 bet..hard for me to say since I would't have been in that spot.. I guess not. Jim
Yes you call the $25. BUT, you should not put yourself in this position. This is the perfect spot to make a smallish bet yourself (say $25). This way if he comes overtop for any significant amount of money you can fold. I really dont like checking the river here, you are basically inducing a bluff, which you dont want to call.
Thanks. very good point.
I would call the $25.
Don't know - but its pot limit (everything is pot limit in the UK) so I'll ask it here.
Pot limit holdem, ten handed, blinds 1-1. I'm in "small blind" with KK. Two callers, one raiser(mid position). I flat call the raise (yes I know I should have re-raised)as does one other.
Flop comes Q - 9 - x rainbow.
I bet the pot (25) and fail to shake the raiser who calls (yes I know I should have re-raised pre flop)
Jack comes on the turn. Has he got got T8 or KT? Has he B*ll**ks - I bet the pot (75), get re-raised all in (another 35). I lose to QJ.
Right, I know I should have re-raised pre-flop.
I don't know whether I was giving him correct odds on the flop. Now 5 outs doesn't look as if its good odds but as I was going to bet the turn anyway he's really calling 25 to make 165 (the 50 in the pot and 115 rest of his stack I let him get in on the turn)
Was this just stupid? Should I have checked on seeing the Jack? (yes I KNOW I SHOULD HAVE RE_RAISED PRE_FLOP)
Or is this just a case of "Hey - this is poker. Sometimes you get bust out"? (But its a lot less likely if you re-raise before the flop with Kings)
Any comments welcome (even ones about re-raising before the flop)
you should have reraised before the flop.
Did you think about re-raising before the flop?
Seriously, the problem with not re-raising is not that he would necasarily fold preflop, but in PL you need the pot to be big enough to make a big bet on the flop--you were unable to do that in your case. You are correct he has to call $25 to bust you because you would call for the rest of your stack.
OTH he has no way to know that 2 pair is even ahead. I dont think he is a particularly strong player, but that is kind of moot. You not only want him to make mistakes, you want him to make the biggest mistakes he can as many times as possible. It is a bigger mistake to call a preflop raise with QJ then it is to call a $25 flop bet with top pair weak kicker.
Slowplaying KK and AA is a GREAT way to lose your stack, unless you are playing with players that will get it all in with top pair.
Looks to me like that is exactly who he was playing with.
Adam.
I would have been tempted to check-raise on the flop. This would accomplish two things:
1) Be enough to put you all in
2) Probably win the pot for you.
But you're right. You're first mistake was not re-raising pre-flop.
spanQy
There's nothing you can do here (once you fail to raise before the flop). You gave him a terrible price to draw to five outs on the flop and he took it. Keep doing that and you will bust him in the long run.
The stack sizes dictate that you will go busted here. You have $110 and the pot is $75 on the turn. By the time he check-raises you all-in, you can't fold for another $35.
Even if you check the turn behind him and he bets the river, you have to call.
But you certainly can't check behind him on the turn with a Q-high board while holding KK. What if he has AQ? What if he has a draw? There's LOTS of scenarious where you bet with the best hand and get called. There's even a few scenarios where you bet with the best hand and get check-raised. There's only a few scenarious where you bet with the worst hand and get check-raised. You have to bet here. And you have to call the other $35 because he could have only top pair or even just a draw.
In fact, the chance that he has only top pair, plus the chance that you will suck out on two crappy pair (about 20% of the time) make the final $35 call a huge positive investment considering the pot size.
Of course what you should have done was re-raise preflop. But you knew that. :)
natedogg
I am glad that you DID NOT raise before the flop .. it shows that you have allready learned the value of varying the way you play a hand..this is extra valuable in P/L or N/L, as opposed to limit.
Had he not drawn out his top pair would have cost him!
and, yes, this is the place to post.
P.S. we all know that you will raise most of the time with this hand.
Question: If a queen hits the turn, would you have
paid off? If the answer is no, he only has
3 outs to get all your stack. This is
even worse than you figured.
How deep would Tony and his opponent need to be until you would flat-call preflop? I'd say if they were both 500 or so deep, flat-calling preflop is acceptable, but I'm not a very experienced PL player. Thoughts?
The depth issue is interesting, but also somewhat problematic for a flat call. It depends on whether you are willing to risk your whole stack on a rag flop (on which your opponent may have a set).
I agree wholeheartedly with mixing up your play, the difference is that I would rather raise bad hands then limp with good ones. In other words you can get the same (actually better) effect by raising 4-5s then by limping with KK. If you limp with KK you actually create a few disadvantages, the most obvious of which is not getting paid when someone ASSUMES that you must have flopped a small set to be this agressive and thus mucks his overpair QQ.
Will I sometimes limp with KK, yes, but generally in early position hoping to re-raise. Will I limp with KK in the BB? Probably not, I would MUCH sooner limp in NL than PL. In PL I need to create a pot to bet at.
As to whether this player would have committd all of his chips with QJ, I am not so sure. Although he did call 25, he did not re-raise with it. And ironically if he did, now you have to decide if you are prepared to go all in with 1 pair.
Even in a 'normal' UK 1-1 blind structure, you are not playing with a large enough stack to gain the full benefit from varying your play. If you always ensure you have at least Ł500 in front of you, an occasional flat call with KK may show a positive effect, but with Ł115, a straightforward (raise) approach is better. Indeed, if you have a positive expectation in the game, a larger stack will increase it. If this is beyond your bankroll, you'll find it tough to survive in the UK. The Ł100 re-buy merchants fund the game in most casinos.
I've persuaded my local (Northampton) to 1-1-2, and this certainly applies.
By the way, for those US readers unfamiliar with the UK game, most casinos play poker more akin to 'home games', ie dealer's choice, and pretty wild with it. With 5 & 6 card Omaha, hi-lo, Paduci, Fiery Cross, Chuck Two and other abominations the norm, a hand of Hold 'em is a rarity.
In a very good game last night, where I was clearly the second best player, much better than eight of the players but definitely worse than player two to my left. (two ten dollar blinds, no ante players have approx 1 to 3 grand infront of them)
I am on the button and a limper who I have covered (middle position) makes it 50, all fold to me. I look down to find a pair of tens. I raise to 200 to isolate him, unforetunately BB who is the very good player calls (as does the mp original raiser). We take the flop 3 handed, the flop is 8 5 2 with two clubs. MP checks to me I make it 600 (overly aggresive?) BB thinks for a long time and calls MP folds. Now I am stuck exactly where I don't want to be, playing heads up against a better player.
The turn brings a 2, I have about 2500 left and he has me covered, I decide that I have the best hand and make a 1000 dollar bet. Good player shows AK of clubs and folds and I take it down.
I think I played this hand alright but I really need some feedback on how to avoid one or two players in these games. Since starting playing this game 5 months ago I am up more than triple my original bankroll, however I feel I am missing opportunities to make more money because I play very meekly around this player and one other. (I know I didn't play meekly in this example but usually I let them move me out of pots)
Either you are better than you think or they are worse than you think.
Your supposedly tough opponent called a pot-size bet from out of position with AK and a flush draw? Then he check-folded the turn? Wow. If he's the toughest player you have to face, stick with this game. He played it terribly.
What would you do if he moved you all-in on the flop or turn and all you had was TT for an overpair? That's a tough one in this situation I think. I'd tend to call because of the two flush out there. LOTS of no limit players will go all-in everytime they flop a flush draw. However, with TT, you could be facing six more outs if he has two big suited cards. Regardless, if he moves you all in with a flush draw, he almost definitely has at LEAST 3 more outs plus the flush draw. With a hand like KK or AA or even QQ, it's pretty much a no brainer to call all-in when somebody moves in on you with a two-tone flop. But with TT that starts to get dicier.
One word of caution about this game. If you haven't yet lost a couple pots of between 3 to 6k to a major suckout, then you're probably running a little good and can expect some big losses. Tripling your bankroll in five months seems to be a dream-come-true result, and usually that means above-average cards. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like you should definitely be beating the game. But you're definitely not running bad.
However, this game is huge. I would say you need at LEAST 30k to play it regularly with only a small chance of going broke. 50k would be better. Let's take the 30k scenario. If people are sitting around with 3k in front of them, you can lose 10% of your entire bankroll on ONE hand. And it WILL happen. If you run bad, it will happen a lot. It's not that hard to lose on a 2:1 four or five or even ten times in a row (i.e. overpair vs. flush draw, set vs. flushdraw, flopped straight vs. a set). These happen a lot. When you run into AA with KK or flop an A with AK vs. AA, those hands will bust you too.
And don't believe what they say about set over set being catostrophically rare. I've lost with the underset so many times I don't even play small pairs anymore.
It's totally realistic to lose ten normal-sized stacks in a no limit game during a short period of time. Thus, if a normal-size stack is around 3k, you can expect to lose a LOT on a cold streak.
Just some advice on NL bankroll issues. I lost my entire 3k bankroll playing 2-3-5 no limit and I can literally point to three suckouts that busted me. I needed about 5 to 10 times that much in order to play the game regularly.
natedogg
In answer to your question I had already made up my mind that I would go all in if put to the decision after I bet the $600. You are absolutely right about running good and bankroll, however since I have tripled my bankroll I now definitely have enough to play in this game.
I think you played this hand better than the "good" player did....and thus agree with Nate... that looks l
ike you should beat the game.
only advise is...don't try to avoid specific players...and don't let them sense the "fear" expressed here, or they will use it against you. Jim
"don't try to avoid specific players..."
I disagree. Knowing your place on the fear hierarchy is a good thing. I think it's a very good idea to avoid the players who currently fear you less than you fear them.
"Currently" is a key word. It can change from hour to hour, week to week.
Tommy
I agree there is no shame in choosing whom to battle with. That being said, you had the button on this hand, but why would you possibly be in a seat where the only player you fear is 2 to your LEFT?
Get the hell out of that seat man. He should be on your right everytime. You were nervous this hand, imagine if you had to act first? Which you will be 8 of 10 hands!!
Just my personal response to those players who begin to realize how much respect I give them in NL & PL and then try to push me around... I like to every so often when I feel like they may be bullying me take a marginal hand and push it to the hilt against them. To do this I take an opportunity when I don't have a large stack, like maybe I just lost a big pot and instead of buying more chips like I would usually do I'll play short or maybe I'll just buy in for the minimum which is something I rarely do. that way I can't get crippled and then if the opportunity presents itself I fire away. When the hands are shown down this kind of play usually sticks with people whether I win or lose. It's probably not a winning play in and of itself, but it gets the bullys, whether they think me a weak player or not, thinking that they can't push me around. Then they back off and I can play my normal game against the players I feel I have an edge over.
Just something I took to doing, certainly probably not right for everybody, but I feel it's helped me keep some players who I'd rather not be facing off my back
Good Luck Supes
PL Omaha H/L, home game, Friday night.
It was 6-handed. There's one solid player, the rest really don't know poker that well. (It's only a $20 buyin poker game). In this 6-handed there's only 1 $.50 blind, and for this particular hand, I'm blind. I get dealt QQJx. 3 limpers, I check. Flop comes QJx rainbow. Awesome. I'm first to act. I check, another check, OOB (one off button) bets the pot (since everyone limped preflop, the bet is actually pretty small). Button calls, I call (should I have reraised?), guy behind me calls. Turn J (putting two clubs on the board). Just as good as a Q turn for me. I check, next guy checks, OOB bets $4. Button calls, I call, next guy calls again. (I told you these were bad players). River Tc (no straight flush possible). I check, next guy checks, OOB checks (uh oh), Button bets the pot! I reraise the pot, fold, fold, and the button even folds. My question is, I have a feeling I played this hand horribly wrong, and that I got incredibly lucky. Should I have smooth called the river pot bet, and hope that either the guy behind me or OOB will call? Flame away, but keep in mind that I hardly ever play Omaha, much less PL Omaha. This is basically a game between friends, and we all just have fun, though of course I don't mind making money while I'm at it ;)
No, you did not make a mistake by raising the river.
Your mistake was in not raising the turn. If these players are really bad like you say, you will get all the flush and straight draws to play even tho they are drawing dead. What more can you ask for?
You have all the good cards, so you're not likely to get much action on the river, unless the flush comes. The turn is your only hope of getting paid.
natedogg
Checking the flop isn't a bad idea, but it isn't great, either. There's still possible overpairs out there(although it's not likely since there was no pre-flop raise) that could hit on the turn or river. I'd go ahead and bet out on the turn(probably about 1/2 pot), just to make it look like a steal and give those flush draws a good price to(hopefully) hand around.
In your situation, I'd probably just call the river. Sure, you got the nuts, but how much are you really going to make by check-raising the pot? If you just call, some of those smaller flushes(and maybe worse hands if you're in a game where people don't know what they're doing) might call. You were probably better off just calling that river.
spanQy
Dear sirs,
I hope you will try to get some writing work done on Omaha, especially the potlimit variant. I live in Europe and over here it is by far the most commonly spread game.
Your poker knowledge is so great that it is difficult for me to read work done by others as it often is not as "spot on" as your books tend to be.
Kind Regards,
Nodough
In which european cardrooms or casinos did you stay?
Austria: 7-stud
France: Courchevel and dealer's choice
Russia: 5 stud
Slovenia: Hold'em
Maybe in UK????????????
n/t
A hand came up last night that I thought I would post regarding not betting big draws strongly.
The game is PL omaha high 5 - 10 blinds. 2 players limp to me in the cutoff with As10sJd8d I limp and the button makes it 50 to go. The raiser in question ONLY raises preflop when holding AAxx or KKxx, he usually gets married to these hands if the board is not too dangerous. Two of the limpers and myself call the 50 and we take the flop 4 handed. the flop is 9s7d4d all check to me and I think about betting my draw but check instead. Button bets the pot, 200 all muck to me who just calls. Turn card is the Qs making my draw even better now, coupled with the fact that I know that I am up against probably just an overpair. I think about what action to take and decide to bet 2/3 the pot (400) in hopes that the button will get away from his overpair. The button thinks for a long time and calls the 400 reluctantly. River card is a brick.. 3c, a bet would be hopeless as the button only has 200 left, is committed, and will call for sure. The button turns over KsKc5s2d to take the pot.
I believe I made several mistakes here but am not sure which was the worst. One could question my call pre-flop but I think the hand had enough working to merit a call.
My play on the flop was probably where things went wrong, with 2 players having checked to me a pot sized bet with a good draw was probably the right play. One could also argue that a check raise once the two limpers mucked to the pre-flop raisers bet was a better play.
The turn is another story, the Qs gives me multiple outs and I don't know what the best play here is. The button is known to vary his bet size, making "protection bets" of 100 or 200 into large pots in hopes of showing down his hand. This always shows weakness and I maybe should have checked to him in hope of him making one of these bets showing weakness, to come over the top of.
Any comments on the hand would be appreciated..
Derek
I think that you should have tried to win the pot after the flop. Jim
You didn't mention stack size in this post...
That said, I think a check-raise on the flop trying to get all in would be a very solid play. You flopped an absolute monster w/ a 13 hitter straight draw w/ the flush draw. The main scare is that your flush is no good. If you don't get it all in on the flop, I'd put it all in on the turn.
