![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
40-80 Holdem
It was getting late at night and the game became shorthanded with 5 players. Everyone passes to me and I raise with ATo from the SB. The BB, probably the best player at the table, calls. We have played several hundred hours together.
The flop brings 883r. I bet and he calls.
A Two comes on the turn. There are no flush draws. I bet and he raises. I reraise. I can not put him on an Eight, and I sense weakness on his part and I also feel like he might be putting a move on me.
A Three comes on the river. I bet and he calls. He turns over T2o and wins the pot.
Perhaps I am missing something, but when my opponent turned over his hand I was shocked. Shorthanded calling a raise BTF with position and Ten high is perhaps OK. But calling a bet on the flop really confuses me. Am I missing something? Do I have a tell or a leak which I am not aware of? I really felt by reraising on the turn I could get him off of his hand. I realize a pair headsup is pretty strong but nevertheless I felt like he was weak. I have a tight image and I was trying to take advantage of it.
Please help me.
Bruce
I would have folded to his raise on the turn. If he raised the turn with no pair, or a worse ace-high, gawd love him. Take it.
I don't fault your reraise. You obviously had a good feel for what was going on, and you acted accordingly. Good for you.
But!
You still could have saved a bet by checking the river and folding if he bet. It's hard to imagine a hand he could hold where he would raise the turn, call your reraise, then call on the river, and not beat ace-high. Likewise, it's hard to imagine a hand that beats your ace-high that he would fold on the river, especially after the frenzied momentum.
Tommy
You are in small blind with ATo. Everyone folds. The button raises. Let's say the button is an average player, who will raise with a wide variety of hands when everyone has folded to him. You know that if you just call, that the big blind will call with a wide variety of hands (5 to 1 odds), but will fold unless he's got a strong hand.
Is it worthwhile to reraise in this spot with ATo? If so, what is the worst hand you would reraise with?
I like to make the aggressive play here against the button, re-raise him, bounce out the big blind and play "fast" at him here. I'm assuming this is like 50-100 at least. put pressure on him and use your early position to steal the pot. I use this move against weaker more aggresive stealers on the button and works well. re-raise him pre flop and check raise the flop no matter what hits. they will feel compelled to bet the flop after you check. Most of the tim the button folds here.If he calls and the flop did not hit you, you know your behind, if no straight or flush becomes evident on the turn come out firing. you will win 4 out of 5 hands playing fast in theis situation, the only time is if you are up against a "monster". very likely will the button fold to the bet on the turn with anything less than a medium strong hand.
40-80 Hold-em
I am in the BB with Q9s. The live one in early position raises and two equally live ones call. I call. We see the flop 4 handed.
The flop comes Q T 9 rainbow.
I lead, the initial raiser raises, and the last player to act three bets it. I call and initial raiser calls.
The turn brings a 4 with no flush draws. Check, check, bet. We both call. A 4 comes on the end. We all check. I have the best hand.
Comments welcome.
Bruce
I don't think you ever played tight on this hand.
Before the flop, I think you played too losely. I'd fold before the flop.
Then I think you played scared. I'd put in the max on the flop and bet the turn in the dark.
I'll be glad to elaborate if someone can help . . .
This is my first time to 2+2. I wrote a much longer reply about this hand and it got lost when I got bumped offline. So I rewrote the reply elsewheres, and came back to 2+2 to copy and paste my reply into the 'message' box. It wouldn't show up. Anyone suggestions?
Thanks,
Tommy
Firstly, let me congratulate you on finding superlive players who want to play 100-200. All the superlive ones near me have already lost their money.
Your bet on the flop has to have been a semibluff. In a potlimit game, where the guy can raise you enough that your nut draw suddenly becomes a crying call, it is a very dangerous bet. You want him to fold, and definitely don't want him to raise. If his major problem is betting too much, I'd check and call him. Wait until you see another heart before putting your whole stack in the middle.
Your question comes down to stack sizes. If you could go all-in with your 1.86 to 1 draw, you'd be happy. On the other hand, if you each had ten thousand in front of you, you might easily have implied odds to call. But in the situation you describe, you now have to fold. Even if he has a pair of twos, he has you beaten. His raise has to mean *something*.
Your reraise on the flop was highly incorrect, in my opinion. Since you can't raise any more after then, your decision must be made on a purely mathematical basis. I assume that he'll almost certainly not fold if you reraise, and that therefore your hand had no bluff potential.
Sounds a bit like you were the live one. I'm not trying to be sarcastic; it's just that he played this hand perfectly and you sure didn't.
Richard Cavell
I disagree. He had no choice but to either reraise or fold. If he waits till the turn ("waiting till he sees another heart") before betting, he is now in the middle of the river without a paddle. Assuming he misses his draw here, he will have to fold, as a pot-size bet no longer gives him the proper price to draw to his flush. The correct play here, as in NL, is to raise (what for him was) all-in on the flop, giving him what might be 15 outs twice to win (of course, since he was up against a straight, he only had 9 outs).
I am now on roll posting hands. Penn St. is getting drilled and the game is boring to watch so here goes.
I was watching this hand from the rail and this among other factors motivated me to sit down and play the other day.
They are playing hold-em with 10 and 25 blinds. The game is eight handed. Everyone limps and the button raises the pot $200. Guess what happens? Dah, everyone calls so there is now $1600 in the pot.
The flop comes Jh 9h 4c
Everyone checks to the button. This is the same maniac from the previous two posts. He bets $1600. The small blind calls and raises him his remaining $2000. The button calls and he is almost all in. Everyone else has folded.
The final board is:
Jh 9h 4c Qs 4s
The small blind has QhTh. The button has AcJh.
The button of course throws his cards and rants and raves about how unlucky he was. He of course did not realize he was a dog on the flop.
Comments welcome.
Bruce
QTh v AcJd w/board of Jh9h4c: AcJd ~1.69-1 dog.
QTh v AJc w/board of Jh9h4c: AJc ~1.53-1 dog.
Reality v An 8-handed 10-25 PLHE game where everyone limps pre-flop then calls when the button makes it $200 to go: Reality a ~1/0-1 favorite.
Bruce seems like an intelligent person with no hidden agenda, but this game cannot exist.
Where is this game?
I think what you're trying to say is that the math works out this way... let's assume the 18 outs out of the 45 cards left... but there's two cards left to see so the AJ has to dodge the 27/45 odds twice... that means he's got a (27/45)^2 or 729/2025 odds of winning... he's not only a dog but he's actually a pretty big one... even without the over card he's still a dog with a (30/45)^2 or 4/9 odds of winning... the trick is that there's TWO cards coming...
having said this in a limit game he's still a big favorite because of the way the game is played (i.e. he will get to make a betting decision after each of the next two cards... thereby limiting his exposure as well as breaking the odds up into two greater than 50/50 decisions) the Q-10 was right to force him all in here so that he didn't have that luxury...
40-80 Hold-em. This is one of the most interesting hands I have seen in a while. I was not involved in the hand, but I will try to post it as accurately as possible.
Nine handed a little tighter than the norm. Relatively live early player raises and there are two caller and both blinds call.
Flop comes 568 rainbow. Early raiser bets and button calls. Button has been playing all night and he is playing poorly with frequent bluffs and overplays. The small blind calls. An eight comes on the turn. Check, bet, call, call.
River brings another eight. Check, check, bet, and the small blind and initial raiser both call.
Better mucks his hand and the SB and initial raiser both have pocket Sevens.
Should the small blind have checkraised on the river? Would he have won the pot if he did so?
Bruce
The flop aggresor would probably bet an overpair on the river for he surely can't fear quads on the river given that nobody raised the turn. Thus, sb is probably justified in thinking that the flop aggressor has just given up his overcards semibluff. [Note that if I was the flop aggressor here, I may check and call one bet wih Ace high. Sb probably knows that].
Sb probably also knows that a raise from him is not going to knock out the flop aggressor if he in fact does have an overpair which he checked for some reason.
If I were the sb, I would think that this is the most likely scenario:
- flop aggressor missed his overcards draw. He will likely throw away if I call but may overcall if I call. He will certainly throw away his overcards if I raise. So, I don't want to raise.
- If flop aggressor has an overpair, he ain't going nowhere. So, I will not raise.
- Button is probably on a pure bluff so he can't call my raise.
- Who knows...maybe button slowplayed a hand like 86 on the turn and now made quads so I will not raise.
All of it adds up to a 'I'll just call' move by sb.
I think skp pretty much captured the SB's thinking here. No, wait a minute, I KNOW he did. I was the SB. :-)
Lemme first just get all the ducks in a row. Though I could be wrong, I recall the hand slightly differently. I *think there was an earlier raiser, a solid player, then the player I ended up splitting the pot with called cold, then the button called. Also, I *think it was the 6 that paired twice, so that at the river the board read 5-6-8--6--6. At any rate, this only affects the question marginally. I think the preflop raiser checked and folded, or folded to the flop aggressor's raise on the flop.
Once the third six came, and the flop aggressor checked (I was concerned about an eight, a full house with something like 65s, or an overpair -- well, almost specifically 99, till then.) I knew I was highly likely to have him beat. But I was a little concerned about the often weird playing button. I couldn't rule out that he had called with an eight, a pair of eights, or even a six on the turn
Of course, if I'd been able to put the flop aggressor specifically on the other two sevens, I would have been much more likely to raise, but I thought I had him beat. Well, actually, I'm not sure I thought it through that clearly at the time, but I can't argue myself out of calling when I think about it now. :-/
I doubt it. A checkraise by a quiet player when trips appear on the end looks a little forced. It's pretty hard to convince people that there's better than a 90% chance you have quads.
I think the situation would be different if the small blind had originally bet and been raised by the preflop aggressor. This would look more like "it has to be quads," which is what he'd need to convey.
