![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Played in a "must-move" game over the weekend and lost a few hands while making plays that, in retrospect, would've been more appropriate in the main game, but were likely mistakes in the must-move game. Thus I'm curious if others make strategy adjustments simply because the game is a must-move game?
Earl,
We play $20-$40 with one, sometimes two "must move" tables to the main game. I watch the order of the board to see who will be moving from my table and what order. This may affect my decision as to seat change and how long the present game is tough/loose/mixed.
But in all circumstances, we should always play our very best.
You generally should start by assuming that strangers in a main game are tighter and better than strangers in a must-move game. Live ones tend to bust out before they reach the main game.
This question seems odd. Play based on the composition of the current game, not whether it is a must-move, main game, or regular game.
However, consider the must-move rules. For example, in some cardrooms in LA, you must move immediately when called but get to come in behind the button for free; therefore, when you are first up and there is a chance you will be called in the next few minutes, your best play is not to play - refuse to take the big blind.
-Abdul
Abdul,
This is great advice and also applies to situations when you expect to be called to another limit. Also, it you are really EV concious, you can work in your bathroom breaks during the time the blinds pass and so on.
In a few days I may start a goofy thread on the $9 (cost to her) powder room/smoking break my student took two days in a row when she knew she was leaving in fifteen minutes anyway. I need to make sure I get the math right. It is hard to explain that small edges matter to someone who is up two racks on a given day ;-).
Regards,
Rick
NO
Advertising in a must move game when you will probably be moving shortly accomplishes very little.
I always look to see who is moving ahead of me and I also look to see if there is a board. When playing in a must move game you sometimes have to be prepared to play short handed.
I pretty much play my normal game in general except for advertising and image plays.
Bruce
Turn over is twice as fast so "advertising" isn't worth as much, even though you will find some of these players in the main game.
I would say that other players may tend to be a little distracted since they are still "waiting" for their game of choice, but I'm not sure how you should take advantage of that.
- Louie
I think Bruce hit the nail on the head. Advertising, or "image", has much less value since the table composition changes dramatically (composition being the theme, which a few alluded to but seemed mystified by the idea that a must-move was unique). But perhaps all of this depends on your style of play. Looking back, I've found that my better plays are wasted on a game where the table composition changes dramatically. Tighter, technically perfect play is much the best in those situations (the idea that we should all play "our best game" is too nebulous, since "our best game" is based on situation).
I seem to be playing in a 10-20 game with a half kill a lot. Where the winner of a large pot puts up $15 and the game becomes 15-30. What I cant figure out how to modify my game to meet this condition. I have generally followed the following approach:
a. When the kill is in late position, I have been tightening up my raising requirements a bit, specially when the player with the kill is the type to raise without much of a hand when he has the kill action.
b. When the kill is in early position and calls I have been loosening up my raising requirements in late position trying to steal the added blind money (I dont think I have had a positive gain from this strategy)
c. I have generally been looser in raising when I have the kill trying to improve my implied odds.
Anybody have anythoughts on the best way to deal with this game. The other day I played in this game where 4 out of 5 hands were kill hands -- including many $400 plus pots!
It appears from your post that the killer acts in turn. If so, your "a" and "b" strategies make sense...but don't loosen your steal-raising too much (unless you know the blinds and killer are very weak/tight). Your "c" strategy makes no sense IMO, unless perhaps you don't mean what you said.
I think a kill pot is a good opportunity for a good player to score. I like to play my normal game pre flop tight/aggressive but tend to bluff more because you have leverage in a kill you don't in the normal limits.
"a. When the kill is in late position, I have been tightening up my raising requirements a bit, specially when the player with the kill is the type to raise without much of a hand when he has the kill action. "
I would also tighten up my limping requirements given the type of player you described. You don't want to get caught in a raise with a trashy hand. However, if the player is a frequent raiser, you could use his raises to drive other players out or limp-reraise and build a giant pot with your best hands.
"b. When the kill is in early position and calls I have been loosening up my raising requirements in late position trying to steal the added blind money (I dont think I have had a positive gain from this strategy) "
I think that in general, killers tend to defend more often than not. Or at least that's the way it is in the kill games I play in. Reason for this is that in my games, the killer acts LAST. Also, in my games the kill is posted by a player who has won two pots in a row. These players tend to be the loosest ones, and therefore tend to defend their blinds and call raises more indiscriminately than other, tighter players.
"c. I have generally been looser in raising when I have the kill trying to improve my implied odds. "
This statement makes no sense. The implied odds are exactly the same - because they are measured in BETS, not $$. I certainly would not raise more loosely now that the stakes are higher, if anything I would play the same or more tightly.
Interesting post.
Dave in Cali
To explain c.
Lets suppose I have posted the $15 kill and am holding pocket 8's in middle position, and the game is such that I would not normally raise in this position. However, if I have already posted the $15 I am now more inclined to make it $30 (as I will be putting $15 voluntarily into the pot) when every one else is putting in $30 preflop.
Cheers
In terms of big bets, what were you best and worst sessions?
My best session was winning 60 big bets in a 20/40 game....and my worst was probably 40 big bets in a 40/80 game (both sessions were between 8 and 12 hours).
ex,
I never seem to break the 75 big bet barrier on the plus side, but my worse days have never exceded 50 big bets and that was only a couple times. My session length is about eleven hours max but my big loses were in shorter sessions.
Regards,
Rick
+120 bb (12hours) in 3-6 stud. -50 bb (10hours) in 3-6 stud. +55 bb (8hours) in 6-12 hold'em. -40 bb (12hours) in 6-12 hold'em. Those are my best and worst ever for both games. I never play stud anymore so those are from a long time ago.
My worst days are about 50 BB. I never will go under more than that. When I have a session that bad I take a week off, maybe more. Best days are between 20 and 40 BB. Doesn't seem to be much in between. I tend to lose more during a losing session than I win during a winning session. The good news is that I've had two losing sessions the last 2 1/2 months and 14 winners. If I could learn to leave after four hours of breakeven poker I'd have a healthier br.
chris
Best was on a Firday night 1999 at Binions in LasVegas.
I was playing 4-8 waiting for a 10-20 seat to open up I was up over $400 when my seat came free and I won 90+ big bets inside of 3 hours. Most of which came from a wild and woolie hand where I made quad duces.
Biggest pot ever was an "in between" game in England in the 80's - the lads were drinking a bit of beer and the game got out og hand - I won a pot with 6k (about $10K at the time) pound sterling in it - the hand a J and 3 I knew nothing could beat me high and the 2's and 2 3's were out so there was only one card in the deck that could beat me. I went "pot" and collected a huge pot with many IOU's and checks in it.
Took me a long time to collect all the money but what a blast.
Worst sessions - I really don't like anything negative so I'll just skip them OK! Suffice it to say 40 bb loss in not out of the question :-)
Best = 5-10 +63bb Worst = 6-12 -23bb
i remember a couple of 200+ big bet days. but the two i like best were at binions in the 70's. in 5 10 &25 no limit games both days back to back plays i won over 40 from the minimum buy in without ever showing down a hand at any time during the two plays. impossible you say--believe it or not.
I'll never play heads up no limit against you. You're probably more aggressive than me.
you can bet your sweet bippie i am. good luck.
Around $1400 (35 bb's) in one and a half hours in a 20-40 HE game.
I had played 10-20 from noon until 9 pm and was loser just at $500 at that point, at that time my biggest loss to date playing 10-20. Leaving my chips on the table, I went to my room, showered, and returned feeling crisp, and quit at midnight an $800 winner. This was a rush of 65 big bets in just under 3 hours.
My best day ever was 90+ big bets in a 3-6 game. Worst day: 40 big bets in a 9-18 game.
As mentioned in another post, I recently dropped $5300 on paradise playing 2 20-40 tables over about 12 hours, got a good nights sleep and won 4700 the next day in about 10 hours of play at the same two tables. Both sessions are testament to the advice the experts give about when to play and when not to play. Think maybe I'm a high variance player? Yes, I like to mix it up, but I've been learning when to temper it. Mason mentions in one of his essays that many players developed by being lose aggressive and over time learning good judgment. That's what I've been doing and it is paying off big time.
Best day happened three days ago... I'm still thinking about it. I won 82.5 big bets at 10-20. It was a seven hour session. I think I may have left too early because the game was REALLY good but I have never won this much so I think I got a little excited a left.
My worst session was 47 big bets at 5-10. I lost this in about three hours. Every hand seemed to be second best that day.
In terms of big bets won, you will find that your best days will be in low limit poker (below $10-$20). In terms of big bets lost, you will find your worst days in middle limit poker ($10-$20 through $30-$60).
At $3-$6 my best session was winning $650 or almost 110 big bets. My worst session at $3-$6 was losing $129 or about 20 big bets. But I only played about 180 hours of $3-$6.
At $4-$8 my best session was winning $890 or about 110 big bets in a 17 hour session. My worst session was losing $144 in an 8 hour session. I have only played about 100 hours of $4-$8.
At $6-$12 my best session was winning $580 in a 10 hour session which is less than 50 big bets. My worst session was losing $460 in a 12 hour session which is about 40 big bets. I have played about 150 hours of $6-$12.
At $10-$20 my best session was winning $1600 in a 13 hour session which is about 80 big bets. My worst session was losing $1000 in a 10 hour session. I have played about 300 hours of $10-$20.
At $15-$30 my best session was winning $2000 in a 13 hour session which is about 65 big bets. My worst session was losing $1700 in a 5 hour seesion which is about 35 big bets. I have played about 600 hours of $15-$30.