If you can put him on an overpair and not two-pair / trips, your flush and straight outs give you all the cards excluding the three offsuit As, the two 5s, the two 4's and the two 2's. That's 11 cards that lose it for you and 33 that win it. If your diamonds are no good, you lose 9 of those outs and are back to 24 for and 20 against. Even if you're facing diamonds you're a 6/5 favorite vs the overpair hand you put him on, if he doesn't have diamonds you're a 3-1 favorite. Push in - Besides, he might fold his diamond draw if he's got KK and diamonds which is an added benefit.
Rook
I spent a week in paris, but only made it to the cardroom one night.
The games are all pot limit, button chooses the game from 10 possible ones, including some bizarre things like courcheval (5 card omaha high, first card of the flop is dealt before the first round of betting) or 7cs lowball variants.
There's one good player, one solid player, one loose/aggressive player, 4 fish, and me at the table. Good game.
Blinds are 10, 10, 25. Francs, not dollars, so the game is fairly small at 7 francs to the dollar.
Omaha hilo, I have AsKQ2s. Someone opens for 100, good player calls, I call, two other callers. Seeing a raised pot 4 or 5 ways is really common -- I called being fairly sure that there would be players coming.
Flop comes Ks4s2c. I have top and bottom and the nut flush draw. No low draw, though.
Opener checks, good player bets 300 into a 500FF pot. I call, terrible calling station calls, likely with some bad draw, or a pair. I didn't raise because I don't have that many outs, and there are good low draws out there.
Turn is a 2. Full house. Good player bets 300 again. What should I do?
Results to follow.
My hand: AKQ2 Board: K422
I called a bet on the flop, and the flop bettor bet 300 into a 1400 pot on the turn. Three handed.
I raised the pot. This put about half my stack into the middle. The bettor was looking at calling around 2/3 of his stack.
The terrible calling station (the other american at the table, actually) called. The bettor studied, and thought, and grumbled, and folded, telling the guy across me in french that he had 44.
My worse full house won against the all in player, who as predicted had a K and a bad low draw.
So was this a bad play? It was a big raise against the only player at the table I had any respect for. On the other hand, he had bet small on the turn, which is sort of odd, and made me read him for weakness.
He was the only (other) player at the table capable of making any kind of laydown.
Thoughts, anyone?
- target
you are certainly facing kk,k4, 44 or k2 here so a fold is in order but most likely kk as he bet like he wanted you in or 44 and his bet was to try to get callers without losing too much if he is beat. if he doesnt have kk he is not a good player.
What is meant by, agreeing to "run 'em three times".
"Situation: Two players, one all in. Deal: Pre-flop the players agree to "run 'em three times"
Question: What do you think is to be run three times? The entire board? The turn and river?"
(Original post is from rgp)
Yes, usually it is the rest of the board still to be dealt. If the all-in happens preflop, it would be the whole board.
I'm playing a small buyin NL Hold'em game with about $700 in front of me. Blinds are $2-3 with each player anteing $1. I'm UTG, playing 9 handed, and limp for $3, next player makes it $12, then three callers including BB. I am holding A4d and decide to call. (pot $71)Raiser has about the same money as me, BB has about $450. Other players have less. Flop comes Qxx with two diamonds. BB bets $25, I call, 2 other callers. (pot $171) Turn is a black 8, BB bets $50, I call, two other fold. (pot$271)River is 9d, BB bets $100. (pot$381)I am trying to decide between raising $200 or moving all in, and I finally say "all in" but don't physically move any chips. BB thinks I said call, and turns over Q8o for two pair. Dealer and I explain that there is an all in bet. She stares at me for more than a minute, trying to get a read before deciding what to do. Finally she folds and I show her my hand to let her know she made a very good play. This is a friendly game and I know she's only played NL twice before, each time with me in the game, and each time showing better big bet abilities. (She was tutored by Rick N) I know she wouldn't have been able to make this laydown the last time we played, and I know she knows I could have been betting a lesser hand than her two pair. I'm wondering if she would have called the $200? In a strange way, I was very proud of her play and I honestly don't believe I would have made the same good laydown had our positions been reversed. I predict a good future for her in big bet if she continues to play and get more experience.
What the hell is she playing Q8o to begin with? I don't care how well you play post-flop its pretty tough to beat a game playing crap like that when first to act.
Bruce
I predict misery and disaster unless she learns to play position better. Why on earth would you defend your $3 big blind against a $12 opening bet with a hand like Q8o and THREE cold-callers? There's only two flops you're looking for here. 88x and QQ8. Even QQx is problematic.
She may have promise but right now, you should be able to punish her often and brutally because she is playing like a limit hold'em player who is not familiar with no limit. Also, she obviously made the best hand on the turn and failed to bet properly. She should have bet about 1.5 times the pot instead of less than 1/3 of the pot. The pot has $171, there's OBVIOUSLY a flush draw out there, and she bets $50? That's crazy. She's still in a limit poker mindset. She should bet between 200 and 400. Make AQ and KQ pay and flush draws pay dearly.
She plays EXACTLY like someone who has only played NL twice before.
However, I also want to question your play of the A4d. I think you may not be as sensitive to position as you should be.
If you limp UTG with a hand like A4s, you will lose money in this situation in the long run.
Let's look at your play of the hand.
Limp, then call a raise.
Smooth call a bet from the big blind.
Smooth call another bet on the turn from the big blind.
Raise the river when you make the nuts.
You only raised or bet when you had the nuts! You called passively the whole time. Now, there are certainly times when you can do this profitably in no limit hold'em, but they don't come up often.
You should probably have raised the flop.
You should not have played the hand to begin with.
natedogg
This was a game where calling another $9 with Q-8 seems reasonable given the implied odds of the stacks at the table. In fact, it's possible she may have actually flopped two pair rather than turned it. It was a good river laydown on her part. She should have bet more on the turn, to take the pot right there, I agree with that assessment. She did quit about $300 up for the session. She is a medium stakes limit player and does quite well. She plays in this game because it is fun and she wants to learn and get experience where it won't cost her too much.
My play of A4d for another $9 also seems reasonable preflop since it closed off the betting. I wouldn't have thrown Axs away preflop in this game with four other players if the raise had been to $25 instead of $12. With four players, my hand has a positive expectation given the money in front of the callers and my read as to whether they could be induced to makes postflop mistakes if I made a cinch. I've played many sessions where the above would not be true. NL is really as much about the people who are playing as it is about the cards, IMO. As for me raising the flop, the player to my left, the original raiser, was quite capable of having the sort of hand where he'd push it all in on the flop or turn. I would have a decision to make if he moved in on the flop, but couldn't have called had he moved in on the turn.
Sometimes, you just have to be watching or playing in a specific big bet game to get a feel for what type of hands people are playing. Raising to $12 preflop usually meant that someone was trying to get a little money in so that the pot might attract a move by someone on the flop or turn. It was almost like a live straddle rather than a legitimite raise. 70% of the dealt hands saw a flop, a very high percentage for NL.
I appreciate your comments, Nate, and believe them to be correct in most big bet situations. This game, though, played more like a home game than a public cardroom game, with lots of trash talking and needle giving among friends. It was played as much for the entertainment value as for +EV. Counting myself, there were three genuine ROOOOlers in the game. We were aiming to make some suckouts and embarrassing trap plays on each other. Mostly, we wanted to make each other lay down winners or call big bets with losers. You might want to come to our next game and exploit all our playing weaknesses. Allan Cunningham did and walked off with about a $1,000 per hour profit after four hours of play. I gave him $1000 in the second hand he played. I told you we were friendly!
(n/t)
My play of A4d for another $9 also seems reasonable preflop since it closed off the betting.
I totally agree with you. At that point you have to call another $9. But the original open-limp UTG with A4s was a bad play. Precisely because you can end up paying more to see a flop and thus cutting down on your implied odds.
In addition, a hand like A4s is a hand that needs position. You will rarely flop something so good that you can jam it from up front.
With A4s, you need to be able to maneuver and you can't maneuver well from up front.
NL is really as much about the people who are playing as it is about the cards, IMO
Agreed, but position is just as important in my opinion. By limping UTG with A4s, I think that shows you are not considering position as much as you should.
How many times do you come in early with a weak hand and get raised behind and call because you have odds and then wiff completely and fold to a bet? It adds up big time. How about all those times you limp early and get raised HUGE from behind and have to fold outright? Those chips are all going down the drain and it's a bigger leak than most players realize.
Mostly, we wanted to make each other lay down winners or call big bets with losers.
That's the goal of ANY poker game! :)
Honestly, it sounds like you guys (and you) were playing mostly for fun which is perfectly reasonable. Just wanted to chime in about a couple NL concepts that were brought up by the hand.
natedogg
No, it was an RGP game at the Commerce Club las Friday nite.
testing
Not the play you just described, John, but a play in another live NL game you started a couple years back, the one in Crystal Park. Your post reminded me.
$2-$5 blinds, most players have $500-$1k. UTG limps, three more callers, blinds call. Flop comes 997 rainbow. Blinds check, UTG moves all in for around $800. Late position player calls instantly. UTG turns over AA. Caller shows 97s.
Betting $800 into a $30 pot with an overpair on a paired board. That guy really needed his head examined. As I recall, he came up from a $15-$30 game and possibly had never played NL before.
I can't remember if you were there or not though.
One thing I want to point out. Your opponent did exactly what I like to do in a situation where a scare card comes up and I've got no position. Bet out into the player behind me.
I discussed this below and it is a play that works really well for me. It is a rare player who will raise you without the goods at that point, so you can safely get away from your hand if you get raised after you bet 1/2 to 1/3 of the pot on the river. Your bet looks like an enticing bet and will scare your opponent. They will often CALL you thinking you are bluffing but they will almost never raise if they think you're bluffing. If they raise, they've got it and you haven't lost much. The beauty of it is that by betting out, you force them to play correctly. They are in the classic situation where if they raise and get called they've probably lost, so if they do raise you can be damn sure it's a value bet. A bluff-raise here will only happen if they are playing at a very high level, and if that's the case, you should not be playing marginal hands out of position against this player. They are too good.
Also, you get to avoid the situation where you check because of the obvious scare card and then your opponent makes a big bet. Then you have to sit there and decide if he's bluffing or not, and maybe lose your whole stack. By betting out, you are literally protecting your stack.
Your expectation from getting called by worse hands plus the extra bonus of simply NOT having to make a difficult bluff-catching call is worth the extra investment in the pot, I think.
She made some terrible plays in this hand but I think her river play was excellent.
natedogg
Natedogg said: "Also, you get to avoid the situation where you check because of the obvious scare card and then your opponent makes a big bet. Then you have to sit there and decide if he's bluffing or not, and maybe lose your whole stack. By betting out, you are literally protecting your stack. "
As a side note, this is a concept that I really really believe in. I started making this play about 2 years ago, and it has saved me many chips since then. I think this is a critical weapon in a NL players arsonal. It also helps you get paid off when you do make the nuts (assuming you bet about the same amount).
(not that anyone asked but to illustrate the point)I made this play fairly recently in a small PL game (1-2 blinds 5 to go). We are all about 1000 deep. I hade Kh-Qh in the BB. There is a raise to 5 in middle position. The button calls. I call. Flop comes Ah-Ac-10d. I bet out 15 and get called in both spots. Needless to say I dont like my hand very much. Turn comes Jh. So the Board is Ah-Ac-10d-Jh. I have the nut straight with the nut flush redraw with a royal redraw. And you know what, I hate my hand.
I bet out 50 to see whats up. both players call. River comes blank (like the 2d or something). The pot is about 200. I really just want to check, but if I do I know someone will pot it and I will have to think about it (and likely fold). You should know that of the 2 players against me 1 is unknown (the button)and one is known (the MP raiser) who is a very tricky player--not that he is trying to be, but he frequently misreads situations and is hard to put on a hand.
I bet out 75. The MP makes it 200, I am now ready to fold, but may call because he is such a tricky player, when the button moves in. I mucked so fast, I think I beat the button to the pot with my cards against her chips. MP called instantly.
MP has A-Q (nut trips). Button has A-10 (second nut boat). Personally I think movng all in with the A-10 here is a mistake, yes she got called by A-Q, but he should not have called. With 2 people behind you it seems that you would only get called by A-J.
Any comments? Like why would I bet a straight into a board with paired AA when 2 players called the flop? Actually I think I lost the minimum (for me) on this hand.
A further advantage of this play is that it is also good cover for the times when you are still bluffing after you led on the flop and/or the turn on a semi-bluff.
I don't overuse this play, however, as it can become obvious and costs you money on the occasions where you do have a real duke on the end and want to get paid off or when you should be relying on your hand-reading skills to induce and pick-off a river bluff.
Good posts!---
In games where this type of defensive betting is common, I will often raise this defensive bet the minimum with a hand I know is best. You almost always get paid off, and often get played back at since some people consider a minimum raise a sign of weakness.
In this same Friday game, I checked in the BB with 9-7o. Flop came 7-7-Q rainbow. I checked, opponent checked, turn was 6, putting two of a suit out there. I checked, opponent casually tossed $5 into the pot. I threw in $25 and he moved all in with his AQo. I called, since his all in wasn't that much and I didn't think he had the last 7 or QQ. I'm not sure what he thought when I threw in the $25, but he later asked what I'd have done on the river when the A hit if he'd checked the turn behind me. I told him that I'd have made a bet and called his all in raise there also.
I was in Tunica a couple of weeks ago and decided to play PL HE. It was my fifth time playing and PL. I consider myself a winning 10-20 player (~1 BB/hr). We are playing 5 handed with two $5 blinds. We each bought in for $500. One Weak tight player, one calling station, one extremely aggressive player with no regard for money but excellent at reading people, a tight rock and myself. EAP is raising 80% preflop hands and winning most hands without a showdown although he's shown down some strong hands(top pair, top kicker, two pair,...) After ~ 1 hour i finally get a playable hand. I've showdown one winner in an hour and folded all my other hands either on flop or preflop. I have KQs and limp UTG. EAP makes it 25 on button and both blinds call. Flop come K82r. I bet 65 and button calls. 230 in pot. Turn is Jd putting 2 diamonds on board. I bet 180 (I have 300 left). EAP raises me all in and I think for about 1 minute and finally decided to call. Two reasons for calling. EAP was type of player capable of bluff raising and knows I'm capable of laying down a hand. Also if I don't call I will get pushed around the rest of the game. River is a 4 and he shows me K9 and I take down a huge pot listening to him tell me how bad I played and how I should lay my hand down. 2nd hand of importance I limp in UTG with 33. EAP make it 25 on puck and blinds call. I call. Flop A23r. I bet 100 EAP calls and blinds fold. Turn is 3 and I check (mistake? I think so, I should have bet 125 to build pot and give him a chance to bluff raise me) He checks behind me and river comes J. I bet 300 and he thinks for a while and almost raises me all in (~650) he finally calls me. He tells me I caught a miracle but never showed his hand. He said he had AA but didn't raise me because I put my head down. He said I gave my hand away. I ended up leaving the game a $1400 winner in ~ 5 hours. I made a couple of big hands and once I established a good image was able to semibluff raise a few hands that help me win more $$$. Some critique on my play of both hands would be appreciated as I am a novice at PL and NL. Thank you.