I played a hand very close to this a few months ago, where I took the lead from an aggressive blind on an AQ flop when I had KQ. I bet again when the ace paired on the turn (stupidly on inertia), and again when an ace hit the river giving me the likely best full house (value, aha!). He checkraised, I folded. Then I thought: but what would he do if had had a queen and correctly put me on one too?
ooooh...You cannot beat with KQ on a board of AAAQx if you intend on folding to a raise. If you did, the bet would serve no real useful purpose....but I think you know that.
I like your bet on the turn when the Ace paired as this makes it less likely that your opponent has an Ace. I also don't mind your bet on the end if you think your opponent is capable of calling with a lesser hand or perhaps dropping a Queen (which is highly unlikely mind you). I hate your fold to the raise at the end....if you held an Ace and the board was AAQxA, I am sure that you would not try for a checkraise b/c (a) you would think that the other guy may not bet unless he was on a complete bluff and (b) you would want to avoid looking goofy if he checks back.
The second factor is more important to players' decisions than what most people think.
skp:
Yeah, folding was dumb. Call it the "same hand follies." The problem was that I believed he'd call me with a bunch of hands I could beat but would never check-raise me with a worse hand. I still believe it. The queen thing occurred to me about the time I clicked "fold."
With pocket kings, 3 aces on board, and an opponent that won't check-raise bluff but will pay you off with lower pairs, which are more likely under the circumstances than the case ace, betting after he checks and folding if he check-raises seems mandatory. I was thinking something like that.
With a queen he might think: another ace? no way he's got quads. We're gonna split. Hey, I wonder if I can knock him off a split?
Still, you'd think he'd have the decency to be worried enough to just call, especially when I think of the times that I've called only because there were trips on board, and regretted it.
I disagree he wouldn't ever check-raise with quads. With an ace in his hand and three on board and me having been doing all the betting he'll know that something's funny. If he checks and I've got a pair, I might be dumb enough to think it's good enough to bet (after all, that's what I thought). And if I'm not paired, I might take another shot at this really scary board, not knowing when to quit. But I agree that he wouldn't want to look dumb by having me show it down and would probably fire off a bet most times.
Your point about players being scared of looking goofy is well taken. Poker is, after all, by and large an ego game more than a money game. Most people don't play poker for the money because most people can't play poker for the money.
- Chris
Blinds are 2 and 5 with a full table. I limp in with pocket aces. Several other players limp in behind me. The big blind makes a maximum raise. I reraise the max. All of the limpers fold to the big blind who raises the max. Now it is decision time. There is around $600.00 to $800.00 in the pot. I have around $700.00 left. Should I put the rest of my money in the pot before the flop and try to win it now or wait until after the flop and gamble that he does not flop a set???
At this point I put him on KK or AK. What else could he possibly have.
I will post my decision and results later.
Put EVERYTHING in. This is the perfect spot for having AA.
This hand occurred in a 1-3 pot limit game. I had been watching the game (standing behind the hero of this hand) for a while and it was pretty tight. Preflop raises were getting respect, but over the past 5 hands (estimating) prior to this hand, the game had started to loosen up. Anyway, here is the hand.
I was standing behind a player who was UTG and I see that he has JJ. He raises the pot to $7, and four players call, which I found rather surprising.
The flop comes: 5 3 2 rainbow and he bets the pot, which the dealer says is $40, everyone folds to the button who raises it $60 more. The button is a solid player (from talks I had with some players after the hand). Our hero thinks for a few minutes and then reraises all in. At the beginning of the hand he had approximately $160.
UTG flips his hand and the button doesn't, but anounces that he is drawing nearly dead. The turn comes down 8s to put a 2 flush on board. Finally the river is flipped and it is the 6c. The button now triumphantly turns his hand over to claim the pot with pocket 6's.
I ask our hero about the hand afterwards (he is a friend of mine) and this is his assessment. He said that it was his first time playing pot limit and he didn't have a good read on the button except that he was decent. Our hero had been in the game for about a half hour and had played one hand, the button had played around five and won a couple with no showdown. Before the flop he thought the game was tight and the raise might get it head's up or 3 way in which case he likes his hand. He doesn't like having five way action on the flop but he says he liked the flop even though a straight was possible.
He bets the pot to punish any straight draws and is actually hoping to pick up the pot right there. When the button reraises $60 he has to think about what he could have. He rules out 64 right away, also rules out A4s although it was a possibility, he just didn't think this player would have called the preflop raise (maybe he would with the position and pot odds and implied odds). So that leaves an overpair or a set or a hand that he has beat (since he does not rule out the possibility of the button making a play). He says he rules out QQ, KK, and AA because he was pretty sure that the button would reraise preflop because of the buttons play on his previous hands. So, now he thinks the button may have a set, but is unsure enough that he thinks reraising is the best play. He thinks calling the raise and leaving himself about $40 in chips isn't really worth it, because he is either a huge favorite or a huge underdog. I agree with this.
So I want to know what you experts think of this hand and the play of our hero. I really don't know what to make of it. A4s was possible in which case our hero is drawing dead. A set was possible in which case our hero is a 10.5:1 dog. An overpair to his J's was possible although I think it was unlikely, but again our hero would be about a 10.5:1 (if my math is correct) dog.
Please, all comments are welcome and appreciated.
The flop raise was not big eneough to find out very much so it is hard to put anyone on a hand. The bad play (if there was one) was by the button who must have put hero on a Big Ace - he was in deed drawing thin - 2 outs for the set and 4 for the 4.
Before the flop, with four players in, the button can call with a lot of hands--especially A4s and even 64s if he knows his players and thinks someone might be in there with A4. I don't know the stack sizes of all the players, so it's hard to say.
After the flop, Hero makes his move: nothing wrong with that, Button sees a scare flop, correctly puts Hero on big cards, counts six outs and makes his move: nothing wrong with that, either. Hero smells the steal, and goes all in. OK. Now the button calls??? Could he have Hero on AK? Hero is all in. If they both have 1000 left in from of them, the Button call makes more sense. If he hits, especially a 4, he's going to be rich. But here, Button's call might be a little questionable. He might have made Hero as a limit player over playing AK...
Your hero is on the right track. In these types of games, you have to make decisions which could cost you money at times. I think he played it right.
Another take:
In small PL games, once an early raise is called, many players like to come in hoping to double through with garbage that hits the flop. For this reason, I like to limp with TT-QQ in early position hoping to hit a set like any small pair. It's decision time if I'm raised behind, but since I'm in early position, my tendancies are toward folding (occasionally raising, never calling). I would especially consider raising when I'm UTG, since it really looks like the classic limp-reraise with AA scenario.
Given all this, a raise with JJ before the flop is fine, but the situation you describe is just the type I want to avoid: a good looking flop for my hand, but I really don't know where I am. If the hero had only limped, the pot would have been much smaller, it would have been easier to get away from the hand for less money, even though the button was making a play on the flop.
If I'm in this situation on the flop after the button raises, it really feels like a small favorite/big dog situation, so I'm likely to fold. How do you know he doesn't have A4, 64, or even two pair? The hero had the right read this time and got unlucky, but I try to avoid these situations all together.
Moral: This is one of those situations where you were outplayed and should fold the best hand. (IMO)
-Oz-
This hand i played in a Potlimit Omaha Game in Austria during the Bregenz Poker Championship in Austria.
I had about 2500 $ in Front of me and get dealt KsKc5s2c three limpers in front of me i raise the Pot, Button reraises the Pot again, one loose caller i decide to call too.
Pot is now about 1000 $.
Flop comes AcKh6h. Loose caller checks, I dont hesitate to bet the pot 1000 $ and the Reraiser thinks and puts the Grand into the pot which is exactly allin for him.
The loose caller folds.
Okay i was now sure that the reraiser has aces, i think he hesitated a little because of the flush and straight draws out there.
So i am dead to the fourth King.
Turn 4 d River 2 h.
Okay we flipped our hands and really he had aces with the lone Ah and no draw possibilities.
I lost this big Pot.
So the table discussed i should have known that he had aces because of the reraise.
I think it is stupid to only reraise with aces.
And i surely did not want to give him a freecard to outdraw me.
Later
bootsy
Preflop, I would just limp. Unlike other games, very little value is gained by preflop raises in Omaha High. Hands run close in value, and narrowing the field can cost you a lot of profit if you knock out someone who would have made a second-best hand and given your nut set/full a lot of action. The goal should be to keep inferior hands in preflop. And you open yourself to reraises from later position players, which can isolate you out of position with a lot of money in the pot; the worst possible situation even with a premium hand. Your hand is not as good as it looks, since the four cards don't work together well. If you flop a set, the flush draws are almost certainly worthless, and if you flop a nut flush draw, the ace on board negates the value of your kings.
When the button committed a large fraction of his stack with the reraise, you almost have to assume he has aces. When the money is deeper, some players will reraise in position with a lot of hands if they think they can get it heads-up. But here, he's committing a fourth of his stack. If he didn't have aces, he would have to think that you probably do, and that you could then put him almost all-in right there as a significant underdog.
This trash shouldnīt have cost you more than 1 big blind.
M.A.
You are right thats what i want to hear ....
9 handed game is cut short to 5 handed, as 4 guys are walking. I am in the small blind with AhTd. Everyone folds to me (the big blind does not chop). The big blind is a fairly loose bb defender, and will call lots of raises (I discussed his behavior in previous posts) even in bad position with hands like JTs and such. I believe he will raise with any pair on the flop or any draw....but may just call with high cards if the flop doesn't hit him.
I raise. He calls.
Flop comes Qs6s2d
I bet, he calls.
Turn is a Tc
I check, he bets, I call.
River is a 3s
I check, he bets, I call.
Please critique the play....remember the description I gave on the player...that is the main reason I played it the way I did (otherwise I would have bet on the turn if I didn't hit, and prepared to fold if he raised).
Mixing up your play is fine esp. against tricky opponents. I can't fault your play. By playing this way you are maximizing your gains and minimizing your losses. If you lead on the turn and are raised, against this opponent you almost have to call. Now that you have a hand on the turn let him bluff away his chips. Heads-up giving your opponent a free card is not as big a concern.