At $20-$40 my best session was winning $2600 in an 8 hour session which is about 65 big bets. My worst session was losing $1900 in an 8 hour session which is about 50 big bets. I have played about 1200 hours of $20-$40.
At $30-$60 my best session was winning $1800 in a 9 hour session which is only 30 big bets. My worst session was losing $2400 in 6 hours which is 40 big bets. I have played about 350 hours of $30-$60.
I once heard a story about a guy who won $1,100.00 in a $1-$2 game!! I have reason to believe it's true.
My best session for big bets was in a 2-4 game at the tropicana in AC last year. A man with a foreign accent and a drink in his hand came up to the 2-4 table and bought in with two orange and six black chips, or $2,600. EVERY SINGLE HAND, FOR EIGHT SOLID HOURS, HE WOULD LOOK AT THE DEALER BTF AND SAY "HOW DO YOU SAY, RRAAIISSEE!". There were NO pots the entire game that were not raised BTF. This essentially raised the stakes to 4-8, especially since he was a frequent raiser on all streets, regardless of his holding. I won over 600$, or 150 big bets. Total insanity!
My biggest loss in terms of big bets were in 3-6 kill and 5-10 (no kill) in which I lost 300$ and 500$ respectively, or 50 big bets. The 5-10 was a proportionately bigger loss though because there was no kill.
Dave in Cali
145 big bets is biggest win. Have had several exactly 50 bb losses ($1000 in 10/20).
At 4/8 4-50 BB wins and 5-25 BB losses.
At 6/12 1 - 40 BB loss and 3-16 BB wins don't play 6/12 much.
10-20 35 BB loss 50 BB win 25 sessions or so
15-30 13 BB win , never loss, haven't played much.
20-40 1 10 BB loss played only once.
I seem to study more than I play, that will change soon.
When I started out playing, I was extremely aggressive. My biggest win back then was +125 BB, and my biggest loss was -100 BB; both in 10-20.
More recently, my play is saner. My biggest recent win was +80BB in 10-20, and my biggest loss was -60BB in 8-16.
William
3-6 Hold'em
Best session: +41 big bets (in 3.25 hours, yikes)
Worst session: -59 big bets
I won 500 big bets once. But it was no limit.
win of 85bb/loss of about 65bb (30/60).
5/10 in A.C.-taj mahal:
2,367 dollars in fourteen hours-if that seems unbelievable the following makes me glad i had two witnesses (because i sometimes wonder if i imagined the whole thing )
* i never saw pocket aces * i never saw pocket kings * got AKs once; floped two kings, got run down by a gut shot (it wasn't really a bad beat - the winner held KQ and probably thought he had the best hand all along * got two sets of queens cracked - the only two times i saw pocket queens WHERE DID THE $$ COME FROM ??? * AQ over AJ - i lost count but maybe a dozen times * ditto KQ over KJ * one MONSTER pot with pocket jacks on the button, capped on every round except the river, flopped a set, turned quads, and took off two full houses, a straight,and two flushes * pocket nines and tens that were winning very nice pots, (but not monsters) in all cases UNIMPROVED to sum it up, hand after hand after hand when my cards were just a little better than what i was up against!!! i was getting more free cards than you could imagine, and was getting away with almost every bluff i attempted. now the point of the post - yes there is a point and it's not how brilliantly i played, although i do think i was at the top of my game and i was NOT playing every hand i picked up.................. the cost of this run (rake and tokes) was well in excess of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS - rake $4 per hand, avg. tip a little over $1. if this makes me sound like the biggest whiner in history, please consider the following: the pots were averaging between $100-150 dollars meaning if i had won ten or so less hands my win would have been cut in half but my cost would have only gone down by about $50 (cost to me: app.$350) take away five more winners and now my haul for the day is now around $600 AND IT COSTS ME $300 TO PLAY i don't feel a need to extrapolate any further - a six hundred dollar win in a 12-14 hour session of $5/10 hold'em - or any other game for that matter (more than FIVE big bets per hour) would send most of us home floating on a cloud. how fluffy would that cloud feel when you sat don and realized that you had left one-third of your winnings on the table. more importantly, how do the bad players EVER WIN? this is not a selfish question - it is not about making sure the "producers" have an occasional win so as to guarantee their return; they've been returning for years, the same ones day after day after day. and, for whatever reason they will keep returning. But don't they deserve at least a chance to book a win now and then? i've seen games - more than i care to remember - where EVERYONE got up a significant loser (10 or more big bets). something is wrong here, but absent our complaints nothing is gong to be done to fix it. i don't recall being appointed guardian to the poker world; maybe i should just be glad that there is a place for me to go and pick up extra spending $$ almost at will ( $27 and change/hour over the last five hundred plus hours at $5/10 hold'em and stud ) but it just doesn't seem right. i want to peel them ( the players ), i'd just like to see them get something that resembles a fair shake. COMMENTS AND/OR RESPONSES PLEASE!!!!!!!!
I was the small blind in a $5-10 game sitting with pocket K's. A good player in middle position raises pre-flop. I reraised the pot making everyone fold. The original raiser cap the pre-flop betting, leaving me and him heads up. The flop was Kd 7s 5d. I checked, he bet and I raised him. He reraised me and I raised again capping the bet. I feared he may be on the flush draw but I was going to make him pay for it. The turn was another 5 giving me a full house. I bet and he called. The river was another 5. I didn't really want to see 3 5's on the board but I still had my boat kkk55. I bet the river and he mearly called. I showed my boat, and he mucked his cards before I could ask what he had.
My question...did I play this right and what do you think he had??
AA, with the ace of diamonds, or AK with the ace of diamonds, or AK without the ace of diamonds.
77 or AK
He obviously had AA or AK. What else could he possibly have?
Why when you win a big pot would you ask your opponent what he has? Who cares? Take your money and be a gracious winner. Even though your intentions are not to be rude and needle your opponent and you are just curious you will probably come across the wrong way.
Bruce
Normally the cap is off in a heads-up situation when the betting round starts heads-up. You played correctly. I would guess he had AA or slick with the Ace of Diamonds.
Do you think AK diamonds overplayed his hand preflop and on the flop?
He cannot have both the Ace of Diamonds and the King of Diamonds since the Diamond King is on the table. He could have the Ace of Diamonds and the case King. If this was his holding then I think he did over play his hand. He should not cap pre-flop and he should not re-raise on the flop when he gets check-raised.
I would have shown aggression on the turn instead of on the flop because the bets are double there. He probably had two Aces.
What are the limits of choice out there? What is the bankroll you bring to that game? At what point do you decide to call it a night?
I play 4-8 I bring 200-300 to play and if I get up $200 or so I call it a night. I find that if the game drags on the rake is too hard to overcome. I usually end up kicking myself if I play the last 4 hours of an 8 hour session.
comments?
A $200-$300 session bankroll is more than adequate for a $4-$8 game. Don't play in games where the rake is more than 5% with a max of say $4.
200 to 300 is about enough for you not to delve into your pocket too much. Regarding the quitting after winning 200 win, be more flexible. If the game is real loose passive and/or you have good command of the game, be more likely to continue. If, on the other hand, the game has turned bad, it's time to hit and run.
4-8 HE, loose and pretty passive. I am on button with 4c4d. Three limpers to me, I call, SB raises, BB calls, all call, 6 way action.
Flop is Jh 3d 2s. SB checks, BB checks, everyone checks... Of course I take the free card. SB looks somewhat disappointed.... (a little foreshadowing here folks)...
Turn is the beautiful 4s. Now I have a set. Of course I would have FOLDED for a bet, but there was NO BET! NOW the SB bets. Bet he wishes he would have bet the flop... two callers to me, of course I RAISE! All call, 4 way action.
River is another apparently beautiful card for me, the 7c. All check to me and I bet. SB and one other call. I show the set of fours and SB mucks KdKs face up.
I think the point illustrated by this hand is that when you are in early position, and you get a good flop, betting out is usually the best play. There was nothing to suggest to the SB that anyone would bet the flop. After all, HE was the raiser BTF. This was NOT a good opportunity to try for a check-raise. This lineup was pretty passive, with many pots getting checked down to the river. In a more aggressive game, perhaps, but not in this one. His failure to bet the flop cost him not only the pot, but several more large bets as well.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Your comments about SB's check are right on the money, especially with that safe flop, but ESPECIALLY since the button doesn't seem to be very aggressive.
I think you should have bet the flop EXCEPT when you have good reason the SB is trying to pull a fast one. Well and except if its real loose and you can expect a few calls.
Your 44 is certainly worth a call if SB bets the flop and everybody folds; there being far too great a chance he has overcards.
- Louie
"I think you should have bet the flop EXCEPT when you have good reason the SB is trying to pull a fast one. Well and except if its real loose and you can expect a few calls. "
Actually, this game was very loose and if I had bet I would fully expect to be called by both overcards, Jacks, second or third pair, or miscellaneous pocket pairs and backdoor draws. I thought betting would be futile since I was unlikely to win the pot outright, and would not know where I stood against callers. Also, the SB was somewhat more aggressive than the rest of the field so I would not want to bet into him with an underpair.
"Your 44 is certainly worth a call if SB bets the flop and everybody folds; there being far too great a chance he has overcards. "
I agree here. However, it is unlikely that everyone would fold to his bet in this game. If this scenario had occurred, I would have probably called him down, unless scary cards came on the turn and river.