Where did you play PL HE in Tunica? I've only seen PLO.
you did good..only point I could comment on is the one you have allready noted..should have bet when that 3 came,not the pot-just strong. Jim
I played at the Grand. It was after a omaha/8 game broke and everyone was leaving. I suggested we play no limit or pot limit. 5 players agreed to PL with 500 buyin and we had ourselves a game. I guess it doesn't happen too often there. But I've noticed all you have to do is suggest someting to players and they'll often be open to it. I suggested playing with a kill at my local casino to get people to increase the stakes and start to feel comfortable playing 10-20 (they only used to spread 5-10). Just ask for a weekly PL HE game at the Horshoe. Get an interest list of 10 to 12 players and bingo you've got yourself a game. Hope this works for you, it did for me.
Which casino were you playing in?
Dino.
No way he had aces. Pretend like you believe him though.
First hand: KQs UTG is a straight and flush hand, not a high pair hand. After the flop and bet and call: are you committed to your hand? By betting 180 you said yes, because it gets you good and pot stuck. The pot's around 900 back to you with 300. 3:1 odds. You've definitely got him beat better than 1 in 4 times and so it's a clear call even if you think you're beaten.
Next, look at it from his perspective. If he calls 180 with a made hand, he's committed to calling your 300 on the river. So his next question is is there an advantage to putting you all in on the turn. If you'd fold KQ or call with a draw, absolutely!
If you each had 3000 in front of you, the story is very different.
Matt
I'll give my thoughts before reading other responses.
You should NOT be limping in with these hands if you have a very aggressive player behind. It's almost guaranteed that you will be paying a lot of money to see flops, so just screw down real tight when you're in early position. It's ok. Wait until you have position.
With both of these hands, you limped for 5 and had to put in 25 more before the flop. With both of these hands you basically have to check and fold if you miss. Luckily you hit. How many hands did you limp with, get raised, then check and fold on the flop? This can be a costly leak.
That said, once you have top pair second kicker, you cannot fold to the aggressive guy unless the board gets real scary. You will have him beaten more often than not so you have to go with the hand.
natedogg
First of all, the EAP sounds like an idiot. He was probably the whole reason for the game. Second, limping early with KQ when you know you're likely to face a raise is bad poker. KQ isn't much of a hand in pot-limit anyway, and I'd muck it early (especially with EAP to act behind you). Third, you were probably getting a lot more playable hands than you thought you were. It's desirable to play pretty loose in late position in a PL game. Suited connectors, suited aces, and small pocket pairs are all very playable in late position, even to a raise, unless you think someone may go over the top and force you to lay it down. Fourth... AA, huh? Maybe he has some waterfront property in Nevada to sell you too.
Remember that the major difference between limit and pot limit can be summed up in two words: implied odds. It is worth seeing the flop for $25 with 98s if that hand may win you $500, which would never happen in a limit game.
I have a lot of trouble playing big hands in big bet poker, the following is a good example...
1/2 NL game 6 handed, game is fairly loose with not much raising but a good ammount of calling... I have the table covered and the next stack is around 200... table average is about 150...
a weak-tight player limps UTG and I limp next in with pocket 6's (are my implied really good enough to get away with this?), the cuttoff and button almost never raise pre-flop so I think I won't have to put any more money in... cutoff limps, button limps, SB calls and BB checks, 12 in the pot...
flop comes 986r... SB bets pot... SB is a fairly tight player and kind of tricky but tends to pay off a little too much, he views me as a fairly tight but aggressive player (stack about 150)... BB calls... BB is fairly new to NL HE and weak-tight (stack about 100)... UTG folds, my action?
i usually dont respond to posts that arent clear, as you say 1/2 nl then talk about pot size betting, but your hand is not a big hand with two pplayers in ahead of you after the flop. any of half the deck makes a straight so id raise as much as i could and hope no one calls and if they do play the hand out.
it is a NL game but people tend to bet the pot a lot of the time... is that not typical for a NL game?
your hand wasn't big to start, but it is now...unfortunately there is that straight draw on the board.
what you Must do is cut off the draws...bet all, and hope they didn't flop a bigger hand...if so you may be able to draw out...and, of course there are allways rebuys! good luck, Jim
Move in. You only paid $2 for the hand and you will make at least $32 if the hand holds.
I think you can raise a bit more than the pot. So if the pot is 36 and it is 12 to you might make it 90-100. If you get any callers the rest is going in on the turn regardless of what hits. Yes it is a slightly better price for them to draw at, but it is still a terrible price for them to draw at--so if they want to pay let them.
Alternatively you can move in. Anything else is a mistake--ie DONT just call.
I have 350 dollars in front of me in a 1-2 nolimit game. Im on the button and UTG has straddled to 4. Everyone folded to me and I raised to 10. The SB folded and the BB, who is a relatively tight player, raised to 50. The UTG straddler folded. How would you play the hand now?
if he has you beat you get odds to double up as he will surely get broke if you make a set. if he doesnt have you, you should of course play unless you will fold the winner whenever he bets.
Ray,
Would you please elaborate on your explanation? Assuming your opponent DOESN'T have a queen, you are slightly better than 7-1 to make trips and are getting 7-1 odds if he'll go broke; however, this doesn't include his re-draws to beat you.
Isn't the big question about what he'd do with AK? Would he make the re-raise without AA or KK? Will he attack a rag flop with AK? Can you read him? I'm assuming a tight player wouldn't hold worse than AK here.
I appologize if this is beating a dead horse, but many of the NL/PL questions posted here (like this one) seem to be common situations at big bet poker. Learning how to think about them I feel is critical to learning how to play this form of poker, and this forum is CLEARLY the best place I've found to get good advice and intelligent answers.
Fat-Charlie
it looks like you can win about 360 for a 40 call. so thats ok. then you have to play cards and learn to fold or raise when or if he bets the flop by how you read him. if your kinda sure he will do this with AK then call and call or raise on the flop and hope for the best. if you think he will check AK then bet him on the flop, if he is good enough to check raise you with aces or kings you are in trouble.
Yes, this is why I posted it Fat-Charlie, because as long as you play nolimit or potlimit, this situation will occur over and over, possibly in its exact form.
you raised to 10, he reraised to 50....
seems to me that the question is, will he make a reraise without AA????
if the answer is no, the fold if the answer is yes, then pop him back with all of it, or 200. put him on a decision.
if you don't know him well enough to decide, then don't move in, don't fold....see the flop and if no ace or king then go after him now. Jim
I would call the $40 and move in with a overpair if I get it. The only way you can fold BTF is if your convinced he has AA or KK. However, he may have sensed a steal attempt with your button raise, so there is a chance you have the best hand.
Personally I like a call here.
I dont like moving in, if you do and get called the majority of the time you are WAY behind, and when you are ahead it is by the slightest of margins.
Ironically re-raise that does not put you all in probably pot commits you anyway preflop--ie if you make it 200 and he moves in, you may have to call anyway, as it only 150 more to make 700.
The real problem is what wold this guy do with A-K on the flop? Will he move in with it if it misses? That would be a problem. If he is likely to check A-K, then you are fine. If he check raises AA, or KK then you have a problem. Of course if he does, you can frequently call with small pairs against his raises.
Flopping an overpair with QQ is not really that great in this case.
Anyway, I would call here andmake my decision on the flop.
I thank Ray Zee for his answers above, but some of you other guys don't make sense to me. We all seem to agree on the main questions: would he play like this without AA or KK, and if he would do it on AK, will he bet or check a rag flop?
There are several recommendations to call the raise and decide what to do on the flop against unfamiliar opponents. I guess I'm a wuss, but why risk your whole stack here when you are unlikely to be a BIG favorite? You've only put $10 in this pot; why not wait to get involved AFTER we know this opponent or when our hand makes us a big favorite?
Fat-Charlie
I am not a NL player, but here is my take:
I would assume that a very tight player is only going to make this move with AA, KK, or AK. If this is your read, then I think a fold is clear. Your a big dog or a small favorite, with only $10 invested in the pot. Save your money.
Other people have mentioned calling, hoping to spike a set and double up. I think that this is going to be a money losing play overall. Do you laydown your QQs to a bet when the flop comes rags? What do you do when the flop comes KQx or AQx? You can flop a set and still lose. I just don't see a reason to get involved with the worse hand.
Now, if this player would make this move with other hands, then you can't really laydown. If there is some possibility that he is making this move with JJ, or TT, then call and use your position to outplay him.
Realize that this advice is coming from someone who knows only a very little about NL. Its worth about what you paid for it.
Until yesterday the only real PL HE I'd played was a small 1/1 game with buddies from school, but only one guy (not me) really had any idea what he was doing. Today (Sunday) a broken 5-10 full-kill HE game at Foxwoods managed to turn into a 5/5 PL game around 2 am. Although the minimum buy-in was $300 I ended up only buying in for $100 (and rebuying another $100 later) because of a dealer who had never dealt the game before (it's rarely spread at Foxwoods I think). The game varied between 4 and 6 handed; after about 3 hours I quit having turned my $200 into $462 (I actually won a little more... I payed about $20 in time charges). I think there was a small skill componenet to my win, but a lot of it was just dumb luck I think. While they're still fresh in my mind I'd just like to write down as many significant hands as possible. I really enjoyed playing PL and would like to do so many more times, so I'm looking to improve my game however possible. Please feel free to comment on any of the hands you want and remember, I'm a beginner, so no need to tell me I made some pretty stupid plays, just explain why they're stupid. (;
The players (note: to those of you in the game reading this please don't be offended either by any characterizations I give of you or by the fact that I've forgoten most of your names already (I'm terrible with names)), starting from the left of the dealer:
guy with hat (GWH), when the game started he was the only person at the table with any real PL experience... he seemed very skilled at underbetting the pot... he seemed to make a lot of successful bluffs (some of which he showed)... he was tight and aggressive and very tricky... I tried to avoid him as much as possible... he had the table covered at all times with around 1500 (which obviously varied over the night)
sunglasses guy (SG), he was the other guy who played while I was there who had also played before, he showed up at the table with a bunch of black chips (I think he came from a big stud game), but he only bought in for $300... he was very aggressive, not quite as tight as GWH, and also tricky...
the next two guys (NG1, NG2) were buddies who had never played PL before... they were fairly loose and not all that aggressive... NG1 was the only other person who's stack was close to mine at any point (except towards the end) with around $150-$200 for a while... he showed a number of limit-player mindsets which I think caused a major leak in his game (ex., I think he called with a lot of straight/flush draws (not both, just one) for a pot sized bet on the flop)... NG2 had a fairly large stack, usually between $500 and $1000... similar in play to NG1 but a little tighter
I was next... except at the end I always had the small stack, which ranged between $100 and $200 for most of the night until I won a few big hands at the end to get up to $462 when I left... I was one of the tightest players at the table in terms of pre-flop hand selection I think... most of my bets were pot-sized... I was a bit too loose post-flop I think, pushing hands I really shouldn't... and I also layed down to re-pots a pretty high percentage of the time (weak-tight I guess)...
last is cigaret guy (CG)... his stack was as high as $800 but also as low as $150, and he may even have lost it all at one point... he was awesome in the 5/10 kill game... he was very aggressive and excellent at picking off bluffs... he also played like a limit player in some ways though...
the hands (sorry to take so long to get to this point), for reference they will be numbered:
hand 1: all 6 of the above players are in... UTG folds and I limp next in with KT of clubs (can I do this)... folded to SB (SG) who raises pot... BB drops and I call... SG had been pushing me around pretty badly the last few hands and I thought he was stealing them... at this point my stack was $125 minus the $5 I had already put in and I thought that if I hit he would bet into me and I could double through...
flop: Kxx two diamonds (something like K73... the x and x are suited)
SG bets pot, $45... I think for a little while and push all-in for another $60... based on past history I think he could easily be pushing a diamond draw or a medium pair or something like A7 because I had layed down to his pot bets so many times... is this reasonable?
hand 2: GWH raises first in another 5 dollars... he virtually never limped but raised less than pot frequently with all sorts of hands... NG1 calls on the button, NG2 calls 5 on the SB... I call 5 on the BB with A3o... can I really play this hand given that my call closes the betting?
flop: A9x (x is about a 5) two flush on board (A and x are suited)...
NG2 (the SB) checks and I bet half-pot, the other bet I was making during the game.... my thinking was this... I probably have the best hand right now and want to take the pot down, and also if raised I have an easy laydown... if called by NG1 or NG2 I can probably read them for a flush draw and then play accordingly... GWH drops, NG1 calls, NG2 folds... NG1 has me covered, I have about 150 left at this point...
turn: 9 making the three flush
I check figuring my hand is no good, especially because a single 9 now beats me... NG1 checks behind (huh?)
river: 9, so board reads A9x99
I check and NG1 bets pot (80)... I think a little while and call... there are two aces and one 9 left... I am risking 80 to win 40 on the call so if he has exactly one of these three cards randomly the play is 0 EV... but because he called a (small) raise pre-flop he is more likely to have an ace... also, he would probably bet the turn with trip nines, trying to find out if I had the flush...
hand 3: I raise pot (another 15) from middle position with AKo (is this a good play in PL?... it seemed to cause me a lot of problems doing so)... CG calls and everyone else folds... CG has me covered and I have about 175 after my pot bet
flop: J86r
I bet pot (50) trying to rep. AJ or a big pair hoping to take it down... CG thinks for a little while and raises 50... I figure at best I have 6 outs and at worst I am drawing to runner runner straight... that he called my pre-flop raise and then raises when I fired pot means he probably has AJ, an over-pair, or a set... I lay down... I have a feeling that I just wasted about $70 on this hand... comments about this hand and also general comments about AK in PL?
grr... there were all these other interesting hands I would like to discuss too (like the one where I flopped top pair top kicker but a three-flush on board and almost doubled through... or the time I turned aces-up and repoted SG making the bet 220 (and got him to lay down)), but I don't remember enough details to post them here... oh well... any and all comments on the above hands are appreciated... also any other general advice on books etc. for PL HE, thanks
Pot Man
P.S. results to follow...
Hand 1: two more diamonds fell, including the ten and I doubled through with my kings up against SG's KJ (no diamond, obviously)... oh so lucky
Hand 2: NG1 shows KK with nut flush draw on turn and I take down a $240 pot (NG1 is shortly after chastised by GWH because he said it was clear I had an ace)
Hand 3: CG didn't show
I dont think you are as tight in your preflop selection as you think you are. I could be wrong of course since its just my opinion. I think your assesment of weak play after the flop is fairly accurate. Its good that you had a profitable experience I would suggest keeping at it and supplementing your game with some pot limit books to pick up a few pointers and have other players describing you as the agressive tricky player.
hand 1: all 6 of the above players are in... UTG folds and I limp next in with KT of clubs (can I do this)... folded to SB (SG) who raises pot... BB drops and I call... SG had been pushing me around pretty badly the last few hands and I thought he was stealing them... at thispoint my stack was $125 minus the $5 I had already put in and I thought that if I hit he would bet into me and I could double through...