Bruce
9 handed game is cut short to 6 handed, as 3 guys are walking. I am in the big blind with Ac8s...small blind is a loose/aggressive player. Everyone knows (or should know) that I am a tight player...and I have played very few hands.
Everone folds to the sb...he raises. I think he can and will raise with any two cards here. I just call.
Flop comes QsJc2s
He bets, I call.
Turn is a Qc
He bets, I call.
River is a 4s
He checks, I bet...he folds.
Please critique. Please also remember, that I only called him down because he is so aggressive and so loose...and I thought at all times that the A may be good even if it didn't pair.
I like the way you played the hand. Alternatively, raising on the flop and betting the turn and river may get your opponent to lay down a worse hand also. However, I think you bring up a good point. Against this type of player giving up on the flop esp. with position is a poor play even though you have nothing.
Bruce
I was observing the following NL hand in Reno. Labor day week-end. Two players left standing the pot has about 150 as we later found out both were on diamond draw with four diamonds flopping. Flop 7d 3d 6s One player bets out on a draw bluff, $150 other guy calls turn 6d - player bets $150 (he had maybe 600 plus when betting started the passive player had way more maybe about a 800-1000 (he had some bills too) River shit. Guy under the gun bets out again with what he had left (200 or so) The caller thinks for a long while. And reluctantly calls (he had Kd 4d) The agressive guy had Jd 9d No full boat anywhere. I would have scared myself from the boat danger. also No-one had the Ace. Above hand may have had some inconsistencies as I observedit from the outside. If you were there don't jump on me as I think the jest of the hand is shown.
This is a hand I saw in an 80-160 game a while back. (I was not involved in the hand.) It was nothing spectacular really, but was fun to watch and think about.
Very good, successful high limit player ("X") (who was on Daniel Negreanu's rgp list of his top 20 limit hold'em players) opens for a raise one off the button. An unfamiliar but seemingly decent player ("Y") makes it three bets on the button. Others out.
Flop: 9c-6d-4s
X check-raises Y, who calls.
Turn: 7c
X bets. Y calls.
River: Jd
X check-raises Y, who calls.
X wins with 96s.
Y shows AJ.
I'll hold my comments for now. But I should say that I'm not positive that there weren't two of a suit on the flop, with a third of that suit on the turn, and player Y with the ace of that suit. It might be interesting to look at how that would affect the hand in either case.
At any rate comments?
John Feeney -
My comment is that I would like to hear your comments about this hand!
Thanks.
My comments :
The only way this hand is a profitable pre-flop raise, in my mind, is if all of these things are in play :
1. He has a tight image 2. He thinks the blinds are tight 3. He thinks the blinds think he has a tight image 4. He is hoping that if he shows down his hand (or if everyone folds, he can show his hand), that he may get some future action on real hands (I don't think this is generally a good idea, cause I'd raise it with a hand like Q9 in this spot, and I'd be happier to take the blinds than have them call with Q9).
So, it is possible that he thought all the pieces were in play to make it a good raise. (or maybe he was just bored?).
After that, I thought the play was tremendous. The check-raise on the flop versus waiting for a checkraise on the turn, I think are equally viable. But the great play, I thought, was the checkraise on the river....thus hoping the guy hit a J or inducing a bluff from AK, AQ....or a "value bet" from TT.
One of the reasons its hard for me to analyse hands like this one is because I am at home sipping my first cup of morning coffee and the players in question were in the middle of a war. I can't recreate that mindset until after at least three cups. :-)
If this hand were played by typical recreational players in a typical loosish game, we'd probably have plenty to say in critique of both players. But no, we have extra info, that both players are top flight. Funny, how that so drastically changes my thoughts. And it should. The student can't help but wonder what was going on in their well-trained minds.
The only question I would have for either of them concerns the button's call on the turn. Was he planning to pay off with ace-high on the river? If not, then why not muck on the turn?
Tommy
I agree. I don't like X's play pre-flop, but I thought it was very good on the flop and after. However, I agree that Y's play is questionable on the the turn call (after the bet).
I would imagine you'd have to give X credit for a pair or AK, in which case Y is beaten. On the turn, there is now (7.5 sb preflop, 4 sb on the flop and 1 bb on the turn) 6.75 bb...and at most, he has 6 outs....which makes it an evenmoney call (assuming he'll get at least one more bet on the flop if he wins)...but its possible he only has 3 outs or no outs at all...which makes this a fold on the turn, in my mind.
Of course, the only thing I can imagine is if he thought the guy might have tried this play without a pair or an ace.....but that would go beyond the scope of the understanding here without knowing both players and the exact situation (as Tommy mentioned).
Pre-flop, X should not be trying to steal with Nine-Six suited. Stealers will frequently get called and sometimes re-raised by either the button or the blinds with any kind of half-decent holding. X needs some high card strength to making this move not two mediocre suited cards. Y played correctly by 3 betting with AJ since this is a decent holding in a shorthanded situation like this especially against a potential stealer.
The odds were about 28:1 against X flopping two pair, trips, or a full house. X got lucky with a great flop. I think Y should fold when check-raised on the flop having nothing but over cards. Y has no pair, no draw, and no hand. It is highly unlikely that X would check-raise here without a pair. X could even have a better Ace. Y does not have enough outs to merit continuing.
On the turn, Y has a clear fold. His play at this point was pure charity. Like many decent players who face a great player heads-up, Y is overly concerned about being faked out so he continues to dump money in situations where he has virtually no chance of winning. This is how X is able to make more money in these situations then he should. In my $30-$60 game at the Bellagio, X could be Roy Cooke and Y would be a decent playing tourist.
Y can only fold on the flop or 4th if he normally plays in such a way so that X would not check raise him without having ace jack beat.
Are you saying that Y should not be folding if Y plays an aggressive game, and that both Y and X know that Y plays an aggressive game (and that Y knows that X knows this), as well as X's aggressive game also? If that is the case, shouldn't X then stop or limit his checkraise bluffs on Y to a very low rate, since X knows that since Y knows that X knows that Y plays a very aggressive game, that X would make a play that would try to force a hand like AJ to fold, and knowing this, X should know that Y would call him with AJ on the turn....thus then X should not be check-raising bluffing Y on the flop as he did.
Or does that only work if X and Y are both great players? (and maybe in this situation Y is the only great player, so he doesn't need to go another level)
Is it wrong to sometimes play a hand straightforward against a great player?
RZ, your comments and thoughts are always great appreciated and read carefully by me and others. Please comment further!
I think most of what can be said about his hand has been said. Of course if Y did pick up a flush draw on 4, then that erases any question about his call there. But while I don't think he did, I just don't remember.
Not sure what X would say about his hand selection there. Some possible reasons for playing the 96s:
1. 80-160 is actually a little small for X. He usually plays about 200-400 (mix games) or higher. Just plays 80 when his other game isn't there. So, as odd as it sounds at a limit like this, he could have been playing a little sloppily if the limit didn't mean to much to him . But I don't think that was the case. I've played with him a couple of times and he appears to me to focus very intensely when he plays. He seems to be always thinking, and taking his decisions very seriously.
2. He probably did think the blinds were tight. At least I think that would apply to how he saw one of the blinds. I don't recall who the other blind was.
3..Since this was the first time I'd played with Y, I have no idea what X thought of him. Nor do I remember exactly how tight Y was overall. But it's certainly possible that X felt confident of his ability to outplay Y.
Regardless of all that, if X is as good as I *think he may be, then the question is, "Is he giving up much by open raising with a hand like 96s in that spot even if the circumstances were less than ideal?" I think he's probably giving up a bit, but only a bit. I do think he may slightly overestimate his ability relative to others. I suspect that's common among players at that level.
Having only played a bit with X, I'm not sure how I would have played the turn had I been in Y's position. But Jim, I would almost always at least take a card off on the flop when check-raised there. The combined chance that an ace or jack will be good or that ace high is good now, or that X will check the turn merits a call I think. I don't know if X would check-raise there versus Y with something less than AJ (as Ray brings up), so the turn is open to speculation. The call is certainly very iffy against many players, but may not have been in this case. Is that enough "I don't knows?
Like Doc, I really liked X's play after the flop. Some might argue that by betting out on the river (or flop) he might have gotten 3 bets out of Y instead of 2, but my feel for it is that the EV of playing it as he did was greater. As I think of it, maybe the river check-raise would have been even more warranted had the river been one of the three higher cards, but I still thought it was great.
Here's my 2cents. Raising in the cutoff with 96s under the right conditions is OK. Obviously it isn't a routine play, but it's good for your image when you get to show the hand. A lot has to do with how the button and blinds play and how likely they will surrender. The buttons play BTF is pretty routine. On the flop when Y is checkraised I think his call is mandatory considering there is not a card bigger than a Nine. Folding in this situation is a future recipe for disaster. I don't care if he loses the hand. Your more observant opponents will run all over you if you give up so easily. The checkraise by X on the river is nothing short of brilliant.
Bruce
But Bruce who is ever going to know what Y had if he quietly mucks?
Now, now Jim. We've had this debate before about the merits of these type of raises BTF.
Bruce
I need to get this off my chest. Consider the following scenarios if Y chooses to keep playing once he is check-raised on the flop:
Scenario 1: He is drawing dead. This would happen if X has a set. This will occur A% of the time.
Scenario 2: He is drawing near dead needing two runners to win. This was the case on this hand where X had two pair. This will occur B% of the time.
Scenario 3: He is drawing live but the pots odds are not there to play. For example, when X has QQ or A9. He is basically dead to an Ace in one case and dead to a Jack in the other. If X has a bigger Ace than Y is dead to a Jack. This will occur C% of the time.
Scenario 4: He is drawing alive and the pot odds are there to continue playing. This will occur D% of the time.
Scenario 5: He has the best hand. This will occur E% of the time.