Dave in Cali
Do you think he overplayed his hand preflop and on the flop with the AK of diamonds?
If the SB is aggressive as you say then his check is uncharacteristic (he would bet AK) and so you are correct to deduce his chances of pulling a fast one are high; and I therefore agree with your flop check.
Oops, wrong post.
But you know if the SB bets and 4 call youll be getting 17-1 on your call, which is enough to try hit a 4. (Yeah the odds are ~22 to 1 but you have big implied odds).
It might be correct to bet the flop even if all check to you if you think he might checkraise w/ A K or something, as you are a favorite against 2 overcards now, and if someone had a J they pbly would have bet it so there is a reasonable chance you have the best hand(!).
And, I wanted to tell you about the Ah8h hand. I did some math and I think its closer than I thought but I think its a fold on the flop, but ill check it again (i don't have it w/me ill try and post it later).
Actually, both you and Louie make a pretty good case for either betting or calling the flop, but I think I would generally fold most of the time unless the pot odds were very good. (17:1 would be pretty close). It would depend on whether my outs were totally clean or not. Any doubt and I fold.
If you can get the figures for the A8 hand I would be interested in seeing them. I do think that particular call was marginal and borderline either way. I'm sure I would not have called if I hadn't been winning so much at the time. If you get them, copy and repost the hand and start a new thread.
Dave in Cali
In a game this loose it would have been very hard for SB to protect his hand with an outright bet. If he does bet it should only be for value not for protection. I think he took a good risk by checking on the flop with the intention of raising a late position stealer/freecard bettor like yourself. If it were me in your situation, I would have bet on the flop to steal on the flop/gain a freecard on the turn. And of course, given your description of SB's demeanor, he would have checkraised you to drive out the other players. I then would have called prepared to fold on the turn if bet into and I don't hit it.
Dave,
I'll answer this one again without reading any other replies yet. I hate to have Louie Landale's wit mess up my style.
This wasn't "Fancy Play Syndrome". It was a distant relative named "Stupid Play Syndrome". When someone raises out of the blinds, opponents expect the raiser to bet the flop since this so often means big pair. When the pre fop raiser doesn't, opponents often fear top set (in this case trip jacks) and will gladly take the free card.
Interestingly, the hand 4d 4c has its own name around these parts. Next time refer to it as a "Mason Malmuth" and most of us will know what it means.
Regards,
Rick
This is an interesting hand came up last night. Typical 3/6 holdem, 10 handed.
I'm in BB with AcKh.
Preflop: call, call, fold, raise, rest fold, SB call, I just call, two early limpers call. 5 players.
Flop: Ad 5s 7c SB check, I bet, limper1 fold, limper2 call, PFraiser 2 bet, SB cold call 2, I 3 bet, all call.
Turn: Qs SB check, I bet, limper1 raise! PFraiser 3 bet! SB cold call 3. What do you do here?
Assume you only know that SB is fish, but you don't have much info about the other two players except they are not maniacs. What do your opponents have?
Results later...
you fold. Looks like SB has a 68 or 69 or 34, he's probably drawing to a straight (notice 34 is pulling to a double belly buster that stands to be the best hand if it hits). PFR could easily have AA and merely called your 3bet on the flop, hoping you'd lead again on the turn so he could raise. Maybe first limper has QQ, doubtful, or maybe first limper has 77 (more likely, and he slow played his monster flop). If first limper has 77 then I think PFR probably has AQ (not that these two's hole cards are dependent on each other)and is overplaying his top two pair hand. Either way I'd say that you're beat and drawing close to dead. Assuming the best, that PFR raised with A7s and limper limped with 57s your only outs are the 3 queens and the 3 kings, neither of which give you much betting power. I'd say fold and lose your 3.5 BB, be done with the hand, there has to be a better spot to throw the chips in the pot.
chris
SB: 68
Limper 1: 55 or 77
PFraiser:AK, AQ, AA
Of course SB wins when a 4 rivers ;-)
Clear fold IMO
Just my thoughts
M.A.
I would muck on the turn. My guess is the 1st limper flopped a set and the raiser has AQ
Being a very low limit game, I would have to assume that this is "no foldem holdem" where anyone can have anything and it is very likely that everyone has garbage. But in this case, you're just gonna have to assume that someone has at least a two pair. I say fold it and cut your losses. You're down two three outs if the two pair also has an Ace.
You have a clear fold on the turn. The pre-flop raiser has AA or AQ and the raiser probably has two pair or a set. The small blind could be on a flush draw. You are either playing with 3 outs (maybe less if the Ks gives someone a Spade flush) or you are drawing dead.
I fold. I think there is a set of Aces or Queens or at least two pair with A-Q. There is also a possible flush and straight draw, although I don't think the straight draw is too likely. I'm especially concerned about limper 1 who raised the turn and cold called two when you made it three bets on the flop.
noooooooo, i had a nice long post for you guys to read and i accidentally closed the window....great, just great.
ok, i'll just get to the point this time.
how does limper1 raise after the turn if he folded after the flop?
and since this is the typical 3-6 holdem game, that fish in the sb is on a straight draw with QT, something pretty decent to call with in 3-6. and with the typical word in mind, he's hanging around there w/ second pair like some 3-6'ers do that i've played with.
thus, that middle position pre flop raiser raised with 6-8 spades, and did this preflop because he wants to bust out w/ some counter tells, which are pointless in some 3-6 games because hardly anyone bothers w/ tells since everyone plays everything. with this in mind, he is betting this straight and flush draw because he's been reading 2+2 and read that post that the hand with the highest percentage of hitting its outs will most often win, and win big. unfortunately, he's not going to hit either hand come the river because it just doesn't sound like he is. thus, his raising btf out of position to try to throw people off bit him in the bumm as he was unable to hit nor get you to lay down your hand in the following streets. i've noticed that people in these limits don't pay attention too much to position and that an early position raiser should have a better starting hand then one who would raise btf in late position. they see suited stuff, and mmm, they fall in love. [yes, i've done this several times and it's bit me in the butt cuz ppl w/ middle pair have called me down while i pure bluffed every street because i was caught in that situation where i tried to be fancy and make a play out of position...when in fact you should just play ur hands if you've got them and fold when you don't.
woah, this post got pretty long. hope u guys understood what i meant. now if that 3rd player is in...it'd be different, since it won't be heads up anymore. and in heads up, anything can happen with pocket pairs that are lower than the cards on the board and those people holding say pocket eights will try to bet out and raise out to scare those with pocket jacks or in this case AK, to fold.
well, have a nice day. bye bye.
One of them has Ax flush draw for spades, another had set of 7s, and the raiser has KK
I'm in BB with AcKh.
Preflop: call, call, fold, raise, rest fold, SB call, I just call, two early limpers call. 5 players.
Flop: Ad 5s 7c SB check, I bet, limper1 fold, limper2 call, PFraiser 2 bet, SB cold call 2, I 3 bet, all call.
Turn: Qs SB check, I bet, limper2 raise! PFraiser 3 bet! SB cold call 3. What do you do here?
I fold. limper2 call.
River: Kd limper2 bet. PFraiser call. SB call.
Final board: Ad 5s 7c Qs Kd
limper2 has 7d Qd - two pairs. PFraiser has As Qh - top two. SB fish has JJ.
I missed out on a big pot, but I believe I've made the correct fold on the turn.
This is an easy one to figure out. On the river you were dead to a King so you had 3 outs from 46 unseen cards which means the odds were 43:3 against you. At the point where you are deciding whether or not to call the double raise back to you on the turn there is 41 bets in the pot and it costs you 4 so the odds are 41:4. Assuming you collect one double bet on the end if you hit, you will win 43 bets for a 4 bet investment. So you are getting 10.75:1 on a 14.3:1 shot. This of course ignores what the other three players actually had.
Why didn't you 3 bet preflop? Maybe my experience is skewed but in most game i play in when the BB 3 bets after the button raises most will get out of his way.
(n/t)
Three betting pre-flop with slick even out of your blind is not at all bad especially if the raiser is the kind who raises on shaded values. You might be able to get the two original limpers to fold rather than call a double raise back to them.
My observation of the game was no one will fold even by 3 betting the flop. Later I was thinking perhaps by check raising on the flop I maybe able to drive out the limper if the limper hadn't invested any money on the flop yet. But once limper invested money (called 1 bet) on the flop, he felt he's commiting himself to the pot...
Before reading the results I'll say that the limper has Q5s or Q7s, The PFraiser has QQ or maybe AQ and the SB has 2 cards.
Does a player who stays until the showdown have to show his cards if asked what he has? I've been playing in "home" 2-4 and 3-6 HE games for a while, but have recently begun playing in AC. In my private games players always show when asked, but people get annoyed at the casinos sometimes.
I don't agree with the idea that it doesn't matter what a losing player was holding, as I saw someone post earlier on this topic. I'd like to know if someone was outright bluffing or if they had a strong hand cracked...that kind of information can help me decide on future bets.
Yes, in most public cardrooms when there is a showdown any player at the table can ask to see the losing hand. Now I believe in Reno, I think at the Peppermill, they have instituted a new policy where no one can see the losing hand if the loser wishes to have his hand simply mucked. But this is a rarity.
About 5 years ago, when I first started playing poker I was in a $1-$5 stud game and I asked to see the losing hand at showdown. I lost a $50 pot because when the losing hand was exposed it turned out to be the best hand. Since I was the winning player and ask to see the losing hand, the losing hand became live and I lost the pot! Since then they have abandoned this practice.