I would have folded in second position with KT unless the table was very tight giving me a good chance to win the blinds.
hand 2: GWH raises first in another 5 dollars... he virtually never limped but raised less than pot frequently with all sorts of hands... NG1 calls on the button, NG2 calls 5 on the SB... I call 5 on the BB with A3o... can I really play this hand given that my call closes the betting?
Question: What happens if an ace hits? Are you willing
to bet to drive out a better ace (maybe) or are you going to induce a bluff? If someone has a better ace, can you lay down the smaller ace? Ax offsuit is a very risky hand in a multiway pot, I would have folded.
hand 3: I raise pot (another 15) from middle position with AKo (is this a good play in PL?... it seemed to cause me a lot of problems doing so)... CG calls and everyone else folds... CG has me covered and I have about 175 after my pot bet.
Yes, I think it is correct to raise with AK in middle position. You need to be aware if the board misses your hand, how to play it. I think you did the right thing betting and then laying down.
Hand 1:
You absolutely should not open the pot with KT. You will likely get raised (which is what happened) and since you have no position you will have to check-and-fold almost every flop that you miss. In addition, any hand you DO make is highly vulnerable if not dominated outright. If your opponent had held AK, you would have been in dire straights. If you flop top pair T, you are extremely vulnerable if not already losing to an overpair. Don't play KT early, and try to avoid it in general.
hand 2:
All conventional "limit hold'em" notions of blind defense go out the window in pot limit hold'em. Throw A3o away. Personally, I throw it away in limit hold'em but I don't even hesitate to throw it away in pot limit.
Hand 3:
You played it just about right. The decision to check behind or bet the pot on the flop is very player dependant. If you don't know your opponent, you should bet, but there are times when you should check. After all, he called your raise preflop so he might have something like a pair, or even a BIG pair. With a hand like TT or 88, he might call you down assuming you have AK. However, raising pre-flop with AK is a must. Don't every fail to do so. (Just be willing to drop it to a re-raise from the right player)
One thing I want to point out:
You said: that he called my pre-flop raise and then raises when I fired pot means he probably has AJ, an over-pair, or a set
It's amazing how long it takes some players to figure this out. Against typical players, you are dead. Only when you start facing high-level tricky aggressive genius players do you need to start worrying in this situation. Against typical players in this situation, 99 times out of 100, your AK is no good.
natedogg
Hand 1
I think limping in is OK if you KNOW that most pts are NOT raised. Once it is raised you need to muck. This is of course the reason why you dont want to limp to begin with with this hand. You cant stand a raise because if you are against A-K, KK, or AA you may lose your stack if you hit your flop. I would rather call with 55 and try to flop a set.
Hand 2
You can call in the BB ONLY because you are closing the betting. Still I would rather call with 2-4 than A-Xo. The reason is the high payoff I can get if I flop a straight to trips with small cards against someone that flops top pair (ie A-K). Flopping the A with Ax is a pretty bad situation to be in.
Hand 3. I think this is par for the course with A-K against most players.
Hand 1: I'd fold K10s there. You can't stand heat behind you, your position sucks, and your hand is thoroughly mediocre in pot-limit. Your call of the pot-sized raise only severly compounded the mistake. Even if he has been stealing from you, surely you'll have a better opportunity to play back at him. I have no shorthanded pot-limit experience (well, with the one exception you know of), so I defer to more experienced posters, but my gut says that the limp is a small mistake and that the call of the raise is a big mistake.
Your dilemma on the flop is the outrgowth of your preflop mistake IMHO.
Hand 2: A3o is trash. End of story. Your play from the flop on is fine.
Hand 3: I think the decision on the flop is very opponent dependent.
On the other forum there is discussion about running bad in limit HE. Mason Malmuth says that for a good player there is a fixed limit to running bad due to the CV relationship in limit HE. How does this compare to pot limit or no limit? Assume a good player, better than most of the opponents and at least equal to the others in the game, what would be the nature of his losing streaks? Would they be longer or shorter than limit or even would it be impossible to have a losing streak, just short losing bouts? I heard Doyle Brunson once had something like 50 winning sessions in a row in NL, that would be virtually impossible in limit, wouldnt it?
If some math gurus could outline the differences between limit and pot/no limit please?
biggest number of winning sessions ive experienced back to back were in pot limit holdem.was the best player in the game(in my lilbigbetman world lalalala)
p.s.im sorry to the fatguy in seat4 i gave shit to yesterday,even though he deserved every pound of it....
The losing streaks will be much shorter in nolimit and pot limit than in limit. That is why it is so hard to find these games because the "luck" factor is greatly reduced. Of course the "small" losing streak you might go on in nolimit could indeed cost you more than your long losing streak in limit.
can't agree that in P/L the streaks are shorter.
not really a math guy, but logic says to me that it's the other way around.
generally scared money has hard time winning in poker..the fear of loss detracts from good decisions...play ony at limits which are "comfortable".
I guarantee all of above is worth at least what you paid for it.
lots of luck, Jim
NL bankroll
I doubt there's any sort of reliable "formula" for determining a NL bankroll because there are so many more variable involved, as opposed to a limit bankroll.
However, I've come up with my own guidelines and they seem to work for me. It's based on two things. The average stack-size of the game and what I call the "bust factor".
The average stack-size is a much more important factor than buy-in. The buy-in is meaningless. This means you have to be familiar with the game because there's no way to know the average stack size without seeing the game in action. The buy-in will tell you nothing.
A game with a buy-in of $100 could be played with an average stack size of $1500 and a game with a buy-in of $1k could be played with an average stack size of $3k.
The reason stack size is so important is that you MUST play on average with an average stack. You have no chance of really beating this game if you can't play with the average and big stacks. You have to bust them every once in a while to make your profit at no limit. In addition, if you play short-stacked a lot it means you're going all-in a LOT more often with smaller edges, which increases your variance by quite a bit.
The next factor is what I call the "bust" factor. It's a measure of how volatile the game is. The bust factor is totally unscientific, but I've found it's fairly accurate. How do you measure it? I simply watch and see how often the very best players experience a losing night and how much they lose, in terms of average stacks. If it's a game where the top players can experience sessions in which they lose three average stacks without raising an eyebrow, then you know something about the game's volatility.
So let's say the best players can experience a three-stack loss without too much excitement. Consider that you are NOT one of the best players, but a decent player, then you too can have sessions where you get busted two or three or four times. This is an important factor in the bankroll calculation. If you are NOT clearly one of the best players in the game, you need to pad the bust factor a bit (this will apply to almost all of us). Unless you suck, pad the factor by one. In the case of a bust factor of 3, I make it 4 for myself.
With a bad enough cold streak you can hit the bust factor several times in a row, or hit it a majority of the time for an extended period (ie 3 out of 5 for three months, etc etc). My off-the-cuff bust-factor multiple is 10. So if the good players can easily lose three average stacks, you need 30 time the average stacks to play the game regularly and feel comfortable about the stakes.
Let's see how that applies to some regular no limit games I'm familiar with.
At Artichoke Joe's in San Bruno, CA, the average stack size is probably between $500 and $1000, depending on the mood of the table that night, so let's call it $750. The bust factor is high in that game for two reasons. The stakes are low for some of the players who are used to playing the big game at Lucky Chances, so they gamble more. There are some very aggressive wild players in that game, plus some of the best no limit players in California, if not the U.S. This creates a high bust factor. I've seen some of the best players lose $5k in one session.
That's a bust factor of about 7 but that was fairly extreme. The usual loss I've seen a good player experience is around 3k, so let's call it a BF of 4. Bump it up by one since you're not Alex Roberts or Sam B. According to my formula (10BF x AS) you need $37,500.
How about the big game at Lucky Chances? I've never played it, but from what I can tell, the bust factor is lower there. From talking extensively with the friends I have who play it, I've rarely heard them bitching about losses as large as at the AJs game (in terms of average stack size). A $7000 loss is pretty big for them. From what I've seen, the average stack is around $3k in that game. Let's round a bit and call it a bust factor of 2. Pump it up one for yourself because you are not Alex Roberts, Sam B., Bobby Hoff, or Phil Hellmuth. (Yes, they play in that game). With a bust factor of 3, you need 10BF x 3000 = $90,000.
Funny enough, that corresponds almost perfectly with just about everyone I've talked to in their off-the-cuff estimates of bankroll requirements for that game. So maybe there's something to my formula after all.
It's not scientific, but it's a guide that I've come up with that seems to work for me. (thus, no more appearance by natedogg at AJs NL game) I'm sure Tommy Angelo has some better ideas about this, since he puts a lot of thought into bankroll preservation and thus has probably thought about NL bankroll even more than I have. (hint hint Tommy)
natedogg
Tommy's out of town at the moment, so don't expect much in the way of responses from him.
My only comment about this is how bankroll relates to a real-world job. If you're highly enough paid, and you can easily replace the $3k or so that you might lose in a night at the AJ's game, having a big bankroll isn't nearly as critical as it might otherwise be.
Now, you have to be damn well paid to be able to absorb multiple $3k-$5k losses without being upset about it, so this sort of thinking applies a bit better to smaller games.
My final point is that you're missing something important, which is the skill level of your play. You sort of talk about it in that you mention that Sam B busts less, but I don't really think that captures it.
Actually, Sam and to a lesser extent Alex are both really aggressive and willing to put lots of money in the pot without having much, so I suspect they might bust fairly often. Sam, at least, has a pattern of sometimes doubling up quickly then beating people up very effectively with a big stack, or busting several times in a row with low buyins before doubling up and beating people up with a big stack.
So Sam is likely to have bigger swings than a tight player like Marvin, even though his win rate is much higher.
I think Marvin could play in the AJ's game with much less than $30k and be pretty sure of not busting out. I suspect Sam could, too, not because his swings are small, which they arent, but rather that because his upswings are huge compared to his downswings in that game. Hard to tell, I guess.
- target
Those are good points Dave. It shows why it's very difficult to calculate bankroll requirements for no limit.
Perhaps going so far as to make a formula is a little hopeful, but the general procedure is pretty accurate I feel. Eyeball the game and check out the stack sizes. Note how much the good players can lose on a losing session. Multiply that in your head by some amount that you think corresponds to a bad streak. You'll have a good idea of how big your 'roll needs to be.
The only problem with this approach is that a truly horrendous cold streak may not know of a bankroll it can't demolish. Those of us with a lot of playing experience at limit can remember some truly harrowing cold streaks that seemed to never end. Imagine playing NL during a streak like that! It may not be possible to have a bankroll large enough to withstand an extended cold streak in no limit.
At the Bellagio in vegas, I played for a few hours on superbowl sunday and made AA, KK (twice), QQ, JJ, flopped a set a straight a flush, and TWO straight flush draws, made top pair with AK THREE times, and I lost with all of them but one. Mabye the GCA was there cheating me and maybe it's not really that unusual. But if you had a session like that at AJs, you'd lose $10,000 (assuming you always bought in for an average stack size).
natedogg
Natedogg,
I find your posts here VERY informative, but I want to ask about two assertions from your last post.
I doubt there's any sort of reliable "formula" for determining a NL bankroll because there are so many more variable involved, as opposed to a limit bankroll.
Aren't the variables for this problem always your mean, standard deviation, and the confidence limit you're looking for? These should be the same factors for any form of gambling; measuring them may be harder.
The reason stack size is so important is that you MUST play on average with an average stack. You have no chance of really beating this game if you can't play with the average and big stacks. You have to bust them every once in a while to make your profit at no limit. In addition, if you play short-stacked a lot it means you're going all-in a LOT more often with smaller edges, which increases your variance by quite a bit.
Doesn't the issue of stack size depend mostly on your style of play? I'm not counting tournaments or freeze-outs where stack size is clearly important. In a cash game wouldn't an aggressive style demand a big stack because you need big bets to intimidate your opponents? Now consider the converse. A less agressive opponent can't easily be intimidated when buying in for a small stack.
Fat-Charlie
Natedog
thx for the thought provoking reply. What are the blind structures in both those games? one more thing, any idea of what the win rate (per hour) of a good player is in both those games?
The blind structure at AJ is 2-3-5 10 to open. The LC game is 10-10-20 40 to open.
I have no idea what the win rate of a good player is in those games. I do know a guy who played very tight and rarely made any creative plays at all and he told me he was making $50 per hour in the 2-3-5 10 to go game.
natedogg
I played in the 2-3-5 NL Artichoke Joe's game last night again. This was the softest lineup I have ever seen at this game, which was good. It got a *lot* worse as the night went on, which makes me wonder how important/valuable it is to sit down when the game starts rather than coming in later.
Anyway, there were two hands that got me thinking about stealing after the flop.
1) I have something marginal, like Ad4d, in the BB. Freddie, an agressive winning player, opens on the button for the minimum ($10). I call the extra 5.
Flop comes JKA, two spades. I don't like this, and check. Freddie checks behind. Turn is the 9s. I check, he bets a small amount at the pot. I *know* he's just taking the pot, so I (check)raise the pot, and take it down.
2) 4 players limp in, I limp with 9sTs on the button. Flop misses me completely. Everyone checks, and I bet to pick up the pot, and get checkraised and lay it down.
So. In this game, lots of people bet in late position to just take the pot. Everyone knows that it's going on, but it's still worth it, since people will often let you just get away with it.
So then the question becomes, how often shoudl you do it? I know some players who will *always* bet when checked to, especially if you check to them twice. I also hate to check on the button when I could just take the pot.
On the other hand, some of the players know this, and like to checkraise. I actually think that there are a couple of regulars who like to checkraise *way* too much -- they'd make more money by betting and getting raised, often.
So how do you evaluate whether to try and steal in late position, given that it works pretty commonly, but that it's not uncommon to see a checkraiser waiting for you?
The obvious things to think about are the percentage success of the play (needs to be ~50% if you bet more or less the size of the pot), the likelihood of being checkraised, and the players in the pot. But it's hard to put good numbers into that to come up with a proper percentage.
There are even players like Tommy who will play almost anything on the button, since they know that they can steal enough to make it worth it.
Thoughts, anyone?
- target
Is there a new Freddie? If not, that check-raise is pretty much a pitching wedge for those heads-up small-bet scary-board sandtrap-Freddie occasions.
As for stealing on the button, the trick is to get the other players to think you either have it or are willing to follow through with your bluff most of the time. E.g., Alex and I do it too much. When the check-raisers start check-raising you with top pair, you're doing it too much. Have you watched Sam and some of the other good players do this? They'll routinely bet less than the pot. (Sam is a smartass and will sometimes go at it for $10.) You'll take down almost as many, increasing your yield, but if you go much below 75% of the pot you'll start getting a lot more callers at AJ's. Tiny bets like a third of the pot work much better in the Lucky Chances game than at AJ's.
If you want an absolute number, start by betting a third of pots that are checked to you, like Rich does.
Isn't that game the nuts?
Hi, I play in a tiny pot limit game. When I bet it is either as a (semi)- bluff or as a value bet. I read about raising to isolate a player. Could you give some axemples of this, or is this more a limit comcept (where raising is just one bet, not the pot (not that I have ever played limit...)).