Now obviously I don't know what these probabilities are but I would guess that Scenario 1 and 2 (A+B) are probably far greater than Scenario 5 (E). Scenarios 1 and 2 are big money losers especially if Y catches something on the turn that hooks him in to calling bets and raises on the expensive streets. On the other hand, Scenario 5 will win at least 10.5 small bets when his hand happens to hold up but with no pair and no straight or flush draw to speak of he has to be very vulnerable to suckouts. When Scenario 3 occurs he will lose some money having to call turn and river bets in some cases and just turn bets in others. In Scenario 4, he probably realizes a small EV gain by staying rather than folding but 6 outs is a 7:1 shot and he is getting 10.5:1 on his bet. Part of this overlay may be needed to cover redraws.
It just doesn't seem like good poker to keep playing here unless your opponent bets and raises with random cards even after the flop comes.
When X check-raises, Y probably no longer has the best hand. That indeed is quite true. However at this level of play there still is a possibility that X is making a play at Y. We also need to factor in the ramifications of folding after being checkraised in the future. Your more observant and agressive opponents will take notice of this and they will be taking shots at you all night long. I think if you take both of these factors into consideration a call becomes mandatory. On the turn with two overcards and assuming there is no flush draw folding is the best option.
Bruce
Okay, we can make this a mind game. They get to win this battle because Y has nothing to fight with once the flop came. But maybe the next time, Y has a hand and calls when check-raised or even re-raises. If my opponents want to play hands like Nine-Six suited heads-up out of position when I have Ace-Jack offsuit or a hand of similar strength (HPFAP Category IV hand or better) they are welcome to try. But once the flop comes Y knows he is now fighting with a peashooter.
What do you think of Y's call on the turn?
Most typically you'd best fold there (assuming you hadn't picked up more outs), but that's where we don't have enough info in this case. I mean we just don't know the history, if any, betwen the payers, what Y knew about X, and what X knew about Y. It *might have been a good call (as per Ray's comment), more likely, I would guess, it wasn't. (Note: As I write this, something tells me the circumstances for making such calls are more common than they *seem to be as I analyze it. Sometimes I have trouble translating from the feel of actual play to written analysis.)
John,
You wrote: "As I think of it, maybe the river check-raise would have been even more warranted had the river been one of the three higher cards, but I still thought it was great"
The river check raise by X is totally beyond me. How was it great? X has to figure he has shown so much strength that Y will check behind most of the time. Isn't a simple river bet by X the better play? Is the analysis above skewed by results?
Regards,
Rick
Maybe X figures that if the Jack did not help Y, then Y will not call a river bet anyway. However, if the Jack helped Y, then Y will surely bet. Given that Y took all this heat with no hand and caught a miracle card at the river how can he resist betting it? I am just speculating here since this whole line of play is simply beyond me.
That's basically how I see it. Plus the possibility of inducing a bluff, particularly if X knows that Y sees him as quite aggressive and capable of having played the hand the way he did so far with no pair.
In that game some players very routinely check-raise on the flop, even against a 3-bettor, if they think maybe the flop didn't hit the 3-bettor. Preflop reraises often are not given the same respect they are in most (smaller) games. (Understandable, since reraises are much more common in that game.) That would be especially true of a late position reraise of a possible steal raise. So X might know that Y would see him as just putting the heat on, without necessarily having even a pair. At least that's one explanation. Who knows - the reality might just be that X just hoped the jack hit Y, and didn't consider all that other stuff. :)
John,
You posted the above at 4:23 a.m. PST. Are you an early riser these days or are you taking over my title as the forum's primary insomniac?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I have been turning in relatively early since I am often playing in a tough 20/40 at 7:00 a.m. with this new prop job. Sometimes I can get stuck $500 before I have a chance to drink a cup of coffee. Then the game breaks and I might play some 2/4 stud with the house dropping the antes before the hand begins. Despite this, all is well so far. Anyway, gotta go and hopefully I'll get my usual four hours sleep.
Rick -- That was an unusual situation stemming from a long late night session in LA. I can't make it a habit since I'm not in the Young Turks' age bracket, but once in a while...
I am in SB, in the BB is a good player, but who usually defends his BB just a little too frequently, but this is 5 handed.
I have AhQd...everyone folds....I raise. He calls.
Flop is Ac8d3c
I bet, he calls
Turn is a 9s
I check. He bets, I think, I think, I restrain myself from raising....I call.
RIver is a 2s.
I check, he bets. I call.
He turns over Kc6c, missing his club draw.
I'm not sure if I like my play. In particular, the play on the turn makes me wonder if I should have checkraised or bet out. In retrospect, I think I should have bet out, because I don't mind a raise (since it will probably be from just a weaker A) and I definitely don't want to give a free card to a club draw (although he would probably bet it as he did here).
In fact, the more I think about it, I think now that the best actions are 1. bet out, 2. check raise, 3 check call...in that order.
Given that I check/called on the turn, I think it is appropriate to check/raise on the river and either induce a bluff or check/raise for value.
Thoughts please, particularly on the turn.
I'd bet the turn for sure, maybe even in the dark. There's just not enough info to prefer a check-raise attempt over a value bet.
Tommy
Against an aggressive player I would either check on the turn with the intention of checkraising or lead. When I am playing against the same opponents I like to mix up my play and hopefully I avoid becoming too predictable. By leading you still may get two bets in on the turn because he may raise you with his big draw hoping you don't have an Ace. Against a passive player I would bet because he will probably check along with me.
Bruce
5 handed, high limit.
It's a wild shootout, lots of raising, semibluffing, as one would expect since its 5 handed.
I am in SB. everyone folds to the button, he limps (this is very unusual, I note, as he is usually very aggressive, even with crap, but then again, I saw him limp in with T6 one time also).
I have AA. I raise.
BB (a 20/40 player, sure to lose all his money sooner or later) calls. button calls.
FLop comes 669 (no flush draw). I bet, BB calls, button calls. turn is a 2. I bet, BB folds, button raises.
I just call.
River is a 3.
I check, he bets, I call.
He turns over KK.
thoughts?
The way you described him, I'd put him on AA or KK before the flop, possibly QQ or AK, I suppose, but most likely AA or KK. Gawd, I've fallen for that trap so many times that these days I put them on a big pair when they limp like that and stick with it. If I don't hit the flop hard, better than top pair, I'm out. Take it.
With AA I would keep hammering away, possibly stopping if it went to four or five bets on the turn or on the river. He's the one who must fear that I have a six, so if he's willing to put five bets in on one of the later streets, I'd just have to shrug and accept that the preflop read was wrong, and then pay off, and most likely look at a six in his hand.
Tommy
Perhaps you missed a betor two, but I don't know for sure. Had he raised BTF you would be able to play your hand more aggressively. But by him limping it certainly is possible he played a rag like 67. Basically it all depends on your read of him. No real big deal in the overall scheme of things.
Bruce
HE could have limped with pocket nines and flopped a set (full house)?? Maybe you did the right thing:)Depending on whether this guy would have bet a monster straight out like that, would tell you the play.
40-80 five handed game. I am in the SB, everyone else has passed. I have pocket Jacks and I raise. The big blind calls. This is my first time playing with him. He seems to play reasonably well although he appears to be overly aggressive and he has been caught bluffing twice.
The flop comes Q 8 6 rainbow. I bet and he raises. I call. A blank comes on the turn. He bets and I call. A blank comes on the river. He bets and I call. He turns over QTo.
In a shorthanded game with an aggressive player am I locked in with my hand. Should I have folded on the turn or river?
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
I like to think that I routinely save one small bet in spots like this.
For starters, I always reraise the flop and bet the turn. Doubtful he'll fold a hand that has me beat, but at least he's paying the max when he doesn't.
Another purpose is to save that half bet. Let's say he calls my turn bet. Then I check the river, and FOLD if he bets. He might have had me all the way. He might have sucked out. Either way, most players are glad to check behind on the river after all that flurry. If he can still bet, I'm sure he's got me.
Total small-bets-per-player after the flop by calling his raise on the flop and then checkcalling him down: 6
Total small bets as decribed above: 5
Tommy
Against certain players that may be a good strategy, but in So. Cal. against an aggressive opponent what happens when you get 4 bet on the flop. In heads-up play that is a distinct possibility with second pair Ace kicker. Unless you know your opponent you now have to pass and you very well may have the best hand. But, that certainly isn't a bad approach in general.
Bruce
Bruce -- as others have suggested, I think that unless you know this player is very conservative and won't raise you and keep betting here with less than a queen, you have to go to the river. Often, in short handed play, an in-between pair like the JJ you had here is considered a pretty good hand, even worth a check-raise and follow-up bets. Of course it all depends on your opponent and what he thinks of your play, and how he's been playing against you. Yesterday in a short handed LA 80-160 game, I lost a pot when I bet middle pair with A8s, on a flop that was something like K-8-6, got check-raised, called it down and got to look at 99. I hate when that happens!
.
Tommy -- Yes, I agree that that's an approach worth considering, and using, at least against some opps. Just be careful of anyone who may be observant enough to have seen what you're doing, and so learned to bet on the river to steal it from you.
It's also an idea we should keep in mind as something some tough opps may be doing, as my observation is that Tommy is not the only one who uses it, or something similar.
I love shorthanded. I like the way you played your hand. You simply cannot fold this hand at any point with this type of opponent. Additionally, your check call strategy will gain you profit all those times he will bet his bluffs or weaker hands trying to get you to drop. Of course you know all this.
As for folding on the river for one more bet with second pair head to head, I think the question that needs to be asked is whether you prefer diesel or gasoline in them bulldozers. Dropping at this point against an aggressive opponent: Your ship will be flotsam. IMHO.
Good luck.
bruce,
I don't like these laydowns head up. You feel dumb after calling and losing with so few outs but there are so many lesser hands an aggressive opponent will bet that laydowns just have to cost you money. This play hurts your pride more than your wallet (in the long run).