In general it is a bad idea to ask to see the losing hand. It causes hard feelings and slows down the game. The only exception would be if you suspected collusion and wanted to see what the suspected colluders were betting and raising with.
Jim, do you think that in most large casinos and card rooms that there is that much collunion going on? I have seen it go on at some Las Vagas nights but not in any casino.
I believe such collusion is rare at the 3-6 to 6-12 limits, and uncommon in the mid-limits.
In casinos and public cardrooms I think it is rare. I have heard that in some high limit games ($80-$160 and above) players are frequently playing off the same bankroll and can occasionally "gang up" on a tourist.
A number of years ago, when still learning Omaha/8, I had called a bet at the river and when faced with my opponents hand, thought I had lost, forgetting that it was a split game. I attempted to muck my hand, but the "winning" player asked to see my hand. The dealer turned it over and declared it was a split pot since I held low.
That was my "lesson" on asking to see another's "losing" hand.
This of course is an incredibly stupid rule. Once a player voluntarily relinquishes control of his hand it should make no difference whether the winning player asked to see the hand or another player at the table. Putting it another way, why on earth should a player not involved in the hand have the right to ask to see the loser's hand but the winning player has no such right?
Jim,
We've argued this before a little but who knows where it is buried (actually, you are so organized I bet you do - I'm glad guys like you put men in space rather than screw ups like me.)
The logic of what you say makes sense on the surface but the bigger picture is that the rules should be "good for the game" in addition to being fair or logical. In order to discourage the guy who just won the pot into further humiliating his opponent, we have this rule. Believe me, I think we have many bad rules, but this isn’t any where near the top of my list.
Anyway, you stated that this should only be done when you suspect collusion so we really don’t disagree much. But I’m guessing that the $50 pot lost (which is huge at that limit) will never be forgotten ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Why not make the forced-exposed hand live regardless of who asked to see it? Or do you think only pot winners try to humiliate pot losers?
Mark,
Most clubs have other rules to discourage third parties from asking to see others hands. In general, we try to discourage any player from repeatedly asking to see others folded hands, and have a rule in our book saying it will not be tolerated.
Rick
Excellent point.
A stupid rule? I can't help but think it is justice if someone wants to see a hand and it happens to beat him he (the one who wanted to see) IS NOT entitled to the pot he wanted to see the hand EG he asked for a whowdown which the other player wanted but now that it was forced to be seen i dont think the one who wanted to see should get it.
This might teach the loudmouth a lesson.
But suspicious when a player at showdown throws his hand away (let us say it barely touches the muck) then the hand is OVER. You should either have a rule that says no one is allowed to see it (The Reno-Peppermill Rule) or a rule that allows for anyone in the game to ask to see it (The standard practice). In the latter case whether or not the person asking happen to also be the person who won the pot is totally irrelevant.
If someone wants to throw his hand away then he should be able to AND the other person is not allowed to see it. Or the person who wants to see it should run the risk of seeing a better hand beat him if he really wants to see it.
I think asking to see if a bad idea and those who want to see should at least run some risk.
In the case you describe if the hand hits the muck (barely), it should be considered dead and once it was dead it should be allowed to be viewed by anyone!
If I had to make a choice I would choose no one is allowed to see it. But then again bc I havent' seen much evidence of collusion and such is the reason I feel this way. If i felt a game was suspicious (Ha ha), I think i would leave... And I don't beliee someone just watching the hand should have the right to ask to see them. Maybe one could start a policy if you want to see a person's hand you have pay a certain amount, but I doubt it is likely.
If you call the bet, and asked to see the hand, then the hand should be killed by the dealer and then turned over. I never ask, just do to the fact that, I have seen two players ask what hand they beat and have the players turn over a winner, that they did not know they had. I know that you want info but when you call a hand make sure that the called players shows down frist and then just fold if beaten.
It's poor etiquette requesting to see a losing player's hand. The whole intention of this rule is to prevent collusion. It creates hard feelings, antagonizes players, and slows the game down. You will never find a top player asking to see a losing players hand unless he suspects cheating. Professionals just don't do this and neither should you. As a player you ought to be able with some degree of accuracy figure out what your opponent has otherwise you shouldn't be playing anyway. Why embarass your opponent when he has just lost a big pot? It makes no sense and all you do in addition to creating hard feelings is encourage him to play better.
Bruce
no text
In this regard, it is especially foolish to request to see the cards of loose fishy players. You want the fish to have fun gambling; do not embarass them.
This is a hypothetical example, but it is still very realistic. You win a big pot with pocket Aces. The live one puts you on a bluff trying to run through AK and he calls you with bottum pair or pocket Deuces. Obviously he loses. Now you emabarass this guy by asking to see his hand. How do you think that will effect his play in the future?He will be more motivated to play better. It's just plain bad for the game.
Bruce
I suspect this will get alot of response as essays have been written about this topic.
You are right this is information you would like to have however, if you weren't in the pot some would argue this isn't information you are entitled to. I suspect even the winner of the pot isn't entitled to it if he didn't pay on bet on the river and maybe not even then! Second it is irritating to have someone ask what you have and have the dealer turn your cards face up, it seems like a cheap attempt to embarass the loser of the hand (not in the best interest of the game), i dont think anyone who didn't pay a bet on teh river should be allowed to make such a request.
FInally because it irritates people it probably isn't worth doing, as generally speaking good poker games are happy ones, and this little info you get pbly isn't worth irritating someone/and or the table.
Maybe if you really want to know ask the player who lost ," did you have what you think i had?" in a kind of freindly /sympathetic way. they might tell you. (You could ask (if you thought he had say a pair of q's, "did you ahve a pair of q's?")) i don't like doing this and i think if you pay attention youll get more than enough info w/o asking people to turn over their cards.
You have 7-8 in, let's say, the Big Blind or on the button. The flop is 9-10-K different suits. You have an open-ended straight draw, but you probably don't want to see a jack fall on the turn or river since it would give anybody with a Queen a king-high straight. So should you look at this as a 4-card draw instead of an 8-card draw, and continue if the pot offers enough money for a 4-card draw?
Also, if your hand(in this example)were suited and you had a backdoor flush draw, would that make much of a difference in deciding whether or not to continue.
Thanks for any help, Randy
Randy,
Against a medium to large field, this matters a lot, in addition to the fact you are drawing at the bottom end. It may even be worse than four outs in that you can make your best straight on the turn and get nailed on the river. Back door flushes make a difference and I would call it as being worth another out (Abdul's web site has some good stuff on estimating the value of backdoor draws in terms of outs - you may want to check there as I need to bone up a bit myself).
Note that holding a 43 with a flop of 5 6 9 might not be that dangerous if you up against an early raiser and you get it head up or almost head up.
For example, you called a sane UTG raise and several callers with 43 suited in the blind. The post flop action went you check, UTG bets, most or all fold, and now it is your turn. Here you can feel fairly sure that you have eight outs plus your semi-bluffing and scare card outs.
Regards,
Rick
When you have 87, you MUCH prefer the flop 45K (face value 4 outs) than the flop 9TK (face value 8 outs).
I might prefer K54 if I were the big blind, but on the button if i hit the straight with a Q I'll know soon (in almost any game) enough if it is good. I give the 87 about 6 outs in this situation. For one thing AQ (and often KQ) is not likely out in an unraised pot. QJ is another matter of course. But a Q doesn't have to be out. The 4% or so for a backdoor flush is indeed about 1 out. Before the turn, a 1-Card out is worth 4.25%, the backdoor is 4.16%.
[Yhave 87, flopA= 45K (face value 4 outs) flopB= 9TK (face value 8 outs).
Aaaah, but fear of a stiff queen is NOT your only consern with flopB. If you catch a 6 you can easily lose with any 7,8,J,Q. You may already be drawing dead. Pairing the board is much worse when there are a few high cards out there.
You have a great point which I will embellish: Position matters more when information about the opponent's hand can drastically alter your best play.
- Louie
These are the kind of hands that cause many players to be losing players. Dump it - if the field ib big you probably are drawing dead or close to dead if a small field it isn't worth the draw.
Dump in these situations and you will end up ahead.
Basically, you are right about only having a 4 card draw, since the Jack will likely give someone with a queen a higher straight. You effectively have the same odds as a gutshot, not an open ender.
The presence of a backdoor flush SLIGHTLY improves your hand. It might be about the same (on the flop) as having a 5 outer instead of a 4 outer. In otherwords, it makes only a small difference.
The situation you described is a marginal one and you should only draw at it if the pot odds (or implied odds) justify doing so. Be SURE you are correct because this is a very marginal situation and if you just always folded it you would not be losing very much over the long run.
Dave in Cali
Hi forumers,
Great forum you got! Hope my contribution(s) won't lower the level too much -)
The other day I was playing in a somewhat loose-passive 10-20 HE game. Two fold to me, I have 22. Since I expect several limpers, I call. Indeed, 2 limp in, plus the 2 blinds.
Flop comes TT5 rainbow.
The 2 blinds check and I bet. I figured I might have the best hand, and if I'm raised I can fold with a clear conscience. But no one raises, and in fact 2 call, and the 2 blinds fold.
Turn is a 9.
Here I wimp out and check. When both remaining players checked as well, I realised I had made a mistake.
River is a J.
With the str8 possibility I just checked (I thought a bet now would be called (or raised) only by better hands), one limper bet, the other folded, I called. Limper turned over a J for the better two pair.
How awful was my turn check? How about the bet on the flop?