The other question: In the game I play, people start by betting the pot, but when the pot starts to grow, everybody will under bet the pot. When the pot becomes realy big ( that is, with respect to the blinds, not in absolut terms ) a 1/3 or 1/2 pot bet will be considerd *very* big. Is there a way to exploit this ?
Thx
When you "raise to isolate" someone, it means you are trying to get heads-up with him.
Also, in your pot-limit game, if everybody is underbetting the pot and only betting the limit when they have the nuts, you can exploit this fact by occasionally betting heavily without a good hand. ;)
I have been invited to play in a short-handed(prolly 4 players) pot limit HE game and the host is talking about 100 a man ante. I can probably convince the host to make it 50-100 blinds instead of the antes but I wanted to know what the consensus for the most advantageous structure for my playing style.
I'm very comfortable playing short-handed and almost as comfortable playing pot-limit, but here are my questions:
With the lineup of 1)Overly tight player who I have beaten pretty soundly heads up in 4 sessions over the past 3 months. I basically robbed him blind while playing heads up. 2)Tricky - aggressive player who plays pretty loose and bluffs too much - but tougher to read than 1. 3)Fairly loose passive who'll be a calling station for bets in the 100-800 range, but then become tight-passive for bigger bets. My style is aggressive and moderately loose (since we're playing shorthanded), however since this game is going to be much bigger than anything I've played before(I'm going to sell off b/w 40-60% of my stake for the game to keep the max loss on my part to about 8k.) I might be a bit more passive than usual for the first few rounds till I get used to the game.
What's the best structure for my style in comparison to my opponents?
Also, I definately will be arriving early(the host is player #2 so I can choose my seat in relation to his and I can either choose to act right after him or right before him. Which is better? I am thinking I'll sit behind him since there are only 4 of us and I wont have to worry about the other two players being the pot too often.
Thanks a ton. Bill
perhaps I am wrong on both points, here is the way I see it:
#1. the 100 ante may keep the weaker players in a pot which they would otherwise fold, so that seems the way to go. BUT if the extra cost per round is a burden on your BR, then you have to consider that.
#2. I think you want him on your left because this puts a buffer (the other two players) between you and the more aggressive player, making it more difficult for him to zero in on you.
Sounds like good opportunity for you, hope game starts good for you so you can relax and make the most of it...seems like you may want to be bit tight in early stages. With game this short handed, things can sure shift quickly...been there. For me 7 or 8 is best #.
good luck, Jim
The ante/blinds of the game you're playing in don't really determine much in big-bet poker, except the size of the pot to begin with. It's tough to play pot-limit flexibly if the blinds are 5-5 and you have $100. Use any blind or ante structure as long as you're comfortable with it. 5-5 is good, but so is 2-3 with $1 antes (for smaller-end big bet games).
Lately I've been playing in a regular no-limit game in my neighborhood. The people in the game insist that the blinds be $1 and $2. While I would prefer larger blinds, my insistence on that fact would make them not want to play in the game. So I (the best player in the game) basically play whatever they want to play. All they want to play is no-limit Texas hold'em, so we play no-limit Texas hold'em. They decide what the blinds are, and what the rules of the game are. If they wanted to make up the rules as they went along, I'd probably let them.
As far as adjusting your playing style, don't do anything you wouldn't otherwise do just because you're against certain players. If you find yourself up against good players, your best move may be to get up and leave. Otherwise, try to sit behind them.
in RGP, there's been some discussion about 300/600 play....the most revealing being those from Sklansky.
mainly that the good 300/600 players will tend to want to make their game mixed games of 2 or 3 or more different games so specialists in stud and especially hold'em can't get a piece of the action...or if they do, then they'll be giving up edge in a game they know less well.
this seems to me to be the perfect reason to the question that I always had - which was "why are the high limit games usually not hold'em?"
if anyone has any comments or anything to add about this, i'd love to hear it.
See Poker Essays III, "Detrimental is Good". I think I disagree with Mason a little on this one.
I have a different theory, that for the same reason stud simulations are useful and hold 'em simulations aren't, the stud games, with a large ante, can get a lot bigger than a hold 'em game.
I am working on writing up these other reasons more thoughtfully, but thinking about the above might help.
Good luck.
Dan Z.
in my humble opinion and from several at length discussions with people who play 300/600 everyday it seems to be not in denying hold'em or stud specialists their piece of the action, but instead it seems that most people feel that some of their fellow players are very weak in other games and then it gives them a greater advantage to mix it up. there seems to be a common perception that the adjustment period between switching games gives another advantage to the best most well rounded poker players especially when mixing in razz, 2-7, or A-5 triple draw. the idea that everyone can play hold'em or stud at that level with a certain amount of proficiency seems to be the most common idea, and that you can win more bets in these other games out of players than in any other way. just my ideas, but they seem to ring true if you see these games, especially if they are short handed and action packed. J.Brown
I have read where game selection is the most important thing in becoming a winning player.Just exactly what are you looking for in a game.All loose players? All tight players? What is the right mix? What would make you choose one game over another? Thanks in advance for your input.
What they say is true. The most important poker skill, above all, is game selection.
You want a game with a lot of BAD PLAYERS.
My definition of a good game is one where I stand to make 1.5 BB per hour. The necessary conditions for this are a reasonable rake or time charge, and 4 to 5 players seeing most flops in an unraised pot. Then you, either taking the pot down with a bet because the players are too weak tight or them paying you off all the way to the river with a 2nd best hand because they are bad players. Game selection is important but adjusting to the game you're playing in is just as important. Being in a good game but not exploiting it's weakness is an error many players make. Bottom line is "It's a bad game if after 15 minutes you look around the table and try and spot the fish but can't find him."
You want bad players. Bad loose player are best, but bad-tight will do.
frequently time does not allow us to determine the number of bad players.
thus a shortcut method is to see how many players see the flop...the more the better. Jim
I do not want all my opponents to be " bad - loose" players. Those players will call most raises with any two cards. Enough of those players in a game will reduce your advantage by beating your good starting hands too often. I like to have about 3 well funded "bad" players in a full game on average. A couple of rocks are good to take away focus from my play.....and are a easy read. Mix the rest with average decent or good players......and ill make money most of the time.
= )
I have heard about the 2-3-5 10 to go no limit game at the palace in hayward CA. Has anyone played in this game? What is it like? I was thinking about giving it a try. How hard is it? How do they players play? I realize that a bankroll of 20K or so is necessary to play in it every day but what is needed for a one night session? thanks stud
Sorry I missed you post earlier.
The game starts at about 9PM and runs 6-10 handed. Buy-in is $100 but that's just giving money away. You don't need anywhere near 20K - it plays much smaller than the AJ's game.
It's a lot of fun and pretty loose.
Home NL game. 5-10 blinds. Mostly HE & Omaha/8.
One of the players, when he becomes stuck, goes deep (buying more chips, and raising about half the pots $100 or $200 before the flop).
By this time, the average amount of chips in front of each player is $2000-$5000.
I usually fold his raises (last week I was to his left - I know, find a better seat), waiting til I have a hand.
Since I'm out of position (not to the raiser, but to the rest of the table), I don't often call the small suited connectors (although by calling, I often do promote multiway action), and I don't know that I should reraise with a big pair, as no one else will call, and while the guy is a bit of a maniac, he's no fool, and folds my reraise unless he holds something interesting.
What sort of strategies do you use on a 'steamer' like this?
I love your seat. I would definately reraise good hands. But you can go with hands like 99, or 10-10. As well as A-Q, A-K and better. You will have to mix up your play depending on him. If he keeps folding to your re-raises be liberal. If he starts calling tighten up a bit. But still give the illusion of action.
Occasionally re-raise with junk (ie 55) and muck if he comes over top. Then you will have him pretty much set up to get his stack when you find a hand.
Dont worry so much about everyone folding when you re-raise with a premium hand. When you have a premium hand in PL you kind of want to take it or be heads up--it is the premium hands that tend to lose the entire stack when someone sets on you. I want callers with 77 not really with KK. I know there is a large debate about this, but really in a PL game it can be hard to dump a big overpair, and more often then not when you get significant post flop action you are beat.
Some of the better aggressive local no-limit players will reraise a couple times with hands like J3o, then show them when the player folds. They usually do this twice and have the goods the third time.
At the Orleans playing $5-$10 blinds PL HE.
Somewhat passive table when this hand comes up.
Player comes in and posts both blinds, $15. behind the button as he has missed some hands.
Two early position limpers for $10. each and the poster checks. Button folds and I look down at AKo in the SB. I have a little over $2,000. I chose to raise it up to $50.
BB mucks, one of the early limpers calls and the poster says, "I want to raise, how much can I make it?" He is able to raise it another $175. and does.
The poster is British, been talking quite a bit and been providing the action in the game. It was evident however that he played some PL and knew what he was doing.
I check out the stacks. The early limper caller had about $400. The raiser had another $600.
I was concerned he had slow played AA or KK. I am out of position but after some thinking call. The limper folds.
Flop is Jc,7s,3d.
I check and he throws in six $100. bills. He is over betting the pot but I say never mind and muck. He then shows me pocket Queens.
My experience in PL is limited. I still am not sure if my call was a close one or just a terrible decision.
What do my brethren 2+2 big bet players say?
Bob
I think his 175 reraise said that he put you on ace and face when you raised, and decided to make a "get out" bet.
were I you, I would decide that he does not have AA because faceing only one (2 at most) other players, he would rather let you come in for a trap....then to a lesser extent same applies to KK. Also note that your holding AK further reduces the likelyhood of him having either of those pairs.
thus you can feel that if the flop pairs either of your cards, you have him beat. the math gives a slight advantage to a pair vs two overcards, therefore it is just a question of your willingness to gamble.
you raised with AK, so seems to me you should go with it...call, see the flop. If flop missed you, then see how pot odds stack up against drawing odds after that...my guess is that you should go all the way, and be ready to rebuy if you miss. lol, Jim
just reread your post. after you call his raise the is about 485 in pot and he has 600, thus no way for pot odds to be bad enough to keep you from going to the river.
with that information in hand, rather than calling his 175 you should call and make pot size bet to put him on a decision ( since you know you are willing to go all the way). You may win it right there. Jim
I agree with Jellow's second post not his first (of course so does he that is why he posted the second one!).
If the raiser had 2-3K then I think calling is fine (as is folding--but less so). With him only having 600 more, I think you need to raise him all in here. This is why:
Jellow said: "thus you can feel that if the flop pairs either of your cards, you have him beat. the math gives a slight advantage to a pair vs two overcards, therefore it is just a question of your willingness to gamble".
This happens to be a pet peave of mine because it is simply NOT true when you CALL preflop. It is only true if you get it all in preflop. You need all 5 cards to be a slight dog to QQ. By calling you are putting him in a great situation. He gets away when you hit the flop, and when you miss the flop (about 2/3 of the time) he has GREAT odds to just put you in with only 2 cards to go.
When AK calls less then all in against QQ, QQ is a VERY BIG favorite. Both in terms of winning the hand, and maximizing profits (or minimizing losses).
Here is another reason to put him in:
1) You get all 5 cards to hit. 2) if he has AA, or KK and you hit it is all going in anyway (unless he has KK and you hit an A, in which case you wish it was in beforehand anyway). If he makes a set when you hit you will double him up because he simply does not have enough to get you to fold whenyou hit.
I think he played the hand perfectly. He has to figure if he raises when the action is to him the first time, it will be hard to lose players. So he called hoping someone would raise for him, and if nobody did he would shoot for the set.
Of course you did raise, which was correct. But when he re-raised the pot was big compared to his stack size--this is where you need to punish him with your stack. You just put him in and see if he wants to call (which he probably would have) but at least this way you are truly even money (more or less) and when you hit you actually win something.
Again to be clear, if he had 3K in front of him it changes everything. I may re-raise, and then muck if he raises again. This is because I dont want to hit with AK, when he makes a set if he is going to take that much of my stack.
Russell,
Good analysis and reasoning.
Yes, if I was going to play the hand through, the better move would be to reraise the pot and putting him through the decision and concern if I had AA or KK.
Problem with the flat call, out of position is, if I hit either the A or K, he can get away from his hand.
He appeared experienced enough that he may have let go the queens.
I can tell you that he was the only player at this table I would have even called. The others were mainly short stacked and playing pretty snug.
Thanks for the feedback.
Bob
Russell,
I don't understand your reasoning. First, I'm assuming you DON'T agree with Bob's assumption about your opponent NOT holding AA or KK; I believe many players like a delayed raise on the big pairs. If you get it all in on the flop, the AK is a slight dog to a pocket pair as you point out. With only 600 left isn't he pot committed? The best case for raising is winning the pot immediately which won't happen. If you can't win the pot on the flop, why get involved when at best you're a slight dog?
Fat-Charlie
With about $550 in the pot and a $600 bet vs. his two overcards, Bob would not be pot-stuck, just stuck-stuck. He'd have to fold.
OK it is not THE definitive answer but I guess it is mine. I am not a math guy, but the concepts are there someone else can put the numbers on them if they wish.
Look obviously of you think your opponent has AA or KK you should fold. BUT, if you think your opponent could hold anything from say 10-10, to AA, or AK there is enough money in the pot to jam. If you do he may still fold 10-10, JJ, or even QQ. If he has KK, or AA he will call and you will likely lose. You will out of position for this hand if you call, if you move in position becomes moot (and is at this moment you ally because he has to decide what to do).
The pot is already too big to fold in relation to the stack size if you think there is a reasonable chance that he does NOT have AA, or KK. People are saying that QQ is a favorite--yes it is, but not by enough to compensate for the $$$ already in the pot. Think about it, if we KNOW he has QQ or a lower pair, and we KNOW he will call, we are basically calling 600 into a 900 pot ( 600 for his call and about 300 already in, before our call--this is an estimate I did not go back and read the post for the exact numbers). This is more than enough to compensate for the slight dog AK is to an underpair.
Think of it this way (kind of a fundamental theory of poker thing): If you both had your hands face up at this point, you would have to move in because if you call you will miss and have to fold too often, and when you hit he will correctly fold every time. Folding while seeing his QQ is a HUGE mistake because the money already in the pot offsets the small underdog that AK is.
Interestingly, with all of the cards face up, he should also call your all in because he is a slight favorite to win, and the pot is obviously also offering him better then even money.
Now, of course we dont KNOW he has to have QQ--so we look at the likelihood of it. I am not going to go into the exact math (because I am not capable something about Bayes), but the chances of him holding AA, or KK are diminished by the fact that I have one of each. So if we think he will make his raise with 10-10 though AA, and AK, then the chances of him holding 10-10-QQ or AK are significanly greater then the chances that he holds precisely AA, or KK thus making our raise imperitive. Again you cant call because there is no flop he will fold that misses you (ie you can never successfully bluff) , and there is no flop he will call that hits you (except for 10-J-Q where you both go to the moddle anyway and you are a 2-1 faavorite).