Regards,
Rick
An alternative and much more deceptive method of playing the hand is to not raise in the SB preflop. Since very few players will release their BB against a raise, this play either saves you a half-bet when the flop comes big, keeps you from getting trapped in there, and sets you up nicely when the flop comes to your liking. Conversely, I have no problem with the way you played your hand, although a good read on an opponent could have saved you several bets.
PL O high only, 1 blind for 2. 9 handed, extremly loose table. UTG raises to 4 (doesnīt mean nothing at all),next two players call, I call with Kd Qh Jh 9c. All the other players call too (as expected).
Flop comes Qd Qc Jd. First player (extremly bad) bets pot (=36). He has about 150 before betting, UTG (pre flop raiser, he has about 2000) calls, others fold to me, I raise up to 100 (I got ~1100 before raising), all players fold to the blind und UTG, both of them call.
Turn: Kc.
Check, check, I bet the pot (I know that first player will call me with any hande, even with a flush draw), first player calls all in, UTG raises pot!
When I call this raise Iīm all in. Call or fold?
I will post what happenend afterwards.
Regards
M.A.
Does he HAVE to have KK in order to make this bet? The only reasonable hands he can have here at all are AT or T9 for straight (very unlikely unless he really sucks), JJ (from unlikely to quite likely, depending upon the player), QJ (pretty likely, decided to slowplay flop, and is ignoring the chance that you just beat him), QK (unless he has the J also, he just sucked out a tie), and KK. This latter hand is the only one that is ahead of you, as you win or tie the others. Also note that the only way you lose, other than him having KK, is if he has AQ and catches an A on the river.
Against most players, I would call here. Against a few, I would fold. However, if you didn't have a K in your hand, this would become a clear fold against most players, IMO. Not because you'd lose to KK that much more often, but because you'd lose to KQ quite often. The other question you have to ask here is what is the chance that this guy would call your big raise on the flop with KK and no Q, and what are the chances that he had KKQ?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If a guy hits a one-outer on me after I have invested a significant % of my stack (even in Omaha), I JUST GOTTA SEE IT!!
I rarely have the pleasure of playing with guys so bad/predictable that I can fold here with a clear conscience.
M.A.,
I would put UTG on K's but it's hard to tell without knowledge of these player's. If UTG doesn't have K's then he must have AKQ figuring you only have QJ and he has you. I would definitely CALL by your description of these players.
Paul
ps: probably an A pops and you lose it all!!!!
AKQ is a nice freeroll here, but not enough to justify a fold given the size of the pot in relation to the size of the last bet.
Michael 7,
"I would definitely CALL by your description of these players."
I'm agreeing with you.
paul
I like FossilMan's read on this. I would like to add that there are two straight flush draws on the board. I know a lot of PLO players who love to draw to the Royals. I think you may have a call here.
One thing not yet mentioned is the money. If I understand right, you bet about $300 on the turn, and his check-raise meant you had to call $700 more to get to a showdown, right?
I have no idea what I would do. I'm just wondering if the amount of the call could/would/should affect the decision.
Tommy
Thatīs true. What to do when both players still have a stack worth a full pot sized bet in front of them? (Fortunatly I didnīt have it, since I probably would still sit on the table and think what to do :-) )?
M.A.
I called the bet, being pretty sure, that the best thing happening to me could be a tie. But I still thought, that for 80% he shouldnīt have KK. The hand I feared more was AKQx.
After I put all my money in I asked the other player, if he had KK, and he said yes. Funny thing was, that I wasnīt really upset, not even really disappointed, I just wondered, what he called with. It was KK with 76d, making him a flushdraw on the flop :-).
I was drawing dead, since the player in the blind had the case Q in hand and rivered a full house, when a 5 fell. I almost had to lough out loud, when he shouted "FULL HOUSE", but of course it wasnīt worth anything at all.
I still wonder, whether I played the hand correct. Maybe I made a mistake on the flop and should have raised pot. Itīs possible, that the player with KK would have mucked it, but I had such a stong hand. It was possible that both were drawing dead (Qxxx and JJxx), and in worst scenario the player with the big stack had 3 outs (AA + a straight flush draw or AAKK or something like that). So I thought that a cheap card wouldnīt be so bad. If an A fell, I would have bet and folded, when someone raised me, but the K was really a tough one)
Regards
M.A.
The guy called your bets on the flop with a bad flush draw and a paired board. If he's counting those outs as much of anything, he's a weak player. He should be counting 2 outs, the other kings (he doesn't know you have one of them). With him holding at most 2 outs (like if he had AA), you want him to call your flop bet, and you'd rather he called here than if you had bet more and he (correctly) folded. This was a very profitable situation for you on the flop, and your recurring field was increased significantly (Roy-speak). It's just too bad he caught his 1-outer.
Whether you should have called his big raise depends upon what you know about him. There are few players I would fold against here, and most of the time those players would have shown down KKQx or AAKK, not KK76.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
PLaying a very loose 50/50/50/100 Holdem home game. I'm on the button. 4 limpers to me w/ AA. I raise the blinds and make it 70 to go(10 & 20 dollar blinds). Very loose / plenty aggressive / somewhat tricky weathly pot limit player in SB calls as does one limper.
Flop : 662 SB : bet Limper : call Hero : Raise SB : Re-raise Limper : Call Hero : call
I check and call the SB down to see 65o. Did I cost myself a turn and / or river bet too much?
This game should be incredibly easy to beat. When you have all those loose players in a game with tiny blinds, it's easy for a good player to make a killing. Play tighter than usual. Don't worry if people respect your raises - it looks to me as though they will still try to test you anyway.
You played the hand fine. I would have done exactly the same thing. Most tricky players would not play the hand this way. They would play the flop slowly and then raise you later. Actually, since the betting structure is atypical and the flop bet is the same size as the turn bet, I guess it made little difference. But he could have tried to keep the other limper in the hand longer.
There is one player in my game - he will ALWAYS slow play the flop when he flops trips, so I know that if he bets or raises me he doesn't have it. If he does I won't find out till the turn.
File this bit of info away for later. You have some insight into how this player plays his hands.
In general, though, you can't lay AA down against a player like this if it is heads up. If you do you will become a target and he, and possibly others, will start bluffing at you.
As a last word of advice, play much tighter in this type of game. Play tighter on the flop too since implied odds are reduced from what they would normally be in the more commonly structured games. With the small ante structure and the other loose players this game should be a goldmine if you play tight.
-SmoothB-
I should add something.
You should play tighter in this game. In this type of game I believe that position becomes even more important. With small blinds, it is cheap to limp in, and the implied odds mean that some players will limp in with a few more mediocre hands. There is some merit to this - think about no limit - the implied odds make the difference.
Let's say that you played no limit heads up with an opponent who always got dealt AA, and you knew what he had. Let's say it cost you one penny to see a flop, and Mr. AA couldn't raise preflop.
You would be correct to see every flop, obviously. If you are first to act, always check. If he bets and you have him beat, push all in. You just won enough to make up for all the lost pennies.
Let's say you are last to act. If he bets every time, you push all in when you have a hand and take his money. If he checks to you, bet if you have something or check along and draw for free. In this type of game, you must ALWAYS beat AA. Your information advantage is infinitely valuable.
Let's get back to your game. Since they have greater implied odds, they can limp in with junk somewhat more cheaply because they have the implied odds. So you should only play great hands in good position, and bring it in for a raise when you do. You cut down a lot on their greater implied odds and make them pay to take their trash up against your superior hand.
In this type of game, it might be correct to limp in in late position after many limpers with lesser hands, again because of implied odds. But I don't prescribe to this point of view.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. :)
-SmoothB-
Because of the small blind structure lessor hands can most definitely be played in the back for a single bet. I would play all pocket pairs, most suited connectors including one gappers and perhaps two gappers, and big non-suited connectors. Depending upon the caliber of the opposition I would probably also include Ax, Kx, and maybe even Qx and Jx suited for a single bet.
Bruce
I agree in a game where the blinds are proportionatly less than a "regular structured game" it is advisable to loosen up ala PL - see more flops and out play the opposition post flop.
I'm not so sure about the KQ&Jx plays here I want at least an 8or9>for the X but I get your drift.
When you say you would play lesser hands I hope you are talking about playing them based on your position. If so I totally agree.
Of course, I will not limp in with a piece of cheese. These are button and perhaps cutoff plays.
bruce
Flop : 662 SB : bet Limper : call Hero : Raise SB : Re-raise Limper : Call Hero : call
i think if i had raised going in and had called on the flop like that and got raised and reraised i would fold on the flop unless i knew something here. the stakes are too high for all that action without someone having a six since there are no draws to force. its a good flop for 2 aces but when the action goes as such they go in the can.
I know there are 2 schools of thought regarding games with small blinds/ante structures. I will explain why I think the logical choice is to play tighter, not looser as many recommend.
When you play poker, what are you doing? You are trying to make money - to finish with more money than you started. What are the forces at work here?
Well, some of the dynamics of the game force you to lose money. This is what the blinds are for. You are forced to make losing bets every round. This is an essential part of the game - it creates action, and there would be no game without the antes to struggle over.
There are other forces at work that allow you to win money. And hopefully you will win more than you lose.
To win money, you make some winning bets where you have an advantage. In order to win overall, you must make more winning bets than losing bets.
If you make an adjustment in the game that allows you to make fewer losing bets, you need to make fewer winning bets to still be ahead. You may now be more selective and can focus on bets that have a significant edge, and you don't have to worry about squeezing a few bucks out of marginally profitable hands.
-SmoothB-
I never thought I'd be debating the side of looser play - I am usually considered a tight player BUT in a game like pot limit with baby blinds it is simply silly to tighten up when the ultimate size of the pot is so large and lopsided compared to the pre flop betting.
It is foolish not to be playing potentially monster hands for a small bet when the implied odds are so great. I'm talking about small pairs early and small med connected in mid to late position along with big suited.
I don't know how much PL HE you have played but I used to think just like you until I began playing it (when I could find a game as it is not regurally spread in casinos I frequent).
If you play like you say ultra tight you will be cut up real bad by expert players trapping big hands like the ones you propose to be playing.