All comments appreciated!
Steven
Pre-flop I am not comfortable with you limping with a small pocket pair despite the fact that it is a loose, passive game. You are out of position and you have no idea how many players will be taking the flop with you. I think you are better off folding here.
On the flop your bet is a good one since 2 of your 4 opponents have checked. You might win the pot outright or at least get to a cheap showdown. When the two limpers behind you call, you have to figure you are probably beat if not by a Ten then by a Five or perhaps a larger pocket pair. There is no draw for these guys to be going after when they call your flop bet.
On the turn, when the Nine comes I think your check is proper into two opponents. You are probably beat and if someone is on a draw your bet will not force them out anyway. While betting here gives you your best chance of winning the pot, I don't think a bet will win the pot outright often enough to make it profitable since this is a small, unraised pot.
On the river, I would have folded when the first limper bet since all you can beat are over cards and from the betting I think this is too remote.
Jim,
I honestly thought you would indicate that there were too many opponents to make a flop bet (see my post below). I guess I zigged when you zagged ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I would normally not lead into 4 opponents with the underpair, but when 2 of them check and there are only 2 remaining I think the likelihood of winning the pot outright by betting goes up significantly.
I think the biggest mistake was calling preflop with 22 out of position. Save these hand for last position. You can´t know how many players are going to call the bet and whether you will be raised or not.
Anyway, the bet on the flop with considering folding if being raised is ok, when you play against tight opponents. Bud it seems, that they were pretty loose. When you think they lay down overcards and small pocketpairs and gutshut-draws -> bet. If you don´t think so -> check and fold.
Being called on the flop the check on the turn was ok. You will be beat something like 80% of the time.
Just my thoughts
Regards
M.A.
oF course there was no gutshut draw possible. I thought, it was TT6. Sorry
m.a.,
One advantage of being the forums leading insomniac (and living on the left coast) is that I often get the last word in (could you imagine if Badger kept my hours - he would ALWAYS get the last word in on just about every topic). On the other hand, the day crowd buries some of my replies.
Anyway, one thing to note is that against loose opponents who call too much, you are not only very likely to be beat, but you will often get beat because they will call with weak overcards and other hands that most tight players fold. So when you wrote...
"When you think they lay down overcards and small pocketpairs and gutshut-draws -> bet. If you don´t think so -> check and fold"
...you were right on target (despite overlooking the lack of gut shot draw in the original post).
Regards,
Rick
Sorry, but english is not my mother-tounge. I´ve looked it up in the dictionary, couldn´t find it.
I know, this has nothing to do with poker, sorry Mason. I hope you don´t mind.
M.A.
It's a guy in bed with Cindy Crawford.
Your dictionaries suck, no offense. Try this one.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
great page for english-suckers :-)
M.A.
Izmet,
I book-marked (or should I say “favorited (sp?)” – I use MS IE 5) your dictionary link. It looks better than mine on cursory analysis.
Also try downloading GuruNet from www.zdnet.com. It sits in your system tray and is available after highlighting any word with a right mouse click. Pretty nifty but I just started using it so I only give it a qualified indorsement.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Sorry I just have the home page link above but I really gotta run.
Rounder,
I guess the point of my post was that it is easy to describe a game as loose passive when it fact most of the "loose passives" are on your right (and they already folded) leaving the rest of the table somewhat tight and situationally aggressive. So I had problems with the pre flop call and think the situation is very typical (that certain hands lose value when first to enter in middle position versus early position or UTG).
I steal my share of pots and then some but four opponents and a board paired in the upper middle range spells trouble. If Steven’s opponents played in the manner “m.a.” described in his post then the flop bet is OK but once called in two spots I think a further bet is suicide.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. You guys get the last word in on this, I need to leave for work ;-)
Steven,
I wrote most of what follows before Jim and others posted as I took a break when my best friend came over to watch a little late night TV and ruminate over the state of poker and the world. I hope my thoughts are not too disjointed or merely repeat what they say but I might as well tidy it up and post it.
One observation is that a lot of us get in a game that we think to ourselves is loose-passive and maybe it is for a while. Unfortunately, over time it may in fact tighten up or get more aggressive and we start losing money with the baby pairs up front and especially in the middle!
In a loose passive game, your call with 22 pre-flop was quite a bit worse after two had folded than if you were UTG. You are less likely to attract callers behind and more likely to get raises behind. I would toss the bottom three or four pairs away here and also make sure I am sitting behind the looser players if another seat opens up.
I think four opponents are way too many to bet against with this flop (without looking, I’m guessing Jim says the same). Now if I was in the blind with 22 and the flop was 5 5 T a bet would be much better since they must fear a five from you (but I would prefer one or two fewer opponents). Another problem is that an eight through jack in the “calling zone” pre flop so you don’t get the pot for a bet very often. Best of all for your deuces is a flop such as 5 5 K since there are few hands that would call pre-flop that can stand your bet.
Now back to your hand. That it plays out as it has to the turn is expected. As discussed, a bet into four opponents rarely loses them all with this flop. Now another “calling zone” card comes and you check. I think the check was correct and be prepared to give it up to a bet in most cases.
The fact that they didn’t bet, took a free card and beat you is one of the expected outcomes. The smallest pairs are always up against overcards and this hand really was doomed from the spot. A middle pair can at least eliminate worry about the five and take or apply a little more heat. The smallest pairs usually need to flop sets when up against four opponents, even if two are in the blinds.
Regards,
Rick
You know I didn't think calling w/2's upfront was such a mistake. Maybe a little but it depends on how loose/passive they are how many you expect to call and the action you expect to get if a 2 flops.
I think alot of people advocate in a typcial game to throw away 2-5's upfront.
I like your bet on the flop and your logic, but being out of position causes a problem on the turn. If you bet the turn you are betting 1BB to win 4 BB, so if you expect to pick it up more than 20% the bet is good, but there is a decent chance you can get raised as some may raise if they know you will release (and if you wouldn't play a T this way).
I think if the players are somewhat timid and not tricky a bet may well be in order but if tricky and aggressive a check might be right.
Rick, He said it was a lose passive game - perfect for an aggressive player to pick up pots from weak players.
Mike
You had a perfect semi-bluff going until the turn - you should have fired out like you had a set of aces.
You missed a bet and paid for it.
Play Better next time.
Rouunder,
How can he play like he had "aces" when he didn't raise before the flop?
Regards,
Rick
Rick's point is true. No one would believe that you had an overpair.
However, Rounder's point about continuing with the semi-bluff is a good one. Although I wouldn't really consider this a semi-bluff. Since you only have two outs, it is closer to a plain old bluff.
However, if you planned on calling the river after checking the turn, then you should just go ahead and bet the turn. if you get called again, you are beat and give it up. But your turn bet may very well win you the pot. I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining two opponents were calling with either overcards or the five, and you may get the five to fold on the turn. I don't think anyone had the ten or they would have either bet the flop or raised your flop bet.
Dave in Cali
Those were my thoughts too, but only after my two opps had checked on the turn...
You lost it with the check on the turn. Most losers will call to see the turn with any two cards (especially overcards), but will laydown if you bet the turn.
Thanks for all the answers, especially from some of my favorite posters. It's fun to see them disagree-).
I personally thought my bet on the flop was fine, but my check on the turn was wrong. However, I wondered (and I should have stated that explicitly) how much the latter thought was driven by hindsight.
Steven
If you were pretty sure there was not going to be a raise pre-flop and a few more people would come in behind after 3 limpers, it's not entirely a mistake, but not good either. I'd fold 99% of the time.
Flop, turn : 9's, T's, can be prevalent when it is not raised pre-flop. I would have check-folded the flop. Remember for the semi-bluff to work, you need 3 conditions. You do not have the condition that it is possible everyone will fold. Way too many people in to try it. I think Feeny talks about this as a "bad play the good players make."
If the flop was checked around, maybe a turn bet picks it up for you since the big bet cuts into over-card's odds. Here, the semi-bluff may work. You'd be offering 5-2 to a straight draw and to overcards. Might even get a 9 to fold, figuring you were going for a check-raise on the flop with T's, 5's or an overpair (this would be a real weakling, tho.)
River : 9's, T's, J's on the board. It's sort of a bluffing board, but I'd have to put him on one of those three cards (AK or AQ would have raised pre-flop). He could even have had 87 and called the flop-bet with a double back-door straight draw. I don't think this was a good call on your part. There's only 4 big bets in the pot. It's iffy.
mth.
I was playing in a very loose and passive 5-10 HE game. EVERYONE limps in, and I am on the button with KQs (diamonds). Everone calls, except BB.
Should I raise here?!? This was my real quandry.
For those who want a "bad beat" story,
Flop KsQs3d. It's checked to me, and I bet. 6 callers or so (too many to count exactly). Turn, 2s. Checked to me, I bet, 3 callers or so this time. River, As. SB bets, someone calls, I fold. SB shows Js7c, wins huge pot.
Aside from calling preflop, I think this player played his Js close to correctly, calling 1 bet with 3 to a straight flush, then on the turn with the 2nd best spade.
Did my pre-flop raise keep him in? I think to myself, "a player calling a raise out of the SB with J7o is probably not calculating his pot odds on the flop." Do others agree or disagree with this statement?
That's not much of a bad beat story... now I can tell you a bad beat story... no I'll spare you.