That being said, this is why as the stack size goes up in relation to the money already in the pot it makes moving in less correct (or even incorrect) because the "dead" money (some of which was at one time yours) is no longer enough to offset the price you need to get on the hand. This is why I said if I we both had 2-3K I would dnot be so likely to play the hand this way
Also remember there is a reaosnable chance that this person will fold 10's throughs Q's. Why? Because he is looking at this hand the same way you are, except his second raise he does not need a hand as strong as you needed for your third raise. Where we are saying that he may have 10's through AA, or AK-- and AA, and KK are unlikely because of our holding. When we raise, he has to put us on AK, AA, KK, or QQ--with QQ less likely becuase of his holding. Now he is faced with a real problem. If we have AA, or KK he is a BIG DOG--bigger then we would be with AK to his KK (if he had it). Thus, unless he knows we have precisly AK he really should NOT call because he is not getting 4.5-1. At that point the distribution of hands we may have compared to his QQ makes his folding and calling the bet a very close decision.
I think he would be likely to call with QQ here but even if he ever folds we are picking up free equity. But, he may fold 10-10 or JJ which is to our advantage. When we call we have put ourselves in a position of 1/3 of the time winning what is already in, and 2/3 losing it. We were getting nowhere near that on a call.
I hope this better explained my position. Dont get me wring, I dont really even like AK in PL or NL, but when the stacks are this small in comparision to the chips already in the pot, I think it has to all go in now.
Hi Bob,
In pot limit players often call with a big pair, hoping to make the second raise. That makes this situation even worse than it would be in no limit. He may be "restealing," but you'd have to have a good read to put $550 at risk. He may also have AK or AQs or QQ or JJ, but them's the breaks. You don't want to be against QQ anyway as you aren't anywhere near even money: you will fold when he bets the flop that misses you. I would fold.
I'll put in the first and sometimes the second big raise with AK, but not the third. It is an overrated hand in pot and no limit.
Matt
n/t
I would call the 175, and raise 275.
thus we may get it all-in now, or he may muck, I don't bet the pot because I want him to call. If he does call, it's then harder for him to release later.
remember we have put him on an underpair, so we are trying to get all we can out of him. Nevermind that he might make a set. Jim
Heads up I'd rather call and check-raise the flop with those stack sizes. The third player makes the choice harder. If he still looks interested, I might raise $175 to get him out but the reraiser to follow. Sound reasonable to you?
in original post, the limper folded after big bet was called, so I forgot about him when I answered you post about AA or KK.
I still like a raise here rather than flat call especially now that 3rd man is in. Let's raise to get him out,etc. Jim
Hi Matt. I was hoping you would provide your thoughts.
"What would do have done with KK or AA?"
With one limper calling my $50. bet, I am sure I would have reviewed the situation and then reraised the pot. Out of position with a third party, I prefer to see the flop headsup. If the limper wants to play, he has to put it all in.
Now, if it only involved the raiser in the cutoff headsup? Different situation. He has about $600 left. I likely review the situation and flat call his raise. Whatever the flop I check. If he bets, I checkraise the max.
If he checks behind me on the flop, unless it is coordinated, suited or otherwise dangerous, I check again.
Now the second check may seem dangerous but he was the type of player who would have bet it if he had a big pair or caught any part of the flop. Yes, I am willing to risk giving a free card here because I want him committed. As I said earlier, he was the type who could get away from QQ, but he also played strong if he sensed any weakness. The second check can get him to make a play whereas he may otherwise make a good decision and muck. Make sense?
Bob
You should have folded preflop or MAYBE re-raised the pot. But I lean heavily towards folding. Your opponent most obviously has a pair. He has the best hand and you are drawing to beat him. His pair is obviously fairly big or he'd probably take the flop and hope to make a set against an ace. He may even have AA or KK.
I think calling big bets with AK from out of position is a losing play in big bet poker. The reason is that you will lose the hand 90% of the time when you miss. You have to check and fold. Sometimes you can bet out but unless you know the player, it's very risky. Sometimes you lose even when you hit.
In this particular case, a call is even worse because your call does not close the betting. There is an early position player between you and the raiser.
Also, even though your opponent may have a big stack, flopping an A or K against a smaller pair is not a good way to get his stack. You don't actually have much implied odds to go for your 6 outs because when the ace comes, you are NOT getting paid for it. Usually.
natedogg
Where do you learn all this from Nate? Your advice is amazing.
Miles...So What?
was not sure if you agree with nate or not????? Jim
I think it's pretty clear he thinks I'm crazy. :)
But I'd like to know which part of my post he thinks is wrong:
1. Calling a big bet out of position with AK is a losing play
2. The raiser obviously has a pair.
3. Calling is even worse if it doesn't close the betting.
4. Considering stack sizes and calculating implied odds is worthless if you want to beat a pair with AK since you won't get paid off when you hit.
natedogg
I played in the same game, but I'm not sure if I was at the table the same time as you as I don't recall this hand. When I played, the British guy was in the 8 seat. I was in the 5 seat wearing a dark grey ball cap and sporting about a 6 day beard.
I thought the British guy was a pretty tough read, not to mention annoying with his incessant yapping.
$5-5 pot limit hold em at Binion's the Friday before the big event this year. My second pot limit experience, and the biggest game I'd ever played. Two limpers to me in cutoff with TT. I raise to $40. Both blinds call, as do the limpers. I have $1K; all have me covered. Flop 852 rainbow. Checked to me. I bet $200. SB folds. BB raises $600. Fold to me. All I know about the BB is he just sat down and he looks like he came to gamble.
What do you do?
first, I wish the guy in BB hadn't joined the game!
I don't like it at all, but decide he is playing position, so I just move in and cross my fingers!
If I must rebuy after this hand, I get out twice as much because it likes like a battle. lol Jim
on the lighter side....
a person should be committed after he plays poker about the sixth time...that's enough to show he is crazy! Jim
n/t
As David Sklansky says, it's best to assume your unknown opponents play badly until you are shown otherwise. I've found that in limit, this means they play too loose and you can call their raises more easily. In PL/NL it's almost the opposite.
A weak player will rarely make a big bet in PL/NL on a bluff. To bluff a preflop raiser from out of position takes a certain kind of balls, and skill, that bad players generally don't have. He can beat TT. Your whole stack is at stake. Fold and wait until you get a line on his play.
He may be a bad enough player that he's making this move with only an eight, but if that's the case, you'll get his money soon enough. But what can you really beat here? You can beat 8x, you can beat 99, and you can beat A high. That's pretty much it. Dump it.
natedogg
If I had a 9, I woulda CR. Slip your stack in here man, you have an over pair. Don't be pushed around like a baby. Why play TT if you are going to fold to a board of undercards? Agree the CR is scary, but you could have easily missed on that flop with a preflop raising hand..eg AK, AQ.
Miles...So What. As a great man once said "life's too short to play limit poker".
natedogg is too tight. you have the best hand. raiser has two overcards and position.
in P/P you must make calls like this. by folding these hands you will give away more $$ (what you would have won) than what you will save.
I am so sure of this, I am willing to bet all of YOUR money! Jim
As for me being too tight, PL hold'em is a game that is basically designed to let you rape people who can't let go of big pairs. All good PL players know this. And TT is not even a big pair. Against an unknown player, you are crazy to commit your whole stack with TT. Would you do it preflop? Then why would you do it post flop when you're in worse shape? The tactic of not letting go of an overpair after the flop is a LIMIT tactic. Playing too tight after the flop can kill you in limit hold'em, so an overpair is generally a through ticket. In PL, you need to play LOOSER preflop and TIGHTER post flop. You are basically waiting to double up against a player who will put his whole stack in after the flop with only a TT overpair.
You said: you have the best hand. raiser has two overcards and position.
Wow, I've known limit players who put every preflop raiser on a big ace and act accordingly, but I've never heard of PL/NL players who put every on-the-flop check-raiser on a big unpaired ace. Good luck with that. Also, you didn't read the hand closely. The raiser does NOT have position.
You also said: in P/P you must make calls like this. by folding these hands you will give away more $$ (what you would have won) than what you will save.
Since most of your profit in big bet hold'em comes from knowing the player, I totally disagree that you must make calls like this. You can play TT for HUGE profit against the right player. Against certain players, you have to lay down QQ preflop for one raise. If you don't know who it is you're up against, you should not blindly dump your stuck off on a hand like TT. Against the right player, yes, you have to commit. But against an unknown player, no way. I think those who say to commit here are forgetting that Matt's opponent is unknown, a brand new player in the game.
In that situation, bide your time. Otherwise, you might get trapped for your whole stack with a very mediocre holding like TT.
natedogg
Nate you are right about me being wrong on the position thing and that changes it all for me
much wisdom in your posts...but I have many years of canceled checks to prove my experience!!!!
keep up the good work, Jim
No, Natedogg is right, and you clearly have not idea what is going, since you can't keep the position straight.
I folded.
Alex was vehemently opposed to that fold. He said if the guy calls the $200 he's committing to calling me down for the remainder and therefore may well push all in without having a great hand, hoping to get me off AK or an overpair, which I have represented. That was his key point: a big bet does not necessarily mean a big hand.
Tommy wouldn't give a firm opinion, only saying that Alex has a much bigger bankroll and so has a lot more room to play a high variance game.
Over the next hour the guy did the same thing 6-7 times, eventually getting clipped down to the felt.
I hate to be an ass but . .. This is a close call. You dont have much in the wya of chips. If you had 3K in chips this is an easy laydown. With 1K you are right him calling 200m eans the rest is going in on the turn anyway, so he may as well pop you here.
Still I think you need to lay this down. You can beat a straight draw, A-8, or 99. If this is what he has you will get his money soon enough. Your overpair is illusory. He could easily have JJ. Now what?
Think of it this way: If you have 10-10 and the flop comes 9 high, yes you have an overpair, but you cant beat any other overpair. So what is he moving with? Top pair top kicker? Easy muck.
In your case, you probabloy have to look him up with AA, KK, or MAYBE QQ--anything else has got to hit the muck.
You may lose your stack here with AA, but at least you can beat a few more hands that he is raising with.
With 1K you are right him calling 200 means the rest is going in on the turn anyway, so he may as well pop you here.
I don't understand this reasoning. Why does an out of position call here commit him to the pot on a turn he doesn't like? Are there no hands he'd call the flop and check the turn?
Fat-Charlie
Sure. But if the chances of my pushing all-in on the turn with overcards is greater than a third, he's pot-stuck and so might as well not give me the draw with the pot that big. Plus (and more important) it's unlikely I've got anything better than AA and many players will lay down even that, let alone TT.
If I hadn't raised pre-flop, it's a whole different ball game. No regrets there though: I wanted that pot bigger to improve the odds of getting it all in should I hit the set.
So, because he might go to war with an unfamiliar player on meager values because that unfamiliar player might choose to go to war on meager values you should go to war with an unfamiliar player on meager values.
I guess my inexperience is showing. I'm too chicken for this play. Don't most steals happen when the oposition shows weakness? Aren't you playing him for trying to re-steal from a stranger?
Fat-Charlie
Fat-Charlie, I think you are exactly right. In my experience, in big bet poker it simply doesn't pay to assume that the average player is aggressive and willing to push marginal hands.
It costs you relatively little to simply wait and find out. It can cost you your whole stack (and subsequent stacks) to gamble and play marginal hands with someone who may or may not be playing that way. I strongly advocate scoping out a player's style before assuming he will play marginal hands strongly.
In the above example, look at the surface of what's going on. One player is holding TT and is expected to commit the remaining 80% of his stack with an unimproved middle pair against an unknown player, AFTER THE FLOP. There are so many ways he can be losing it's sick. There's only two ways he can be winning: the player is on a bluff or the player is overplaying a crappy top pair.
There are very few big bet hold'em experts who will advocate committing your whole stack with an unimproved TT at ANYTIME unless you are very shortstacked.
natedogg
Thanx Natedogg,
Your posts always seem well reasoned to me. I've only played NL at the 1-2 blind level, and even there I don't see players commiting themselves to the pot without a hand, a good draw, or an excellent bluffing situation.
Fat-Charlie
Five handed PLH with ten and quarter blinds. The game since it became short has gotten pretty tight. I am in the small blind and all pass to me with KQo. I call the extra $15, perhaps my first mistake. The big blind raises the pot $100 and I call. We each have around $1500. The flop comes K 3 6 rainbow. I check and the button checks. The turn brings a Ten, still with no flush draw. I bet $200. The button hesitates briefly and raises another $600. The button is a solid player who rarely gets of line, but who does have some degree of larceny. What is my play? Results to follow.
Bruce
I would probably lay it down at this point. I have the feeling his flop check behind me was a trap. He knows I would likely check fold the flop for a pot sized bet. He knows i would probably bet a weak K or AT on the turn....so he could dominate me with his KK, AA or AK. Some degree of larceny also means some degree of deception. Hmm....on second thought that feeling could be gas...nevermind. Hehe.
= )
Isn't this line of play simply giving up the pot to anyone but a complete wimp? You aren't even picking off bluffs induced by checking the flop and turn.
This player was described as not getting out of line very often. Why didn't we bet the pot with top pair good kicker and watch his reaction? He might try and play us off the pot reading us for only one pair, but he might not; we could have hit a small set.
Fat-Charlie
First, I am a mid limit 30-60 to 80-160 player, with good results. I entered the NL game at Lucky Chances (second time ever at no limit), after a marathon 40-80 session (+2000). Anyways I was going to play for an hour. On my last hand, on the button (pre-determined last hand, had to go and new time was due after this hand), UTG limped in for 40, two players call behind, I am on button with Qs6s, I call 40 and hope blinds muck or just call, they muck. Flop comes AsKsQc, first to act bets out 200, second player mucks, to my right calls $200, I ponder and call $200 (pot now 800). I have 3000 in front of me, first player to act has 1200, and player to my right has 3000. Turn comes 8s, (nut flush), checked to me, what to do? Other info, I looked like a rookie in the game to other players, but I had bet out at three pots and was up 1000K in game, none of my previous bet outs (200 to 400) had been called. We don't need to discuss the merits of starting with Qs6s, obviously not +EV hand. I put player 1 on Ace rag suited, and unsure about player to my right. Also, game had only been going for an hour, but at least 3 all in plays have been made with calls, players not bashful or fearful of losing $.
make a pot size bet. time to go home. smaller bet may be more apt to worry them, thus they may call bigger bet thinking you are betting some other hand.
whatever they do is OK, just don't decide to stick around a little longer, too many times I have been sorry I didn't go ahead and leave. Jim
In my opinion A nice bet on the flop would be a good idea here. You have position and a nut flush draw. The Q pair is also some insurance. Maybe bet the size of the pot, if you get 2 folds great you did not have a made hand yet. If you get 2 callers also great, you have many draws to the nuts and position. If you get raised allin also ok, you have an easy call with many outs.
If someone has a set, they would think they have 10 outs. You have a Q so they only have 9 outs...
36:10 pot odds for 10 outs. (not considering being paid off on the river)
If you had 9 outs you would need 37:10...
The person who bet $200 on the flop could have anything from top pair to a straight... and maybe a weaker flush. If he has a straight or top pair he is drawing dead.
The caller in the middle could have a similar range of hands...
I would likely bet enough to give a set pot odds to call: 36:10 --> 800:222... bet about $250 at the pot and try to get them to come. They are likely drawing dead or very slim (2 pair have 4 outs). They may interpret this bet as a steal, or they may fold. You have great position here because betting $250 looks like a cheap steal attempt from the button.