Rounder, I could not agree with you more regarding playing in pot limit and no limit games. There are some sessions where I have literally limped in with ANY 2 (reasonable) cards on the button.
But these are games where the implied odds are huge in comparison to the blinds. The type of game that Steve is talking about is really quite different from both no limit and structured limit as most know it.
It is a game where the blind structure is small, but the implied odds are not really that much greater than in regular structured limit play.
In these types of games, what normally happens is that a number of people limp in, and then are faced with a bet on the flop that is quite large in relation to the size of the pot. (Assuming there was no preflop raise.)
If people are playing correctly, they will play very tightly from the flop on. In many cases even great draws become unplayable.
In many of these games, the hands become contested 2 or 3 way AT MOST from the flop on.
Consequently, even 4 flushes and open enders can become unplayable out of position. And it is a rare case where one could conceivably bet these draws.
Large offsuit hands tend to go up in value in these games. In a game like this, you very much want to flop top pair with a good kicker and keep people in drawing against you. Their draws will be marginal at best.
Semibluffs also tend to go up in value because good players will play more tightly - in these cases, it may be profitable to RAISE with good draws in good position if you stand a good chance of making a tight better fold the best hand. But again, the pots are small early in the hand, so you will need to have the flop bettor fold a somewhat larger percentage of the time.
These games without question require more skill than more commonly structured games do, and poor players tend to go broke faster. But I adhere to my theory that tighter play is in order.
Look at it as a tug of war - blinds and losing bets tugging on one side, bets with positive EV on the other.
If the blinds side is weaker, you don't need to have as much force coming from the +EV side to still win.
Furthermore, if your opponents are playing more tightly (as they should) then you aren't getting the odds to play borderline hands.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.
-SmoothB-
The trick to this game isn't playing tighter or looser, it's both!
When you can see the flop for $20, you should do so with any hand that is capable of flopping really big and trapping opponents. This is typically small to medium pairs. It might also include suited connectors and suited Aces.
The other trick is to play super tight, when there has been a raise, or if there is a good chance someone will raise behind you. You can't afford to be playing for full bets or multiple bets preflop with a marginal hand, because there is less blind (dead) money to fight over. Every time you win one of these pots where the blinds have folded to a raise, you're only getting about 1/2 a bet, instead of 1.5 bets, in blind money. That's about a full small bet per pot, which obviously will make a big difference in your average earn.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I suppose that whether to play loose or tight depends on the lineup you are against more than it does in more commonly structured games.
I have played in very tight games like this and it is MISERABLE. The games are not fun because you can't play very many hands. There are no blinds to steal because your raise is large in proportion to what you might win.
Many times semibluffing just won't work because the pots are so small early on that you need your opponent/s to fold at a higher rate. And bets/raises with even good draws often don't have +EV. And if you get caught doing it too often you'll find yourself getting 3 bet trying to contest a (formerly) tiny pot with a draw.
If the game is really LOOSE, you have an extremely profitable game here. Especially if it is loose passive! There is no way you can make as much money in a more commonly structured game than you can in a loose passive game of this nature.
If you did nothing more than play solid and tight in a game like this, I am sure that you could book a win in nearly any session.
These games are enormously profitable if the competition is just right. If the others all play correctly as well, the games are no fun and you'll hardly make a dime.
-SmoothB-
Five handed lively Omaha high pot-limit game with $10 and $15 blinds with a live $30 straddle for this hand. First player to act makes it $100 and everyone calls. I am in the big blind with Ah Qs Js 9h and call. The straddle also calls so there is $500 in the pot.
The flop comes 8 9 T rainbow with one spade. The initial raiser bets $400 and everyone passes. I call and the straddle passes. I have another $4000 and my opponent has another $1500 left. My opponent is an action player who for the session was stuck big time and has been on borderline tilt playing very aggressively. There is now $1300 in the pot.
On the turn comes a Deuce. There is now a club draw. I check and my opponent bets $600 and I call his raise and reraise another $900. He calls and is now all in.
A Jack comes on the river. My opponent mucks his pocket Tens. I win a $4300 pot.
I am a relatively inexperienced pot-limit Omaha player, but preflop I felt like I had a relatively good starting hand. The game was very lively and several players were on tilt. On the flop I had a straight with a backdoor flush draw. I did not want to commit all my chips until the turn. If the board pairs I can get off my hand. I was not real happy when the turn brought a flush draw, but I really read my opponent for a set or even a straight and since he was relatively short stacked moving in seemed like the best play.
Comments are appreciated.
Bruce
Bruce,
I think the call preflop given the other players being very aggressive is fine.
On the flop Iīd either bet out and hope that everybody folds or check call just as you did. This might depend on the other players, and how deep they are.
What I definitly do not like is the checkraise on the turn. In Omaha, the nuts on the flop is by far no guarantee, that they will be good on the river. So bet out pot on the turn. Your opponent should have to make the decission whether he wants to gamble with his set or not. When he bets and gets checkraised, heīs in way too deep in the pot, so he has to call. When he has a set and picked up a flushdraw on the turn, you arenīt much of a favorite.
Anyway, nice pot.
Regards
M.A.
Whether you should bet on the turn depends almost totally on whether he will bet without the nuts. If he often will the check raise is fine.
My opponent did not have a flush draw on the turn. All he had was top set. I felt strongly by me checking he would bet and I could get him all in. If he had the same size stack as me becuause of the flush draw I probably would not have moved him all in and I would have played my hand more carefully. He could have been freerolling on me.
bruce
Last night myself and two of my friends were playing some shorthanded limit Hold 'em. My stack had been shortened a bit by a few beats, so I suggested we switch to Pot Limit, which I think suits me better.
Anyway, once we got started playing, the following question came up: When you want to come over the top of someone, how much can you reraise? When you're opening, the limit is obvious - it's the size of the pot. When reraising, however, it's a little different. We saw three alternatives. One, you can consider the amount of the pot prior to your opponent's raise your limit. Two, you can consider your limit the size of the pot when it gets to you (I though this the most likely choice). Three, you can consider the pot size after you've called your opponent's bet your limit (e.g. your opponent raises $5 on a $10 pot, you call the $5 for a total of $20 in the pot and reraise him $20).
Which of these three is the correct way to play? I apologize if this is a really stupid question.
When coming over the top, you call your opponents raise...then count the pot. From there you can go ahead and raise at least what the in itial raiser, raised.
Hope this helps.
Adam.
When coming over the top, you call your opponents raise...then count the pot. From there you can go ahead and raise at least what the in intial raiser raised, and up to the amount of the pot.
Hope this helps.
Adam.
If a player bets the pot, mulitply that amount times four. That is your maximum raise.
I use this sometimes when it isn't the maximum raise, just because I like to play fast, and not have to think about the amounts. Let's say there is $120 in the pot and a player bets $100. If I want to raise, I'll just put out $400. That is less the maximum I could have bet. But it's fast.
Tommy
I also wanted to be able to make raises fast. Thanks for your advice.
There is another way of betting that has different names but is (was) sometimes called pot limit. Let's say there are 4 players and 25$ in the pot. Player A can and does bet 25$. It is 25$ to player B. The amount he has to call is the amount he can raise. He calls 25$ and raises 25$. It's 50$ to player C. Player C can call and raise 50$ making it 100$ to Player D. He calls 100$ and raises 100$ makinf it 175$ to Player A.
In certain situations, this is a good system to use. It makes the game go faster when dealing with neophyte or onerous bettors. Continual counting of the pot is not required. It can also give the fish a feeling that they have a better chance to draw out, although this isn't always the case.
I haven't seen a game spread this way in years, but it's not a bad system. I don't think you will ever see it described as "Pot Limit" in a public card room, if you ever see it at all.
We've also made changes to the game at Foxwoods to make it easier than adding up the pot, we switched to NO LIMIT! It is obviously easier to do the math, and some of the beginners like it, because they've played in the NL tourney but have never played PL before.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As a fish^h^h^h^h newbie, I must say this is true. I played in this game a few weeks ago at Fossilman's suggestion and had a good time. It'll probably be easier to deal with PL now that the "Wow that's a big bet" jitters are out of the way somewhat having played NL.
Pre flop - you may raise the pot (say the blinds are 5-10) $30 to $60 dollars. That is considering the sb as a full bet add your $10 call now you may bet the pot.
Pot is $60 - player makes it $60 to go for a $120 pot you may call his $60 and raise $180. Get it.
Your third method is the only that I've seen in a public cardroom.
Conceptually, the person raising first puts in the amount to make the call, and can then raise up the total amount that is then in the pot.
As an aside, once at FW we were playing, and this guy just wouldn't believe that this was the case. Even after 9 players, the dealer, the floorman, and the shift supervisor, all told him so. Apparently he had played for years in a home game that used a modified system, and he was sure we were trying to screw him (yes, all 12 of us).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
When you're opening, the limit is obvious - it's the size of the pot.
BTW, many pot limit ring games allow you to raise four or five times the big blind before the flop. For example, in a 5 10 game, if you are UTG you can push 50 or 60 into the pot.
First timer to Hollywood Park. MANY things there I like and appreciate, besides the action.
In a 5-5 blind pot limit holdem game, I watched a couple deals get made. Am I a fuddy duddy purist? Does anyone else think that deal-making hurts the game?
A funny story. I was in and out of the game several times. The last time through the game was five handed, with not much money on the table. Everyone was kinda tight, so I was mixing it up.
My opponent on this hand had about $400. I had him covered. I made it $10 UTG with 6-5. Two callers, both blinds folded. Flop came: 8-7-4. Sweet!
I bet $20. Both called. Turn was a three. I bet $65, trying to be fair, trying to give them a hint as to what my hand was. :-)
The first player folded. The second guy asked me if I wanted to make a deal.
Okay folks, I can understand that if the pot is enormous and two guys are a little nervous that they might want to make a deal on the flop or turn after one of them is all in.
But on this hand, not only was no one all in, the guy hadn't even called my bet yet! lol Isn't this just a touch deal-happy?
Tommy
Iīve playes at HP in this PL game 2 years ago several times. I canīt remember, that anyone in this game ever suggestet making a deal. I would have refused it anyway. I think making deals is bad for the game in limit, but even worse in PL. It should be forbidden. (Exept when you deal 2 rivercards in PL O, which, as far as I know, is pretty common heads up in the USA).
Regards
M.A.
It should not be allowed in a live game - so much opportunity for collusion it isn't even funny.
I stopped playing in this game because of this. It slows down the game so much, I had to take naps between hands.
Brett
I've got nothing against deals, but the player should be all-in first. If you then want to show your cards and either cut up the pot according to your equities or deal multiple cards for the river, that's fine with me. The only problem is if it slows down the game when we're paying time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
By asking you a question before he acted, the other player was trying to size up the strength of your hand by the way you would respond (words, eye movements, breathing, tonality, break in voice, pitch of voice, gestures, etc.). When this happens, talk to the dealer and tell him to tell that player that he must act first before you consider making a deal. Treat the semi-angle shooter's communication with you as something unofficial.
THE BEST POLICY I KNOW IS NO DEALS (PREIOD). I'M THERE BECAUSE I ENJOY THE GAME AND I WANT TO WIN. OF COURSE,IF I HAVE A BAD HAND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A DEAL,BUT THEN I'D SHOW WEAKNESS,SO WHY GIVE ANYONE ANY MORE INFORMATION THEN THEY CAN PICK UP ABOUT MY PLAY. I GIVE NO QUARTER AND ASK FOR NONE. FRIENDSHIPS ARE ONE THING AND POKER IS ANOTHER. THIS IS MY JOB!
Actually, it's when I have a great hand that I'd most want to make a deal. Here's a recent example where I should have made one.
Board: 5h6h9c7s Me: 9h9d Him: 6s6c Pot: $1055.
We were all-in on the flop, and I knew he did not have the straight. The dealer dealt the turn card, and I should have told him to stop before dealing the river. I then should have asked the guy to show his hand, and offered him $25 to muck it. This costs me about $1 in equity, but saves me a LOT of variance. The river was the case 6, and then I was really kicking myself. This guy would have taken the deal, most likely. Actually, I would have offered $20 and glad paid $25. I don't know if I'd have paid $30.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Because I don't recall ever seeing you post anything rude or condescending I find myself able to suppress an almost irresistable urge to offer a reply DRIPPING in sarcasm.
Instead I'll just point out the "fuzzy thinking" to which you fell victim.
Your opponent had $71.93 worth of equity in that pot, ASSUMING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE HIM HIS HALF IF AN "8" FELL ON THE RIVER.
Only deals you make should be with the I.R.S. NOT with people at the poker table ... THIS IS TOTALY OUTRAGEOUS
To further illustrate my point, lets look at 2 hypothetical games at the extremes.
First, consider a game that has 1-2 blinds, and the structure is 2-4-8-16.
In this game, you would be correct to limp in with all sorts of hands because the implied odds are enormous compared to the size of the blinds. Position would now be the single most important consideration in the game - it would be incorrect to play almost anything in early position, and almost any 2 cards should be profitable on the button.
Now let's consider the other extreme. Take a game with this structure - 50-100 blinds, with limits of 100-50-25-10.
In this game, you must play extremely tightly preflop. Draws are almost completely worthless. In this game hands like KJ offsuit are far more valuable than hands like JT offsuit. Here, you would have to flop big to be able to continue. And what hands tend to flop big? Big pairs (no flop needed), AK, and the like.
So where does a game like the one described in the 50/100 thread fit into all of this? It does not resemble either very closely, but compared to the Vegas style structured limit games, I believe it is closer to the latter. Lower implied odds on later streets necessitates tighter play early in the hand.
-SmoothB-
Smooth, if the game were 50-50-50-100 with
.
You're still missing your text. So much for web-tv.
Fat-Charlie
The game in the post you refer to - "FOLD AA IN 50 - 100" was described as having a $50 limit: b/t/f/, on the flop, and on the turn, with a $100 limit on the river. (Actually 'limit' is the wrong word since the author of the post seemed to indicate that the betting was structured.) This being the case you are correct about there being smaller implied odds available, since in limit holdem you do accumulate alot of profit on the turn and in this game the turn bet is only 50% of what it would be in a normal 50-100 game.
The point which I believe you missed (and it is a crucial one) was the size of the blinds - 10 and 20.
With blinds this [proportianately] small, there would be little if any penalty for loose pre-flop play, as long as you were just calling the [$20] big blind. If you limped in weakly and the pot was then raised [$50, to a total of $70] you would of course muck any holding(s) that was relying on big imp.odds to show a profit; small pairs, small and medium suited connectors and Ax suited come to mind, but there are others.
In some sense,this game plays alot like N/L (referring to pre-flop) where it is often correct to limp in with these types of hands, only to have to muck them if there is even a moderate raise.
Much of what you said was right on the ball, but with blinds this small you do not get hurt by limping in with alot of below avg. hands as long as you don't get completely out of hand - assuming of course that you remember to get rid of them quickly it there is a raise BTF.
You could probably beat this game for a moderate amount, and with a very low varience, if you simply played bone-tight pre-flop; but you wouldn't get as much out of it as was possible, and even the least observant of your opponents would soon stop giving you action on your good hands. As many others before me have pointed out ( Mr. Malmuth in particular ) this is the exact problem with N/L when played with very small blinds; there is almost no punishment for playing so tight that you squeak - there is also almost no chance of winning anything worthwhile unless you are playing against complete morons or action junkies. Regretably, there are not enough of the former to go around, and action junkies are not going to stay around for long if you don't give them the action they came for.
This post is already much longer than I had intended, so I'll end it here. In the very near future, however, I will be posting the format (structure) of a home game I play in whenever I'm in that part of the country that combines the desirable features of N/L but does not allow for extremely tight play. If your interested I intend to have it on the GENERAL TOPICS - HOLDEM forum under the heading, "action packed limit holdem".
best wishes,
Chris
I was in vegas a few weeks ago, and was at the Strat for their no limit tourney. I missed sign in, so I watched the tourney for a bit watching a few people I had played this tourney with a few days before get beat out by trash hands that hit the river. But after the tables started shrinking they opened a no limit game. Blinds 1 and 2 and a 100 min buy in. I watched a bit, finally bought in with 100 and won a few nice hands. But I learned a good lesson in a hand I folded.
Let me preface this by saying all these players were pretty good players. No real fish to the table, occasionally a new guy would sit, go all in with his houndred and then leave, but they were gone.
I was in the BB with a 87o when two to my left made it 60 to stay. all fold to the 10 seat who made it 160 to stay. Some ears started perking up, all fold, including me, to the orriginal raiser who goes all in for 500. 10 seat calls with his 360 that he has left. The first better turns over pocket aces and the 10 seat turns over kings. Sure as all fate a king rivers and the original better looks like the dealer just crushed his puppy dog...he bitches and calls for another rack of red.
I understand the 10 seat reraising with kings, figuring the raiser might be on a medium pair or high suited cards, but when that guy went all in for more than he had how would you play that? Since I have never been in that situation I don't know...what do y'all say?
It really depends on the players assessment of the raiser a limit player would make this move with AK or maybe even QQ or JJ - the guy with KK is committed the the pot at this stage and isn't gonna fold the KK so he makes the wise choice of getting all in to see all the cards.
Hey what's up with the game this weekend am I uninvited or what. Mike
This is a clear call for KK. KK is getting about 2:1 odds on this call when you include the dead money in the pot.
Now, when you think of all of the hands that would go all in, only one of them beats KK (that's AA of course). QQ, KK, AK might go all in here depending on the player. Some will push all in with JJ or TT.
Even if his opponent DOES have aces, as was the case here, KK is not as far behind as many think. KK just needs to hit a set to win, and this will happen rougly 20% of the time. (Take away a bit for the times when they both hit sets, etc etc.)
If KK KNEW that AA was out there, he should fold. But if there is any uncertainty, a call is correct.
-SmoothB-
I disagree somewhat. In a vacuum where you know nothing about the players, your analysis is probably right. But NL HE is all about knowing the player. There are players who just simply have the AA every time they move all in pre-flop when the stacks are healthy. (I'm considering 500 against $2 blind a healthy stack). 2:1 pot odds is not a consideration in this case. "Does he have AA" is the only consideration.
If he has AA, you're getting a 2:1 on a 7.5:1 shot. Terrible. IF there's a 50% chance that he has AA - you've seen him move all-in 4 times and twice he had AA - it's still bad because you're only getting 2:1 with a hand that has a 50% of being ahead and a 50% chance of needing a 7.5:1 shot to win. That is definitely not the best use of your stack in a NL game.
You basically shouldn't consider pot odds playing a live NL game. You'll almost never be getting pot odds to play hands that require it.
So, the question is how sure are you he had AA? If your even half convinced you should probably muck KK in my opinion. It's a no limit game. You shouldn't be putting your whole stack in the pot unless you are damn sure you are a big favorite.
If you've seen him go all-in SEVERAL times and he never showed AA then that's a different story. With NL it's all about knowing the player and you simply cannot make decisions like that without knowing something about your opponent. In a limit game you can get away with sitting down and playing the pot blind (i.e. only considering odds etc.) until you get a handle on the players and you won't suffer too badly. In NL you'll get murdered. Take it easy at first until you know the table and don't get involved with bigstack confrontations until you do. I'd say for the first 30 minutes you should only be willing to go all-in with AA.
natedogg
The odds of KK beating AA are better than 7.5:1. KK has 5 chances to hit a king, so thats roughly a 20% chance or 4:1 (roughly).
So, if you ARE only 50% sure that he has AA, you should definitely call with KK. And pot odds do matter in a no limit cash game - most definitely in an all in situation.
IE if you flop a 4 flush to the nuts and there just so happen to be a bettor and 3 callers, you can call all in. (Although this would probably never really happen in no limit - but you get the idea.)
You have to figure out the probability that he has AA or QQ or is going all in with AK, whatever. If he suspects you of trying to make a move he might very well push all in with QQ.
When you factor in that uncertaintly, and your roughly 4:1 odds of beating AA, I think you can call in this big pot.
-SmoothB-
What the heck was the guy with AA raising to 60 for? There was $3 of dead money from the blinds. I am not a very experienced NL player, but that seems like a bad play to me. If he only massively overbets the pot when he has AA then it is easy for everyone else to fold. IF he consistently overbets the pot with hands like AK, JJ, TT, then he is going to get cleaned out when someone else has a big hand. Does anyone else agree with me or am I missing something?
You are not missing something. Pushing large opening bets into small blinds (I call is "sliding") is a sure sign of a weak player.
Their mentality is "I don't have enough skill to play post flop and I am afraid I may get busted with these Aces if I let someone in cheaply but they are Aces/Kings so I got to play them so I'll put in a huge raise and hope to get called or reraised by some idiot/unfortunate sole holding AK or QQ."
That's losing poker.
Yeah thats a dumb play. This guy probably sits around all night waiting for AA, pushes lots of chips in, and then wonders why he gets no action.
I think 4 bets is kind of the standard (ie 3X BB raise).
I can't see any merit to betting 20X the pot under any circumstances, unless you are sure that you are bets and you are sure you'll get called.
-SmoothB-
Here is a great "slider" story. Two years ago at the $500 buy-in NLH event at the USPC, it was down to 3 tables. Noted poker author and monday morning quarterback Mike Paulle was one of the chip leaders. He and 3 other guys had nearly half the chips in play. The blinds are something like 300-600 with no antes. Mike is UTG and slides in his entire stack, which must be something like 12k in chips.
Its folded to the button, this other unknown guy with a really large stack. He starts to act very nervous, making faces, wiping ing his brow, and squeezing his cards. You just KNOW this guy wants to muck his hand, play tightly against the other big stacks, and mpove into a decent payout. But he just CAN'T do it. He must have a big hand. Must be Kings.
He finally grimaces and makes the call after someone puts a clock on him. He leans over to to his buddies on the rail and says "what can I do?", before rolling over, not kings, but ACES!
Mike, of course, doesn't show his hand.
The board comes out pretty harmless looking, but does have 3 hearts. Mike checks his cards again, and then rolls over AhKh. The other guy looks like he just got punched in the stomach and stumbles over to the rail to get consoled by his buddies.
It is really more about what standard raises have been going on at the table - we don't know that - also with the size of the stacks described the $60 might very well be a good bet. It's not pot limit it is NO LIMIT and $60 might not be over bettting the pot IF they previous opening bets heve been in that range.
I a scenario like this I want to isolate one player with my AA - a player who has a hand I dominate like KK> or AK> - I really don't want a family pot cuz I am gonna be putting a lot of money in the pot and want my best % of winning and that is heads up and I am looking to double up my stack.
You don't get AA very often and when I do I want to double up with it in a NL game.
40-80 Holdem. Usual collection of loosey-goosey players. Lively player in mid-position opens for a raise. All pass to me. I hold KJo in the SB and muck my hand. The only problem is when I muck my cards they bounce off the table and they are accidentally exposed. Perhaps about 20 percent of the time I may play KJo in this situation and normally for a re-raise. The whole table is shocked. They can't imagine how I can possibly fold this hand. I quickly explain how KJ especially with a red jack is my unlucky hand. Nevertheless I was very embarassed. I normally am very careful mucking my hand to prevent this from happening.
Bruce
Sounds like it's time to start stealing pots. =).
Max
x
You're not giving up much if you played it zero % of the time ( in the SB ). You still have the BB to contend with.
From the BB ( assuming the SB folds ), I probably call [ or re-raise ] most of the time against an action player.
It may be the most difficult hand in the deck to play; it definitely is for me.
Cute story though, and quick thinking on your "comeback"
Chris -
From the big blind it's pretty much an automatic call. From the small blind it's pretty much a piece of cheese. When you are a tight ass and you have that image among the live ones it just further reinforces it. I have been practicing my mucking motion at home with a deck of cards using left handed english. May my cards never flip over again!
Bruce
Nothing wrong or embaressing here - it just reenforces your tight image and maybe it is the reason the AJ folded in the post above.
Different game though.
Bruce
Same thing happened to me early in my poker career playing in a very loose 3-6 game. However, my accidental exposure was KQo UTG. Like you, no one else at the table could believe that I folded that hand. None of them ever even consider folding KQ preflop. My bets were the only ones able to thin the field for quite a while that night.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There was a fella in my game who had an irritating habit of constantly flipping up folded preflop hands. They were always hands such as KQ, Ac9c, 55 and the like in early position. He would never "accidently" flip up 82 offsuit and the like. It was clear to me that he was doing this just because of some crazy ego considerations. That is, he wanted the table to "oooh and aaah" at the great preflop laydowns he was making and consider him to be a very knowledgable player or something.
I don't know...sure seemed goofy to me. It was not as if he would then put his tight image to use by stealing a couple of pots later.
Five handed 40-80 hold-em game. I am UTG with ATs and decide to limp. Normally in a short handed game I would automatically raise with this hand, but since I have raised preflop or three bet BTF on 4 of the previous 5 hands I decide to call. I have a large stack of chips in front of me and I have shown down nothing but big hands, but because I have raised so many of the previous hands I decide to limp. As a side note ATs plays reasonably well in a family pot and has definite high power potential. If the hand was offsuit I would definetely raise BTF. Anyway the button calls and the small blind calls. The big blind decides to raise. The big blind is a fairly live player who is stuck and on tilt. When he raises I make it three bets. In this situation he can be raising with just about anything. He can have a big hand, but he is equally as likely to have a real piece of cheese. Everyone else folds. I have a tight image and I am very happy to be heads-up with position against a player who I can outplay. The flop comes K46 rainbow. He checks and I bet. The turn brings a Deuce. I bet and after a brief moment of hesitation my opponent mucks his hand. He exposes his AJo. Obviously I had an inferior hand compared to my opponent, but my reraise before the flop created a great degree of uncertainity plus I had position. In the eyes of my opponent I am also a very tight player, who is very likely to have AK, AA, or KK. Another key point is my opponent not flopping anything. Commnets appreciated.
Bruce
You played it very well and you got lucky that your opponent missed completely. Your actions were well thought out...it just so happened that the maniac had a hand and you were an underdog pre-flop. Most people only limp re-raise with huge hands, mainly AA, KK, so that may have prompted the other 2 ppl in the hand to fold. Do you think the hand would have played out the same way if you just raised UTG? Since you had raised the previous 4 of 5, I'm guessing probably no. So you played it well and it worked out for you. It's nice when that happens isn't it? Good job Bruce!
I think your logic here is pretty sound. ATs does play well in family pots, plus it is a great short handed starting hand. Given your description of the recent action, your limping is fine BTF. The limp-reraise is quite a clever move. You took advantage of the other player's image of you to make a "move". I like your flop bet, would you have raised if he bet though? Betting the turn is almost automatic if he checks again, IMO. Good hand.
dave in cali
Aggression can often turn the inferior hand into a winner. If he had bet out instead of checked, it would've been you mucking the hand on the turn.
x
Obvious he put you on slow playing KK, AK or KQ, KJ because you limped . Sounds like you had some good Rock Equity built up. Good tight aggressive play with a nice rush to send'em steaming.
How should you play in a pot limit HE game (blinds typically 5-10, sometimes 10-20) stacked with absolute live ones who play like it was low limit HE? every flop will have from 4 to 7 players even with double raises pre-flop. the game is almost unreadable, only rarely can you knock someone out and if someone has any semblance of anything on the flop they will go, and possibly raise, till the end. They buy in for $400 or so but their pockets are deep and they just rebuy. if you buy in for say $800-1000 and have another $1500 in reserve, what's the optimum strategy that will give you the best chance of doubling up before a bad beat wipes out your stack?
Optimum strategy is don't tell any good players where the game is and do all you can to keep it going.
Andy.
The only trick here is to stick to hands that can flop big. This is primarily pairs. In this game, any pair must be good to play preflop, since you're getting the price, with pot odds and implied odds, to flop your set.
You could also play big suited Aces, but maybe only AK and AQ. Here you're looking to flop top pair with the nut draw, or some other very big flop (e.g., top 2 pair).
A lot of other hands could be played profitably if you're a good enough player after the flop, but sticking to the above, and being even mediocre in your postflop play, will probably turn a good profit, given your description of the game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The game is no-limit hold'em, with a variation. No one knows anyone else's stack size. I have an openended straightflush draw on the flop. Is there a recommended way to play this hand that doesn't depend on what's in the pot, or my stack? I don't believe that pushing all-in is optimal.
I have never heard of that variant - not knowing other people's stack size - but it sounds interesting.
Anyway, with an open ended straight flush draw, you have a very powerful hand. You have over 50% chance of completing one of those draws. The only hand you are an underdog to is a flopped set. And you aren't an underdog by much.
If your cards are both overcards, your hand is worth that much more.
If there is already a lot of dead money in the pot, and you are checked to, an all in move is probably not a bad idea. If you get called, you have over 50% chance of making your hand.
You could also just make a lead bet designed to lure people in. Maybe the size of the pot. Hopefully anyone with a bigger flush draw won't call.
If someone makes a modest bet at the pot it is probably best to raise. You might force them out of the pot, and take it right there, and if they call they will probably check to you on the turn.
If they call, and then you don't hit on the turn, and they make a very large bet, you should probably lay it down. If the bet is too big you might not have the odds to call. Especially if you can't expect to get paid off if you do hit on the river (ie one of you is shortstacked or all in.)
-SmoothB-
!
I'm playing no-limit hold'em with a friend of mine, $1 big, no small $20 buy i