Anyway I don't think I would raise in this spot. Against a full table KQs is not an outstanding hand. You may have the best hand but you still need help on the flop. For instance if an ace falls on the flop, with this many people you can almost be guaranteed that someone is holding an ace. If you are in early position you may raise to thin the field, however, on the button you are certainly not going to get anyone to fold, except maybe the blinds. In a 5-10 game once someone has made a single bet they will always call a raise.
Plus if you didn't raise before the flop someone may have bet into you on the flop and then you could have raised them and this would likely have made the sb and others fold.
Obviously once the third spade hits you have to be concerned about a flush but you still must bet in order not to give anyone a free card. Once the fourth spade hits and the sb bets out I think you have to fold.
You didn't play the hand poorly, I just wouldn't have raised btf. When four spades hit there's not much you can do.
I think it would be playing results to argue that raising pre-flop is right here. Many players would raise on the button with King-Queen suited and lots of limpers but they are doing it as an "action play". Mathematically I don't think it makes a great deal of difference whether you raise or not. I have seem some pros even raise with a hand like Six-Five suited in a spot like this. King-Queen suited in this situation is an outstanding speculative drawing hand and there is nothing wrong with keeping your cost down to take a flop with a hand that has no immediate value and lots of opponents.
As it turns out a raise might have driven him out but who knows? Maybe he is the kind that will play any two cards from his blind when there are lots of players regardless of whether or not the pot is raised. Furthermore, how do you know the other caller did not have a smaller flush?
Jim,
what hands DO have immediate value? It's impossible for an AK to win a 10-handed pot without at least pairing, and the same is true for almost all pairs. It would be generous to say 9s or better have a chance to win unimproved, even jacks are pretty unlikely.
Does this make these the only proper raising hands against a large field? I would appreciate your analysis of the topic.
To me a hand of immediate value in a situation like this is AA,KK,QQ,JJ. No starting hand, not even AA, is a favorite over a large collective but these large pocket pairs will win more than their fair share in my opinion even when they are unimproved. AK is a special case because when you flop top pair it is always the very best pair with the very best kicker so I would raise with it as well. The problem with KQ even when it is suited is that your top pair is always vulnerable especially against a table full of opponents.
I prefer raising before the flop, but calling is O.K. The way the hand played out there was nothing that you could have done any differently. You still would have lost on the end had you raised.
However the SB made a terrible play. How can he possibly call on the flop with a backdoor flush and straight draw with action behind him. That is a horrible call. Only a clueless idiot would make a call like that.
Bruce
Bruce, I am glad to see that someone agrees with me that raising BTF has merit. Although Jim and Clint do have a point about KQs being a speculative drawing hand, I think that against this large a field that this is a prime opportunity to raise for value. I have occasionally raised suited connectors for value when there are many in, but I have never done so with anything lower than T9s. I may raise with QJs or higher when there are 6 or more callers ahead of me, but this is not etched in stone. It depends on my image and the state of the game. However, I think KQs should usually be raised with in this type of game, where people are playing really trashy off-suited hands. I just feel that there are a proportionately higher # of flops that help KQs that the raise is justified. Plus, you will only rarely lose to a higher flush with KQs if you make a flush. I will also raise with this hand if I am in middle or late position and everyone folds to me. Ironically, folding this hand to a raise may often be the best play, unless the raiser is very loose and raises with trash, or you are in a blind and only have to call a partial bet.
Further comments on raising with KQs welcome.
Dave in Cali
"Should I raise here?!?"
YES. Raise your suited connector with two high cards for value. You are getting implied odds from unsuited cards here plus you may win the pot if you flop a pair, plus you have a good kicker if this happens. Raise BTF most of the time with this hand if no one else has raised yet.
"a player calling a raise out of the SB with J7o is probably not calculating his pot odds on the flop."
This is probably true. Anyone who actually calculates pot odds is very unlikely to be such a poor player as to call raises with cheeze like this.
Still though, you should have raised BTF. This super-genious of a player may have folded and perhaps you would have won the pot instead of losing it. This is another advantage of raising BTF with KQs. Whether they will call or not, you should still charge those trashy unsuited cards double to take the flop against your KQs as you are a favorite by quite a bit.
Dave in Cali
Everybody seems to think you didn't raise BTF. Sounds to me like you did, and correctly. You have a great multiway hand and your raise will likely buy you a free card on the flop of turn if you choose to take it.
As for your preflop raise keeping the SB in, maybe it did. You should be happy about this. If he exposed his hand on the flop, would you be rooting for him to call or fold?
To fold. What else?
.
if you raise, you'll win more $$ in the long run; this statement does not seem open to debate. if you call, you'll win more pots in the long run; i think this too is clear cut. i would opt for the former, but there are reasons to consider limping: is your B/R running a little short- raising is definitely a higher varience play... do you have a super-aggressive player to your immediate right or even close to your immediate right who is apt to bet the flop with little or nothing if it's checked around to him (allowing you to raise and thin the field ); if so calling before the flop is a viable option there are other factors to consider, but overall raising in the situation you described is in most cases by far the better play. as an aside, once the 5TH player has voluntarily entered the pot i tend to stop thinking about raising to move the blinds- although it does leave you feeling numb when you get a premium hand cracked by the big blind in an unraised pot WHEN YOU KNOW HE WOULD HAVE FOLDED FOR A RAISE any and all comments greatly appreciated-- this is a pet subject of mine
I was in a 1-4/8/8 game some time back. Very passive game preflop. I pick up 5c6c in the cutoff. 4 limpers to me, I call then the button raised. SB and all call. Bad call initially for me ? Flop comes 2c4hTd . All check to the button who bets. Rest fold. Button is an off duty dealer that's really frustrated that he can't win a hand. I figure him not to be blowing off chips with just overcards. I call. Bad call again ? I'm on happy tilt, up about $150 ahead, as I call, I boast "lets see if I can get the perfect card. That would be the the 7c !" Now I actually said this. The dealer turns the 7c. Now I 'm open ended and have a club draw. I say again ' Well since I asked for it I have to bet." I bet $8. Button thinks for a second and calls. River is the As. I can't win is if I check so I bet again. This guy rolls over his pair of jacks and folds. I say "Wow that was the perfcet card," and don't show as I rake the pot. I usually say very little at the table but I think I might have talked my way into this one because he was running so badly. What do you think ?
"Very passive game preflop. I pick up 5c6c in the cutoff. 4 limpers to me, I call then the button raised. SB and all call. Bad call initially for me?"
No. After 4 limpers you are getting enough implied odds to play suited connectors. The only time you might fold this hand after 4 limpers is if you expect a raise or there is a complete maniac still to act. Playing this hand in the situation you described is perfectly acceptable.
On the flop, You are getting about 15:1 pot odds to call with your gutshot and backdoor flush draw (I wasn't entire sure of the exact action from your narrative).
If he was paying close enough attention, the fact that the 7c was your "perfect card" should have made him think twice about folding on the river. What could the 7c have given you that made it your perfect card? pocket 77? Otherwise the best it could have given you was two pair or a draw.
Since you bet the turn, you were pretty much forced to bet the river because it was your only way to win the hand. Mucking face down was a good move. I think you talked your way into this pot, but don't count on that happening very often.
Dave in Cali
Yea, I guess he was looking for the J and didn't consider my draws.
Against a player with reasonably good table presence there would be no disguising the fact that you are on a DRAW and did NOT flop the better hand. Asking for 7c would indicate you have two clubs and he therefore should deduce you have some sort of straight draw.
You should limit your comments to times where you are confident your chances of manipulating the opponent is GREATER than the chances of giving your hand away.
Your talk may have given you the guts to bet when the Ace hit, but you won since you bet when you snagged the Ace (he would have called had an undercard come).
- Louie
Most of you who have been kind enough to respond to my posts are aware by now that most games I play in contain a straddle button. I find that this can greatly complicate things at times. I just want to point this out up front so I don't get the usual responses like, " good players don't straddle", etc.
This was a straddle pot with a strong player (sp) in the straddle. A good tricky player (tp) raised the straddle to $30 ($10-$20 game). I made it 4 bets with Kh Kd, and sp called 2 cold in the straddle (oh,oh!). 3 handed.
The flop came Ah,Ac,4h. sp checked, tp bet, I raised, sp called 2 cold (double oh,oh!), tp calls. Turn is 7s. sp checked, tp checked, I checked. I am not worried about giving free cards since I may already be beat, drawing very thin, or possible dead to AK. Also, my check may cause someone to bet the river with a hand like QQ. Is this wrong thinking?
The river was a brick. sp checks, tp checks, I bet. sp thinks for a LONG time and folds, tp calls, and my KK wins. What a hand! sp was very relieved by his fold on the end, but later told me that if he plays it right he wins... What could sp have had? I put him on hearts, but when he almost calls the river what 2 hearts could he have had? Or was he contemplating a bluff/raise? I put tp on a lower pocket pair. What were my mistakes in this hand? And what the @%$# did sp have? Thanks.
Kevin
SP had QQ maybe and was thinking he could have gotten you out.
I'm a little confused by this straddle button. Is it a straddle or a kill? If it's a straddle, wouldn't the first raise be to $40? And so is this a required straddle, sort of like a third blind? Is the straddle UTG, or what?
Yes. The person to the left of the BB must put in a $20 straddle (in a $10-$20 game). The first raise therefore would be to $30, the next to $40. It's a silly rule, but the casino where I play still puts a 4 bet cap on the pre-flop betting even when there is a straddle. Most rooms would allow an additional raise when there is a straddle.
Not EVERY pot gets straddled however. The pot only gets straddled when the player who has the straddle button is to the left of the BB. The straddle is also live. For example, if no one raised, the straddle would have the option to raise himself.
Hmmm... so how does one get stuck with the straddle button?
What casino is this at? Is it typical for your area?
Well, whoever wins a straddle pot get the straddle button and straddles the next time they are in position to do so. I play in the Chicago area. I much prefer a kill or 1/2 kill, but this particular casino is not set up for this. State gaming laws, etc.
As I said before, the presense of a straddle can pose some problems for me. Because it creates "unaturally" large pots at times and a player's actions are often not always in line with their actual holding. This in turn, can make for some tricky situations. Thanks for your response Niels.
In 10-20, the SB is 5, BB is 10, raises before turn are in increments of 10, so straddle is 20, raise is 30.
Kevin
It looks to me like sp had QJh,TJh or Kxh. I would bet that it was Kxh and he hit his rag card on the board. That was the reason he thought about calling. Was the sp Jeff? If it was i would bet on the other two hands as he only occasionally plays hands under twenty. I agree the tricky player probably had a pocket pair. When you raised the flop i think that should have tipped off the sp that you didn't have an Ace.Why would you want to scare everyone off on the flop by raising. And you sure don't have Arag because you would never make it four bets with that hand pre-flop. Sp should have bet the turn and the river and put you to a very tough decision. Also, by calling two cold i think you have to put him on an Ace imean he is a sp. Lar
I know what a live straddle is (never, never, never do it), but what the heck is a straddle button? That connotates no choice. Is it anything like a kill button?
What conditions create a straddle in these games?
Kevin,
I think you played the hand well. The only other choice (if you wanted to try to represent the Ace)would be to call the flop and raise the turn if bet into or bet the turn if everyone checks - but to be honest, I think you played it just fine.
I personally fee the sp should have bet the turn and represented against you to try and get you to lay down. I would be interested in knowing who the players in the hand were and might be better able to tell what they might do given the situation.
On a good note, now that I am back in town, you and Larry and IRS Frank will have a sucker to pick on instead of the usual tight tough players at HC.
Good Post - thanks for sharing.
Michael D. Soccer/Sucker Mike)
Thanks for the response Mike.
sp was Sean, tp was Willy.
The only reason I don't like smooth calling the flop, is that now sp might check/raise with QQ. Now if tp calls I have to muck the flop. Don't you think? Also, if sp calls the flop and tp bets the turn, raising is a much more dangerous play with sp still in the hand. I may even have to fold since I now have to consider that sp might be check/raising the turn. I agree that sp should have bet the turn. Now if tp calls, I have to fold. What do you think sp (Sean) had???
Kevin,
With all due respect to you - and I truly respect your game - Sean completely misplayed the hand. Given his reputation as a tight player pre-flop, he should have bet the turn and forced you to muck. I know if I am in your position, and Sean bets the turn after facing the heat pre-flop and on the flop, I would not give him another penny. I have no idea what he had - maybe 1010 JJ or QQ but he totally misplayed the hand in my opinion. He should know that you respect his game and are capable of laying down a hand given the right situation.
In regards to your play, I feel that you gave away the lack of an ace in your hand by the way you played it pre-flop and on the flop - I would have come at you with gins blazing on the turn knowing you did not have an ace.
Obviously, given the way the hand played out, you played it fine and had a very good read on your opponents to win the amount of money you did.
As I said though, I am somewhat mystified as the what Sean had. Just my thoughts.
Mike- Can I pick your brain just once more on this? You wrote:
"I feel that you gave away the lack of an ace in your hand by the way you played it pre-flop and on the flop - I would have come at you with gins blazing on the turn knowing you did not have an ace."
Pre-flop I capped the betting and ON the flop I raised Willy... Do you mean that I showed weakness BECAUSE I raised Willy on the flop, and that if I truly had an ace I would've just smooth called? I don't know Mike... I may have raised Willy even if I HAD AK. The pot was getting pretty big and I wouldn't want them hitting a 2-3 outer on me. When the pot gets big I'm usually happy to define my hand and take it down ASAP. Do you think this is too conservative? If I had AK I'd still figure to get plenty of action from another ace. Please be honest. Do you think this type of thinking may be what's preventing me from from moving up to the next level and becoming a strong player as opposed to just tight? Thanks Mike.
Kevin
in a 10/20 he game i play in (at a casino) there is another player that i don't bet with. If we wind up head up we just check to the river (ifthere are others in the pot it is business as usual). This brings up number of questions:
1) is this colusion? (we aren't playing on the same bankroll) but when one of us raises and the other is the only caller it can look wrong. 2)raising him or check raising him can look as if we are just trying to get a lock on the pot(between us). 3)one of us can be inclined to play "wrong" in order to keep others in the pot. 4) one of us might be more inclined to call the other's raise knowing that we will be treated as all in
I have no interest in in cheating. When he first offered to check to me (as he does a couple of others in this game) i thought it was ok. but im wondering how others feel. Thanks in advance.
You are probably not doing anything wrong but appearance is everything. In my opinion if it even appears wrong, (and it could), it's not worth it.
I don't see anything unethical as long as your agreement doesn't spill into other situations. It is difficult psychologically to avoid that. I have sat at tables with my brother and also my brother-in-law. Since we are all competitive we just try to beat each other brains out like with every other player, and so the game goes on. I think this is the kind of thing that should be announced, which is what I do when my brother and I are at the same table.
This is obviously cheating. You can cheaply chase with a drawing hand because your buddy gives you free cards on every round. But I need to worry about raises on every subsequent round. So you can play a lot looser. Think about everybody doing this except one guy. He would get creamed.
If this is acceptable then why don't you just tell the whole table what you are doing?
It's bad for the game. If you are a winning player you should not do this. It's not cheating but its pretty close to it and it certainly has the effect of influencing the way you and your friend play. It just looks bad and it has absolutely no benefit to your game. If you are a winning player why potentially piss off the live ones.
Bruce
Though this is a relatively innocuous form of collusion, it can be damaging to the game (and your reputation).
There are some times when your strategy can be completely different due to your being in a killpot game. I am going to provide an example but this is by no means the only possible situation where this occurs. Please feel free to respond with more examples or discussion as this topic has not been as thoroughly beat to death as other topics, such as AQo BTF.
By the way, the kill pot structure I am referring to is this: When you win two pots in a row (there must be a flop or it is a push), then you must post a double sized blind bet (the kill), and the betting limits double for the entirety of that hand. If you win again on your kill, it remains a kill until you finally lose a pot.
Say you are in a 4-8 kill pot game and you win the pot. The next hand, you are in middle position and limp first in with QJs. Everyone folds to the BB who calls. The flop comes all J T 3 rainbow and the BB checks. While this may seem like an almost automatic semi-bluff bet to try and steal the pot, there are some considerations that apply here that do not normally apply.
Under normal circumstances, you are getting 2.5:1 odds if you bet. That means that you need to successfully steal the pot slightly less than one in three times for this bet to be theoretically profitable. However, since you won the previous pot, and there has been a flop on this hand, if you win the pot, then you must post a kill. Therefore, you are risking 4$ to win 10$, but if you win the pot, you must POST an 8$ BLIND! Therefore your bet has negative EV instead of positive. If you win the pot here, you will have a total loss on the hand of 2$.
What this illustrates is that the fact that you will have to post a blind if you win the pot (and you won the previous pot) significantly changes your pot odds. It can turn a +EV situation into a -EV one. You should also be less likely to enter the pot if you have won the previous pot, because if you win again, you will have to post a double sized blind. Your pot odds are reduced by a big bet anytime you have won the previous pot. This could change a profitable situation into an unprofitable one. Example:
You won the last pot. You are on the button and have QJo and decide to try and steal the blinds*. You raise and both the BB and SB call. Flop comes K 9 3 rainbow. You have a gutshot straight draw. SB bets and BB calls. Under normal circumstances, you have 8:1 pot odds for your 11:1 draw. If you count implied odds, you almost have a call here. You can most likely expect to make up the difference (plus probably a little extra) with bets on future rounds. However, since you will have to post a double sized blind if you win, your true pot odds are only 6:1. You might not be able to make up the difference now, and therefore you should fold.
* - if you steal the blinds, then there is no flop, and the kill is a push. You still keep the button but you only post the kill if you win the NEXT pot (assuming there is a flop). Therefore, you should not alter your blind stealing strategy just because it is a kill game.
The point of the above example is that the kill can turn a marginally profitable situation into a losing one. you are losing a big bet of pot odds when you have won the previous pot. This can change the strategy in many places besides the examples I have provided.
Any comments / corrections / pummelings welcome.
Dave in Cali
I think that games with kill pots complicate things quite a bit. Aside from just losing a BB by being forced to post the kill pot blind, players (unwittingly I think) adjust their bet/raise/call standards quite a bit in kill pots. Last weekend I played in a 8/16 game that killed to 16/32. The game gave me a lot of trouble. Quite often I had to post the kill blind and found myself sandwiched between the real blinds and players in later positions. Add on top of this the fact that some of the ordinarily weak/tight players seemed to be much more aggressive in kill pots and I found myself not wanting to play kill pots b/c most of the time you wind up with a mediocre hand out of position.
OTOH, this game was very beatable and all the players at the table seemed like regulars so I should probably learn how to adjust to the unique problems of this structure.