Derrick
Well, I ended up betting $400, half the pot size, and both threw away with little hesitation, thus either reading me very well or they had weak hands, or they just made the right play. Anyways won $650 and left up approx 1500 in an hour, and made a small mark in their memory bank (I ended up showing the Qs6s after they folded). I don't like the option of betting the flop when someone comes in for 200 and is called in front of me. If you do come in on the flop I would think an oversized bet 800-1000 dollars is best option and hope for no call. If just double to 400, and someone with AKo or AQo might go all in and then I would probably fold hand. Anyways, thanks for the responses, I think I played it okay, was wondering if a check on the turn or smaller enticing bet was a better play. Cam
Why show the hand? Now they know they made the correct decision in mucking to your bet. Sure if playing Q6s is a one time thing they may think you play any 2 suited but I would rather just keep'em guessing.
Ken Poklitar
Hi Cam,
Tough question!
In these situations with a big stack to protect, you only want to bet if you're bluffing or have a monster. With the monster and $760 in the pot, you are going to bet. You want to bet as much as they'll call but enough to make the draws not worth it. You also want to give them the opportunity to go broke.
Anybody feel strongly about the best bet? For me it depends very heavily on the opponents and how much chip-moving I've been doing.
$760 is a nice pot. If you've been moving chips and the opponents are inexperienced and a little stuck or recently bullied, why not go all in? It'll look like a steal with a draw or a small flush or a lesser hand. They won't put you on the nuts unless your image is really tight. Also, you won't have to sweat the all-in call when a pair hits the board and can go home with a clear conscience and a nice head of righteous indignation if you lose.
If you bet less, will you fold if the board pairs and the player with $3K goes all in? For how much vs. what pot size? You are very likely to pot-stick yourself with your turn bet. If you bet much more than $1K the pot'll be laying you 3:1 or better on the river: that's tough to fold.
You may do better with your usual bet if there's a smaller flush or even a slaphappy set out there waiting to pounce, or just two pair waiting to call. For me that's a bit less than the pot, about $580, which will entice the check-raise and commit the $1200 stack to fold or go all-in, plus it lets the $3K stack get squirrly if the $1200 stack folds, plus 78% of the time you still have the nuts on the river and can bet accordingly. If they just call, though, they're not calling $2,400 more on the river.
If the $3K stack is someone like Bobby Hoff or Sam, I bet big, like $1200, and commit to the river call.
Ray (and everyone else), how much do you vary your play here?
Matt
I woul doverbet the pot, and just take it. I probably bet 1000. If someone makes a bad call with 2 pair or a set well thats fine. If I take the pot thats fine too.
Interestingly the odds are pretty bad for a set to fill up here. On that board with a bet and 2 calls (including you) it is highly likely that more than 1 of the cards needed to fill up is gone--you have a queen but someone else could easily have a K, or an A. Unless the first guy bet with a straight, and the second called with a set fearing a straight. Still I think a set would raise for fear of another straight card or a flush card coming off.
I just want the pot here.
this response may get shredded, but here it goes anyway. with only 240 invested and two people to act in front of you (one with a big stack) shouldn't the option of checking this hand come into play. if someone flopped top or middle set it would be a tough fold to anything but an all in bet on the turn and you very well might induce a semi-bluff or give someone a chance to partiallly catch up to your hand and commit themselves to this pot. you would be looking for another straight card or a preferially a spade, hoping that one of the players has Js10? or a similar hand would fire out on the river and greatly increase the size of this pot, one in which you would still have the nuts, and a very easy decision to make at this point with a better chance of getting you raise called. if the board pairs it is an easy laydown against even moderately aggresive betting on the river. i don't like checking in no limit but this seems to be a spot that would allow for a bigger payoff and less potential damage to your stack if all goes well. just an idea that i thought deserved some attetion. J.Brown
i dont like giving free cards. but here i guess you arent playing very aggressive so they peg you for having something when you bet. these are good players there. so in this instance a check maybe right and hope someone bluffs into you or makes a bet with a weaker hand to try to suck up a call. even if the board pairs you must pay off this bet unles its from a passive player. if no one bets you must pick a number that may get some action and bet that much.
I have been playing pot limit for around six months now. I seem to have the most difficulty playing draws correctly. I think a lot of that has to do with my background as a limit player and trying to successfully make the transition. Anyway we're playing a half hold-em, half Omaha game and it's now the Omaha portion. The blinds are ten and fifteen and this hand has a live thirty dollar straddle. There are three limpers and I call on the button with Ac 4c Kh Th. Both blinds call and we see the flop seven handed.
The flop comes Ah 9h 2c.
The straddler bets $175 and everyone folds to me. I call. The small blind checkraises and makes it an additional $800. The straddler goes all in for another $450. I have around $1500 and the small blind has me covered. The small blind is an aggressive, tough pot limit player.
What is my best course of action now? I have nut flush draw, a backdoor flush draw, and top pair (for whatever that's worth). Should I have played my hand more aggressively on the flop?
Thanks for your input and results to follow.
Bruce
Well let's see,
I am not an Omaha player but AK is a raisin' hand in HE so I am pretty sure you should have raised pre-flop and drive out blinds who might have small pairs (99 or 22 in this case). Seems you are up against a made hand boyo and they are going to charge the max knowing full well they are a fave to fill or quad. OTOH you have many (9 to be exact) ways to make your flush (a nutter at that). Pot odds here on the flop aer 1010/800 call and you are better than a 2:
Well let's see,
I am not an Omaha player but AK is a raisin' hand in HE so I am pretty sure you should have raised pre-flop and drive out blinds who might have small pairs (99 or 22 in this case). Seems you are up against a made hand boyo and they are going to charge the max knowing full well they are a fave to fill or quad. OTOH you have many (9 to be exact) ways to make your flush (a nutter at that). Pot odds here on the flop are 1010/800 call and you are better than a 2:1 to make your flush and you are holding an ace which takes away an out for pushy.
I would go all in and hold my breath.
Joe
I am going to look at pot odds a bit different from above. After the raise of 800 and the all-call of 450, there is 1950 in the pot before you act.
if you move in with your 1500
so the 1950 in pot now plus the big raiser will put in 700 more to match you totals 2650 you will win if you make the flush
thus it's 2650 to win with your 1500
your opponent has a set, so you must flush to win
pot odds do justify going for it if you can afford to take the chance.
right now you can muck and loose 200 which you have in the pot-- 0r go for the gold
to me it all depends on being able to afford the gamble --for me, I would have to wait for a better place or time. good luck, Jim
this is card reading fellas.if you read them for trips then you play for it all. if you put one of them on a draw with you ,you fold.
Ray,
Easier said than done. One guy I had no doubt was on trips, my oppponent in the SB. But the all in fellow I really had no idea what he had. He was playing with a small stack, was stuck pretty good, and was playing most hands. It really made getting a read on him pretty difficult to say the least.
Bruce
well then did anyone hesitate bfore folding as there was a large field of players. if not that means no one had a flush draw so your hand is a little extra alive. you can always get some clue as to what a player may have and use that to add to or subtract from your chances, as you dont have to know for sure what he has just whether you think he is more likely to be going in a certain direction. add it all up and guess and go.
xx
Ray
Why would you go all in here against a known set and fold against a draw?
Dino.
Basically if one of the players is on a draw as well (maybe a hand like kqjt, with qhjh) then that player is holding cars that you want to hit the board. A wuick pass with my odds calculator suggest that against trips 9s and trip 2s you have around 37% equity, enough to call (high variance but small +EV), but against trips 9s and a weak h flush & straight draw you are down to around 30%, and you can't justify the call.
Iain:
Right on the point!
I am sure Ray will be proud of you.
Ivan
1-2 blinds most people have $250-500 i'm on the button w/77 2 limpers to me i make it $10 to go blinds fold other players call flop comes 8d 7d 2c
action goes check , next player bets $50
what are the best options against an aggressive player that is prob trying to buy the pot
The real problem here is that even though the aggressive player might not have that much one of the players could be on a big draw to beat you given that the flop containing an 89 could easily hit a limping hand big...
I think the best play here is to play it fast and not give the straight or flush draw odds to call there is 83 in the pot with the bet so a raise of 100-150 seems good. Hopefully one of them hit a decent piece of the flop and didn't improve to beat you
What's the smaller stack size?
You don't want to disrupt the guy's bluffing, but the board's too coordinated to get fancy. There are too many cards that leave you wondering.
With a short stack of $250, I'd push all in. If you both have $500, you can still push all in occasionally if the guy has the ability to call down the draw hand you're representing with one pair. Otherwise I'd definitely bet more than the pot, something like raising $120.
even though there are outs against your set, I would not play the hand as other two posters have said.
a set is a hand that you generally can make some $$ with, and I would try to do that here. if you flat call you risk only 60 against a chance to make more that that. let's call, see what the turn brings AND see what the bettor does next.
odds greatly favor that turn card will Not be a scare card & if not he may bet at you again. whatever he bets, let's flat call again and let him draw because the odds still favor our set etc,etc
yes we are taking a chance of a draw out--but remember he may not even have a draw--perhaps he started on a steal & can't stop--he may think you are on the draw-- there are lots of reasons to think that we may be able to get ALL of his chips here. lol Jim
In what casinos is 80-160 posted regularly? I know Bellagio has it, but how often? How about LA? thanks in advance
Commerce everyday. I'm not sure how regular it is at Bellagio.
actually the game at the commerce isn't running during the week, it was on saturday though...
Who played this hand more poorly? Unfortunately me or my opponent. The game is seven handed after the live one quit after making a big score. We are playing with ten and quarter blinds and after taking a short break I post in the cutoff seat for $35. All pass to me and I make it $75 with A4o half expecting to pickup the blinds. Unfortunately the button and BB both call. The flop comes Q72 with two diamonds. The BB checks and I bet $100 hoping to pickup the pot without a batttle. The button, whoops, calls and the BB folds. At this point I pretty much am done with my hand. The Four of diamonds comes on the turn making a possible flush. I check. I know I have two red cards, but I am not sure if I have the Ace of diamonds or not and I don't want to all the sudden look before acting. I would say 99% of the time I know exactly what my hand is, but for whatever reason tonight I was distracted momentarily. My opponent bets $300. I look at my hand and I do have the Ace of diamonds. I briefly pause and decide to call. The river brings a black Four and I now have triplicates. My opponent bets $1000 and I immeadiately call. He turns over two red Jacks.
If my opponent had reraised BTF I more than likely would have folded either BTF or definetely on the flop. So by him not raising he cost himself the pot and he lost a big stack of chips. Secondly on the river I think he has very little to gain by betting. If I call almost any hand that I call with will beat him. He knows I play tightly and I probably won't call with a medium sized pocket pair. Also his bet on the river from my perspective from watching his play seemed to be disproportianetly large. I really did feel like he was trying to buy the pot. Had he made a real hand he would have bet much smaller hoping I would call.
As far as how I played the hand, I certainly played very poorly on fourth street. I had the nut flush draw, but I checked, and then I called a bet when I really wasn't getting the correct price, although it was pretty close epecially if you factor in implied odds. It's interesting however that by playing the hand passively I wound up winning a much bigger pot, which I think is the most interesting thing about this hand. If I make a pot sized bet I doubt my opponent will call on the turn with an overcard and a Jack high flush draw. However, by me checking and calling, I now am forced to make a hand, whereas by betting I win the pot uncontested.
Comments appreciated
Bruce
PreFlop: ok nothing special here. You may have the best hand here, so a raise is ok.
235 in pot
Flop: So the flop is uncoordinated baloney. You throw a bet out there, again not too bad, a little agressive but a half pot size bet is about the right amount to take a shot at winning it.
435 in pot
Turn: Ok this is where it gets interesting. A quick note first of all, you know you have A4o, and they are both red and the 4d is on the board. You should know that you have the Ad regardless by simple logic. This is in fact where the REAL problem is. Ok so you know this, I won't belabor the point.
At this point you are getting 735-300 on your call or about 2.5-1. Lets be generous and give you 2 4's, 3 A's, and 9 diamonds for 14 outs, or a 1/3.5 chance of winning (approximately). The diamonds of course are your only clean outs, and if there are 4 diamonds on board, you may not get very much in the way of implied odds unless your opponent also has a big diamond. So, really I think calling here is no good at all; betting is ok, and so is a big checkraise semibluff. At this point, I think that even if diamonds are your only out (as in if he has a flush already), you still have 7 outs to the nuts, for a 1/6.5 chance of hitting on the river to win, and it will be hard for him to call a huge checkraise bet on the turn without the nuts (it would be helpful to know if the Qd is on the board, as you raised preflop and he called, indicating high card power on both of your parts, so its less likely he or you have a made flush on the turn if the Qd is not available for your hands; I hope what I mean here is clear). So anyways, even if he has a made flush here, you can still hit the river, and there is certainly a reasonable chance he will fold (unless he has the K-high flush, and even there its not impossible). The more I think about it, the more I like the big checkraise semibluff.
Turn 1035 in pot
River: Im not sure his bet is as bad as you think. Say you had AsQs here looking at the flush on board and he bets 1000. Can you call? Or say you have two black aces? Can you call? How about AdQh? Its very hard. He plays it very aggressive and bets 1000 to win 1035. He took a shot and it didn't work.
I'd also be very careful with the statement "By playing it passively I won a large pot"; you won a large pot by getting very lucky on the river. Personally, I'd rather make the pot sized bet on the turn and win it uncontested (although I realize you couldn't have known at the time that it would work). I think the best play was to shower the table with chips on the turn checkraise and win the pot right there (as it would have turned out; I'd expect the play to work about half the time, and another 1/6th of the time, you will hit on the river anyways to win, making it, I would guess, profitable).
in answer to your question.....YOU did.
agreeing with above post....looks like most of time he did what he should, and most of time you did not.
I agree with most of your analyses, but I still think his big bet on the river was a bad play. If I had a pair of Queen's (with a a good kicker) or better I would have never checked the turn. So when I call on the turn I am more than likely from his perspective on a draw. A seemingly brick Four comes on the end, no reason for him to be worried. What can I possibly call on the river with that he is able to beat. Am I going to call with Ace high or a medium sized pocket pair? No way. What does he gain by betting on the river? Very little in my oppinion. Had I bet the turn and then checked the river a big bet might make me lay down the best hand. Plus I had been playing with my opponent for the better part of three days. It was very unusual for him to make such a large bet. When he made his river bet it raised my suspicions. With a complete hand I doubt he would have made such a big bet. I really thought he was trying to buy the pot. Based on previous play in these type of situations he would have made a smaller bet hoping to get paid off. All in all I would have to say my play on the turn was rather poor, but sometimes it is better to be lucky than good.
Bruce
"If I had a pair of Queen's (with a a good kicker) or better I would have never checked the turn."
Really?
Maybe this is one of the play the player things, but in the NL game I occasionally play, if half the players call a pot sized bet on the flop, they're probably ahead but don't like their hand, or they're on some big draw.
Admittedly the bet was smaller so someone might have less, but the draw got there. I would consider betting the turn with just top pair, but I think it's a mistake to automatically bet into a player with position on you when the flushing card comes if all you have is top pair.