Dave in Cali wrote:
"The next hand, you are in middle position and limp first in with QJs. Everyone folds to the BB who calls. The flop comes all J T 3 rainbow and the BB checks. While this may seem like an almost automatic semi-bluff bet to try and steal the pot, there are some considerations that apply here that do not normally apply"
I don't understand. You are NOT stealing or semi-bluffing here as you hold top pair... If this is a typo and should read "the flop comes T93" or " first in with KQ" it makes sense.
Continuing on the assumption you meant flopping an up and down straight draw:
"Under normal circumstances, you are getting 2.5:1 odds if you bet. That means that you need to successfully steal the pot slightly less than one in three times for this bet to be theoretically profitable."
This is not true. It would be true only if your opponent folding was your only win. But you have the additional chances of winning by hitting your draw or pairing. So, before going further, I just want to make sure I'm following your post correctly....
Kevin
you are right about the flop being T9x, I meant an up and down, not top pair.
I think with the example I used that you would rather have them fold immediately since you would probably not want to chase a straight draw heads up most of the time, and it would be clearly unprofitable if you knew you were going to have to post another big bet if you won. Say the SB bet instead of checking. You would be getting 3.5:1 odds, but minus the kill, only 2.5:1 odds, which to me would indicate a fold. So in this case the bet is only slightly better than a pure bluff. Obviously if there were more than one other player the situation would be different, but your pot odds are always cut down by a big bet when you are in a kill game and have won the previous pot.
My example may not have been the best one possible, perhaps you can come up with a better example for this situation. for instance, say you had a double belly buster with only one or no overcards....
Sorry about the confusion...
Dave in Cali
Dave, I think your arguement makes a lot of sense. However in your first example when you flop top pair and you bet on the flop that is hardly a semi-bluff. If you get action on the flop you will in all likelyhood get a call on the turn and river with probably the best hand so I think it becomes a +EV situation. Limping in middle position without any other callers in this situation probably is not a good play unless you have a group 1 hand or pocket Tens or Jacks. I would probably refrain from trying to steal the blinds in your last situation unless I had a big hand because getting a walk is probably pretty slim and you truely have a -EV situation then.
Bruce
"I would probably refrain from trying to steal the blinds in your last situation unless I had a big hand because getting a walk is probably pretty slim and you truely have a -EV situation then."
Bruce: I am not sure what you meant by this, please clarify.... Remember, if you steal the blinds, you do not have to post a kill. You still have the kill button but it says "no kill". when you win your second pot in a row it gets flipped over and says "kill" and then you post. If there is no flop you keep the button but don't post a kill blind.
Dave in Cali
What is the likelyhood of you stealing the blinds? If you have tight players in the blinds and they will fold with a high degree of frequency then by all means raise. But if this is a normal 4-8 game that is next to impossible and you have a -EV situation.
Bruce
Ok, that is what I thought you meant.
Although you are right about stealing the blinds in a 4-8 game (almost never works), consider blind stealing in only a theoretical manner. Suppose it was 15-30 with a kill to 30-60. Now your blind stealing strategy remains the same.
Dave in Cali
I think my blind stealing strategy remains almost the same. The only difference I make is in marginal cases I pass.
Bruce
No, your blind stealing strategy changes significantly.
The EV of a blind steal attempt is made up by the EV of winning the blinds * the percentage of times you do it, plus the EV of having to play out the situation if the blinds defend.
It's the second case that makes it a good idea to not attack the blinds with hands like 72o. And in this case, the fact that you'll have to post a double blind if you win means you only want to attack the blinds with a hand that has huge EV in the case of a confrontation, OR the blinds have to be so tight that the steal attempt has a very high chance of success.
See my message below on "kill pot pre-flop strategy". Note that failed blind steal attempts are about the worst-case for losing big EV from the double-blind post.
Hmm, you know I was thinking about half kill games recently as they were recently installed in the casino i usually play in.
I haven't read the others but you should note just because you post a "kill" blind doesn't mean you have lost what you post, you may get a good flop or may steal the blinds. (ive noticed in some 1/2 kill games players seem to play more tightly when the kill is on), you haven't neccesarily lost a bet as you have some equtiy in the kill pot.
Maybe one would be more inclined to play if late position w/a leg up as opposed to early as you would prefer a late kill post than early.
Another thing to notice is if you win a lot of hands (and are the killer) you opponents become more afraid of you. this sounds like nonsense but i think people become somewhat hesitant to get involved w/someone so lucky.
Though if you really believe you are losing that much by playing w/a leg up and winning the next hand tighten up considerably. YOu pbly aren't losing that much EV here though i suspect you might be if you fold in some of the examples you give. (I think in the first you were heads up with the BB w/top pair, you aren't trying to steal it, you are value betting!)
While your obsevations are qualitatively correct, you have overestimated the cost of posting a kill. When competing for your second consecutive pot, your pot odds are not reduced by one big bet. This is because the money you post as the killer is live. If you happen to receive a normally playable hand during your kill pot, your post cost you nothing (and you have gained if the killer acts last); if you receive a hand you would not otherwise play, you still might win the pot.
Most of the situations you give are post-flop. I wonder how much one should tighten up pre-flop with the leg up. I am guessing that posting a big-bet (even in late position) must have -E of at least 1/3 to 1/2 a big bet. Against just one or two opponents, you should tighten up significantly pre-flop. Stealing the blinds with hands even as good as QJo or ATo is probably a mistake because you lose a whole bb in kill-blind and drop when you win (in 4-8). Against many opponents, you don't have to tighten up as much. However, it surprises me that some of the pro's I see in 8-16 don't seem to follow this. I have been experimenting with trying to steal from them when they have a kill or leg-up, and haven't been too successful.
As others have posted, your loss is not a full big bet, because the two random cards you are dealt on the next hand will return a pretty good chunk of your EV.
How much depends on your position. If you're going to have to post the kill UTG, then you should throw away just about every hand before the flop except premium pairs and AKs. If you are going to post the kill on the button if you win, the penalty is not nearly as severe and you can play a few more hands.
Note that the vast majority of normally playable hands pre-flop are actually pretty low EV, and most of them should be tossed in a kill game if you just won the pot. The exception would be hands that have high implied odds if the game is loose. For example, the EV of small and medium pocket pairs is pretty small, but that's mainly because they usually miss the flop. If they DO hit the flop, the EV from that point on is very high.
So, let's say you have pocket 6's. Let's say you play them 10 times, and you lose $10 9 times, and win $150 the tenth time (rounding some numbers here a bit).
The total EV is then $6.00 per hand. Some people are making the mistake of saying that since the EV is only $6.00, you should fold because if you win you have to post $10 next time. But that's not the case. Look what happens in a kill pot: this time, you lose $10 9 times, and win $150 minus your kill of $20, or $130 the other time. Total EV per hand therefore only drops by $2.00 to $4.00 per hand
The hands you really want to tighten up on are the ones that hit a lot of flops but lose fairly often when they do, and when they win tend to win small pots. A hand that loses $40 7 times and wins $80 the other 4 times has an EV of $12 per hand. If you've just won a pot, the EV in a kill game drops all the way to -$4.00. Hands that have this characteristic are offsuit connectors, medium pairs heads-up, etc.
Therefore, if you've just won a pot you need a lot of opponents to play in the next one and a hand that plays well in multi-way pots, OR you need a hand that has huge EV in the first place (AA,KK,QQ,AKs).
f
Last night I noticed a pattern in the game I was playing in. Whenever it was checked through on the flop, there was always a bet on the turn. The obvious counter to this is to slowplay more than normal. My question is: how far is it correct to carry this concept? Here is an example. From the button, I raised the blinds with Ah7d and they both called. The flop was A94 with two clubs. It was checked to me, and I checked. Notice that this play could easily cost me the pot.
All comments are welcome.
William
I noticed that "you noticed that your play could easily cost you the pot" - have you not already answered your question? Bet it and take it down. Why wait to get bet into on the turn, then you raise, and are reraised. How is that for a nice outcome? Slowplaying is rarely a good idea, and never with top pair, shit for kicker.
Because it could also easily win me two big bets, by causing one of the blinds to bluff twice with nothing. Remember that in this game, whenever it was checked through on the flop, someone always bet the turn.
William
When you raise before the flop and check with an Ace on the flop it looks very suspicious even for the live one. Your better off betting on the flop which is what everyone expects you to do anyway. Keep in mind with an Ace there is always a straight draw and you have two opponents so getting fancy may very well cost you the pot. You have a shit kicker and if you are led into on the turn you may be up against a bigger kicker. This opponent may have been waiting for a checkraise on the flop and you are now going to lose more. I just don't like to slowplay or get fancy with very marginal holdings unless I have a real good read on my opponent.
Bruce
I would assume this game was a higher limit - 20-40 or higher where sophisticated plays have a reasonable chance of success.
I think checking top pair on the flop occasionally to fool your opponents in a tight game is good poker. In a loose game it is a waste of time. You would do this to (1) induce a bluff from your aggressive opponents or (2) induce calls from opponents who are trying to pick off a bluff.
I think you should only do this when you flop an ace or a king for top pair. Checking anything lower is inviting disaster - a free overcard to snap you off.
Checking top pair 1 out of 5 times would be my guess for the right mix to keep your opponents guessing.
This was 20/40.
William
It's such an unatural play when you raise before the flop and check when an Ace comes. If you want to get tricky check the turn and induce a bluff on the river. Even the live ones smell a rat. I don't like giving a free card on the flop with one more card to come. On the turn it is less likely to get outdrawn with only one more card to come.
Bruce
You should be willing to check-raise more often, and then do it aga