Top pair plus nut flush draw, big hand. Of course, that's not what you had, but still. I don't think that the other player can put you on less than top pair with any assurance. Though of course he did call with less than top pair.
I'm going to stop babbling and hit post and hope it makes sense.
- target
I don't think the river bet, per se, is a bad play. The bad play is his (apparently) noticeable betting patterns that allow you to put him on a hand. Are you saying that if he had bet, say, $300, you would have folded because it would be the kind of bet he would make with a made flush? Lets say the river is the 2 of spades. Would you still call his $1000 with a pair of 4's because his bet is not in proportion to what he would usually bet with a made hand?
I'm also a bit surprised that you don't go into more detail in trying to put him on a hand. Just your comment "on the flop, when he calls, I'm done with the hand". Why? At this stage of the game, I have trouble putting him on anything but a flush draw, and your pair of 4's may actually be the best hand right now! If a non-diamond comes on the turn, I'd say a bet is mandatory to try to win the pot.
I guess I never answered the original question. I suspect he played it worse, as he was just passively calling you with second pair. If I were you, I might start wondering exactly how he managed to call me on the Q-high flop with pocket jacks after I raised preflop and if he had some kind of tell on me. What hand is he putting YOU on? AK with the Ad? If thats the case, why is he letting you off cheap on the flop and giving you a chance to spike the turn? I'm surprised that neither of you seem to be trying to figure out what the other person has.
"Its better to be lucky than good" - in the short term, maybe.
I think Dave's post above is excellent.
I also would not post late in a 7 handed game. I think this is a modest error, unless yuo have a huge edge in the game.
you are paying $35 for 4 hands, or $9 a hand. If you wait and post, you only pay $5 a hand.
esp. if the pot is raked, this has to be impossible to overcome. Just a thought.
Dan Z.
First of all I guarantee bruce didnt even take time to put this guy on a hand on the river, his chips went flying in immediately. I don't mind the other fellows bet on the end, you sound like a very predictable player. Maybe he was trying to make it look like a bluff. Who knows you might have even gotten enough sack to call him with a middle pair. As you said " I would never check top pair on the turn". One hand doesn't prove much but he did outplay you here. What were the chances you held a Queen or a four? Not likely in mine or his estimation.
JIM
His bet is more then that. It is not what hands that would call that he could beat, but what hands that beat his that would fold. Bigger pocket pair (to a paired board, with a 3 flush), or counterfitted 2 pair etc . . . That is why his bet was fine. By betting he can fold if you raise, if he checks he probably calls your bet anyway.
All I am saying is the jacks had position and could almost be positive his opponent did not have a flush, overpair or pair of queens. I like his bet
PLO 10 and 15 blinds nine handed game. One limper and I limp on the cutoff with Ac4cQsJs. Button makes it $40 to go. This is a pretty typical raise in this game and certainly doesn't mean the raiser has a huge hand. Both blinds call and we see the flop of:
9h Tc 3h five handed.
It's checked to the raiser who bets $175. The small blind checkraises and makes it an additional $800. The small blind is by far the best player in the club and is a world class pot limit player. I fear I am up against a flush draw although I do have a backdoor flush draw and reluctantly fold. The button subsequently moves all in on the flop for another $800 plus another $1000.
Button flopped a set of Tens and world class player had Jh 8H 7x blank. The turn made a flush and the board did not pair on the end.
Obviously from my perspective I was not getting a sufficient price to call on the flop. What do you think about the world class player checkraising from the small blind and essentially eliminating all opposition? He certainly has a big draw and headsup he is a favorite. But what happens if someone calls his raise besides the button. It certainly makes his draw a whole lot more skinny. If there is an additonal player he is quite possibly up against the nut flush draw and he has a whole lot less outs. The main plus to him raising is if he eliminates a Queen high or King high flush draw. What does everyone think about this play?
Bruce
Seems to me this is a great play and shows why this guy is world class. Let's look at his hand...he's got an open-ended straight flush and a 13-out straight(although only 7 are to the nuts). It's pretty obvious the button has a set when he moves in, so the small blind has 13 straight outs(again, only 7 to the nuts) and 8 flush outs, still good odds to win the pot. As to his check-raise, it's beautiful. By raising pot, he's trying to eliminate all straight/flush draws(and hopefully picking up the pot right there). A lone flush or straight draw won't be able to call the $800...they're just not getting odds. Anyway, I'm still pretty new to PLO, so I'm not sure that this is the correct play to make, but it seems good to me.
spanQy
do they figure pot limit in some new fashion, or did I miss something.....
blinds 10 7 15 plus 3 players each add 40 to pot for a total of 145 preflop
first bet after flop is 175??? OK, we will let that one go, but then we have 145 plus 175 bet plus 175 call for a total of 495...how can he raise 800 if it's pot limit????
when I get answer to this puzzle, then I can better judge the play
I don't mean to be picky...just want to understand. Jim
Jim -
5 seeing the flop @ 40 each = 200.
Button bets 175 making pot 375. SB calls 175 making a pot of 550, which he then raises. I think button must have bet the pot of 200 and then the SB's raise was then 600. Either than or they were doing some round to the next hundred on the bet. Either way, the button bet the pot and SB check-raised the pot.
I think you're missing the whole point of this post. I try to present the details as accurately and succintly as I can. The bottum line is the SB made a pot sized check-raise. I appologize if the exact numbers are off by a little, but the basic ideas remain unchanged.
Bruce
The bet makes it difficult for any flush draw, straight draw, or set less than 10's to call. If he can get all flush and straight draws to fold, he is close enough to 50% against any sets that it would be a good bet.
I calculate that the better is at a slight disadvantage against a set and at a big disadvantage against a set with a higher flush or straight draw. As it turns out, he ran into a set of 10's which made a percentage advantaged raise against him, but lucked out.
This is a very good play on the SB's part because he does not know that the original bettor has a set. He is trying to get the field to fold before he has to hit his monster draw
If you assume all of the SB's outs are good he can have any of the following combinations fall on the turn and river:
| 4 6's + card not pairing the board |
| 3 7's + card not pairing the board |
| 3 8's + card not pairing the board |
| 4 Q's + card not pairing the board |
| Ah,2h,4h,5h,Kh + blank... | ,
So, he had 19 outs followed by a blank or vice versa.
I think you are very close to 50/50 against a set IF all your outs are good.
I think the check raise is to try and get the field to fold. You do not know your draws are good, and you are DRAWING.
I like the play because there is a good chance the original bet of $200 on the flop may have been an attempt at the pot with just an overpair or with 2 pair... the monster draw may not even be up against a set.
However, there are many hands that make the monster draw a dog. For instance what if the $200 bet came from a hand like T J Q K. 7 of your straight outs are no good, but you only gain the T of hearts on the flop... and you are still behind.
What if he had better hearts and a pair... or 2 pair, etc.
Still a great play by the SB. His bet will get better straight draws and flush draws to fold, and leave him in a situation where he will often win uncontested... Or he will often draw out on someone.
Just My Thoughts,
Derrick
I think it is a great play because he has to good of a hand to muck. This then follows to the next point, what happens if he hits the flush on the turn? He has no idea if it is good, but he probably has to call an all in, or move in himself. If he hits the straight he may not get called, even by the set on the turn.
By moving all in here he gets himself paid when he hits, and he occasionally gets smaller sets then 10's to fold, which he is happy about. He also wants to get naked flush, and naked straight draws to fold. Yes if the button has a set and a nut flush draw then he is in trouble, but sometimes you have to take some kind of chances.
In this situation the SB had about $5000 and the button had around $1500 to $2000. How does the SB play the hand if both stacks have, let's say around $5000 to $6000? Do you want to risk moving all in with a big draw but still not a big favorite? If you are the SB do you go ahead and muck? I don't think I want to risk $6000 in a coin flip type situation.
Bruce
If both players had 6K, yes the hand may play differently. Still it all may go in. If you had the set of 10's you would surely get it in, and you are putting in 6K on a toss up, same with the Straight-Flush draw. I would likely get it all in (hoping the button folds a smaller set), and if he called all in, I would propose some sort of deal--perhaps just splitting up the pot. If I think the player will do a deal in an even money case, then I actually have incentive to move in from the SB. If he has a smaller set he may fold, and if he has top set he may deal anyway. This is a question of bankroll and varience considerations. It is tough to fold wither hand here.
I think it is a very foolish fold for the hand with top set, but not so much for the SB. There are a lot of hands that dominate the SB's hand, but none that dominate top set. I have played against people that will call your check raise with just the nut flush draw... thus counterfitting many of your outs. These people will also call with a good wrap and no other outs... even against a twotone board...
However, I still think the SB played well... as did the person with top set... As did the person who posted this (and folded on the flop)... Someone has to win.
We have all been beaten by much worse hands then what the SB had.
Just my thoughts.
Derrick
There are 17 straight outs, nine flush outs (less 2 overlaps and two which would pair the board) for a total of 22 outs to make a straight or flush. You have roughly 74% chance of making a straight or flush with two cards coming. However, the board will pair roughly 40% of the time.
I'm making a trip to San Francisco to play NL/PL HE in mid-August. Can someone post the game schedules for the Lucky Chances and Artichoke Joe's games. Plus any other "interesting" games. Thanks in advance. Jason Viriyayuthakorn
Jason,we play 10/10/20 no-limit@LC. Game starts wed morn and plays into the night. restarts on friday morn and sometimes plays into saturday. they have a cheap tourn at artichoke's on sunday night with a 2/3/5 nl game following tourn. be glad to see you. carl
See you in a bit. Jason PS Sorry to hear about Sam.
average stack size in these two games?
I'm sure the 10-10-20 is sky high, what about the AJ's?
The AJ's game stack sizes climb throughout the evening.
When the game starts (generally around 8), most people buy in for 300 or so, and a couple people buy in for 5 or 6.
Later on, lots of the players like to keep enough money on the table to get back to even in one double up, and the better players like to cover them, so the big stacks get up to a couple grand or more.
The game also gets tougher as the night goes on, I've noticed. The bad players bust out or tighten up, and the better player gradually filter in.
Hope this helps, target
What nights do they play at AJ's
As I believe someone posted above, sunday nights.
There's a $49 NL tournament at 6:45, and the live game starts at around 8, generally. It's sort of unpredictable exactly what time it starts, but between 7:30 and 9:00 for the most part.
- target
Hello fellow 2+2ers!,
I come to the wise board for some advice. I was playing in my normal 20-40 game at my favorite casino. I was playing for about 4 hours and the game started to break. I was up about a dime and said " well lets take a shot at the pot limit."
The blinds were 10-20. I sit down with the minimum buy in $500 (REALLY SHORT STACKED) First smart or dumb? The average stack is about $4000.
The game is short handed 5 players. I finally look down and see 2 red aces...Yippie! I am utg so I make it $60 to go. Good or Bad? All call. The flop comes 2c-as-6h. Beautiful flop. I bet $150 and get called in two places. I am thinking to myself..."what do they have that they can call with?" I figure one for a middle ace...A-9--A-j the other I have no clue. The turn comes 4c I bet out all in 290. They both call! The river comes 10c. I proudly turn over my set. And the first player proudly turns over....get this....9-5 of clubs! Help!!! What do I do? Was there anyway to win that pot? Anything I can do? Or just chalk it up as a tough beat and move on?
Thank you all in advance for your comments.
The pot is $300.00 on the flop and you bet $150.00 and called by 2 callers. There is now $750.00 in the pot. The turn is the 4C and you bet $290.00. If you had a club draw on the turn you need about 4:1 to call... which you are getting... especially after the one guy makes the over call. How the guy got to the turn... I have no idea. He obviously has no respect for money.
If you had more money maybe they don't come.
Derrick
if the cards are exactly as you said id watch closely their play as ive never seen anyone other than a fool call with 9,5 in a spot like that where its sure you have something and are going all the way. where was this.
Buy in for more chips and give yourself a reasonable chance to win. People will take a shot at you when you are shortstacked esp. when they know you are inexperienced.. Basically what you are doing with a short stack is playing tournament style poker. You should have bet the pot on the flop and the turn. If they beat you, them are the breaks. Alternatively with AA UTG, you can limp and then hopefully get a chance to make a pot sized reraise.
Bruce
P/L HE &Omaha game 5-5-10 full table
2 or 3 players really in mood to gamble, thus game becomes loose, very aggresive.
Joe is possibly best player here & very aggresive, cards gods not on his side tonight so he is stuck & the 2,000 he bought few hands ago is now down to 1,600.
This hand Joe is UTG and makes it 25 to go saying "Let's build a pot" which usually means he has an ace & a face and wants bigger pot now so he can make big bet if he connects with flop.
The 2 players between Joe and I both call. My hand is the type you don't want to play often, but do need to play from time to time because it helps keep your stack from getting too big!! AND just as Joe was cold, I was hot--streaking, so why not! So I say to Joe "lets do build a pot" and make it 50 to go.
Two players on my left call the 50 & it's back to Joe who hesitates ever so slightly before he calls. Oh, oh, I smell a rat. He has a big pair, could be AA, and he thought about raising.
Flop comes A 5 7 no suit.
Joe is 1st to act, pot is 245, and he bets only 150, now I am sure he has AA and wants callers. But I am also sure that I am going to get his 1,600 because I played 6s 8s giving me an open end draw, so since Joe is cold & I am hot, I raise him back 150 to tell him I have an ace. Other two players fold and Joe flat calls.
BINGO - the turn is a beautiful 9.
Now just the two of us with Joe to act first. I can read his mind - the 5-7-9 mean nothing to him, he knows I have AK or AQ and wants to make a big bet but not run me out - so he bets 500 into the 700 pot, I hesitate than flat call.
River is a Q.
I flinch enough to tell Joe that hit me and now he puts me on AQ, a hand he thinks I can't lay down. He moves in the balance of his stack & I call.
Joe orders more chips and leaves the table for a while. I don't blame him.
Jim
Reason why you won't find me in a pot limit game for sometime:
I have yet to grasp the important concept of not letting my stack get too large!
hi!, KMA....there a basically three reasons for not wanting your stack to get too big.....but, I'm only going to tell you one......at X point a big stack may cause you to think about leaving the game, sometimes this may even occur before you get you play out, and whoever heard of leaving a game early, much less leaving with a win! very bad,
Very nice hand. This is why I love pot limit as opposed to no limit. You can see the flop relatively cheap with suited connectors and small pairs, trying to score a big pot.
PG
Well played. Joe comitted a multitude of errors and gave you every opportunity to take his chips. Firstly, BTF he had the chance to make a big reraise after you raised which he failed to do. He could have shut out the opposition, but he neglected to do so. I don't know if you would have played your hand facing a pot sized reraise if the two players on your right both folded. Then on the flop he makes another bonehead play betting half the pot with five opponents when he flops a set of Aces. When an Ace flops there has to be a straight draw present. Why give your opposition a cheap price to crack your set of Aces. In this situation it would not have made any difference. I'm sure if he bet the pot you are going to call, but still it's a poor play on his part. I would have liked to have seen the expression on his face when you turned your hand over.
Bruce
High Stakes Hold'em
August 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo