![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Would appreciate any comments on the following hand. 30-60 HE @Bellagio. I'm on the button with AA. It gets passed to one off the button who raises. He is a solid player whom I respect. Before I get the chance to act the SB calls 60. This player is a weak-tight tourist. I normally would three-bet in this spot but I chose to call so as not to lose him. It turns out the original raiser had K10 and the SB had J9. The final board was 9 10 9 K Q. Instead of winning the pot the SB beat me with either of his cards!! Anyway, the results aren't as important as the question. Should I have re-raised and tried to play this pot head-up. My gut feeling is I played it correctly pre-flop. Comments? Mike Minetti
Mike,
The reraise is the popular choice but smooth calling in this situation once in a while as a change up isn't so bad. It works best against players who would not be suspicious and will give more action when you want it. Of course once in a while it will cost you the pot but short handed you generally can risk a small pot to gain extra bets.
This time it didn't work (and maybe a tourist who would call for two would have called for three anyway). I wouldn't lose any sleep over it :-).
Regards,
Rick
Mike, I think it would be unfair and playing results to state that by not re-raising pre-flop you cost yourself a pot. My preference is to re-raise with Aces unless I am sure I will get it heads-up with the pre-flop raiser in which case I like to smooth call for deception purposes. In a heads-up situation I don't mind giving up some pre-flop equity in order to extract additional bets on future streets when I have position over my lone opponent. However, when a third player is involved I am no longer willing to give up my pre-flop equity since I think deception loses value as more players get added to the fray.
In this case, you knew the small blind was willing to put in another $40 to take a flop. However, it is quite likely that the small blind would fold if you re-raised since it would be costing him $70 to see the flop. In addition, you have the big blind to consider. He may decide to take the flop as well for only $30 with 3 other players coming in but might well fold for another $60. Do I really want 2 or 3 opponents coming in cheaply with my pocket Aces or would I rather charge them more if they want to play?
I have a strong preference here to 3 bet but I don't fault you for playing it the way you did.
Mike, what is the house rule at Bellagio for someone calling out of turn? If he has put in his $40 out of turn, and you now decide to raise in turn to $60, does he have to leave his $40 in if he decides to fold? Or is he allowed to pull back his $40 in the face of your raise? In either scenario,personally I would be more inclined to 3-bet with AA, but as Rick and Jim point out, it would not be a major tactical mistake to smooth call if you are certain you will end up heads-up with position over 1 other player.
Dunc, the house rule is that he can take his money back. However, if he continues doing this he will be warned first by the dealer and then by the floor.
The reason I asked, Jim, is that here the rule is that he would have to leave the money in. So many players were getting in the habit of calling out of turn, that two of the three main casinos in town now have "commitment lines" painted on the felt, and any money over the line, in turn or not, must stay in the pot. In this case, the guy would probably put in the additional $20 and the result would have not changed, but that's not the point. Personally, I like the policy, because it keeps the game more orderly. In fact, last week in Vegas, I had to stop myself several times from piping up when someone called out of turn and then pulled their money back in the face of a raise.
I like your rule about leaving the money in and I wish that here in America, especially the Gulf Coast, the house would insist on more orderly play and betting. Unfortunately, poker is not played by orderly and disciplined people like chess or duplicate bridge. Instead we have people who frequently fold out of turn, splash the pot, bet out of turn, say one thing and then do something different, engage in table talk about the hand while involved in the hand, etc. All of this is tolerated in order to keep the games friendly and social so people will keep coming back.
Thanks for the comments guys. Fortunately I slept well last night!
Mike
Loose 10-20 game. What's new.
I have red aces in the small blind. Two late-ish callers to me, I raise, BB folds, callers call. Flop is As-Jc-7c. I bet, one caller. This player is loose but not a maniac, as far as I can tell, but the game in general has been very loose. I have only seen thi splayer for an hour or so -- seems loose-passive. He is in the cut-off seat, if I recall.
Turn: 3h. I bet, he calls.
River: 8s.
I bet, he raises. ISSUE: Would you re-raise?
One thing I used to do too often is credit my opponent too much and fail to get the most out of my winning hands on the river. I am worried that I have swung too far to the other side of the pendulum. But can I put this guy on 9-10 here? (he had it -- in fact, he had the only "legit" 9-10 hand he could have had: 9c10c).
I would re-raise because the only hand that beats me is precisely T9. By raising pre-flop out of my small blind and then continuing to bet all the way to the river when an Ace flops, I am representing AA,AK, or AQ. I am far more likely to have AK or AQ than specifically AA so my opponent would raise having two pair or a lower set. My opponent would have to be playing very poorly to take all that heat for a gutshot draw.
When you got re-raised on the river how often would you pay it off?
At that point there would be $270 in the pot and it costs me $20 to call. I would call virtually every time and expect to see specifically the Tc9c. But I have played enough limit hold-em to know that every once and awhile my opponent does not have the exact cards he needs to beat me he just thinks his set is the best.
I'm not quibbling with what you write. However, you are laying 2-1 that your opponent is not raising you with the nuts basically. Risking 4 bets to win 2. So in order for this to be profitable your opponent would have to be raising you without the nuts at least 2/3 of the time. Did I miss something?
Actually it is 3 bets to win one so he would have to be raising you without the nuts over 75% of the time. I think you see what I am getting at.
You make a good point Tom. It does seem like I am giving heavy odds here. I guess what bothers me about this particular hand is that I have to rule out just any T9 because it is simply insane for someone to hang around for a guthshot. It has to be specifically Tc9c. Now compare this to all the card combinations that he could have which give him a set or even two pair. One could argue that he would have raised on the turn with anything but 87 or 88. However, many players in a heads-up situation with position like to wait until the river to pull the trigger because they have you tied in at that point and they know that you might bail out on the turn when raised holding just top pair/top kicker.
I will tell you one situation where I would not re-raise and that is in the $10-$20-$40 structure where the player has the option of betting $20 or $40 on the end and can raise $20 or $40 on the end. In this structure when someone raises you $40, they almost always have the nuts so a re-raise without the nuts is very risky.
I was right the first time, you are laying 2-1. I'm not saying that the re-raise is necessarily wrong as it is fairly straightforward quantifying what your EV is likely to be here. If it is close why not, if it isn't close why throw money away.
Could he be on Ac8c or AcXc or J8 J7 it would seem to me as a real possibility here. I would just call here. Unless I read the guy differently.
If this player was as passive as you say, I definitely would not re-raise. It has been my experience that passive players are not going to raise a player who has shown power without having the nuts.
Think back to the last time someone tried a check-raise bluff on the river against you. It's a rare thing indeed. Bob Ciaffone makes this point in his most excellent book 'Improve Your Poker'. A bluffer on the river will rarely take the chance that you'll bet so he can bluff-raise but he will bet out.
I call here and consider folding lesser holdings than top set.
I hear you, except this was not a check raise. I bet all the way and he simply raised me on the river. You could put him any one of 4 sets, various two pairs (A-8, etc.), and maybe even a busted flush draw if he's a little screwy (I've seen people try it in this game!).
"I hear you, except this was not a check raise. I bet all the way...."
You've got the button therefore this is a check raise. How can it be otherwise? Check and correct your original post if you're mistaken.
.
Depends on the player, but remember that a Re-raise gains you an extra bet when you're right, but costs you two if you're wrong, since he'll certainly cap it with the nuts (assuming you'll call the last bet).
So after he raises, you've got to figure out whether or not he's a 2-1 dog to be holding a worse hand that he will still call you with. Forget the raise bluff - you make no more money, since he'll fold to the re-raise. Assume he has a legit hand. What would he raise with?
If he had a set you would have heard about it on the turn. It's hard to put him on 88. And there aren't a lot of likely two-pair hands here that you wouldn't have heard from on the turn.
After I get raised on the river, against an average opponent I'd figure that it's at least 50-50 that he has the nuts with a flop like this, especially if he is somewhat loose as you say. So just call.
You have to know your player. An hour might not be sufficient unless he has made the same move previously.
I have to know what type of player he is before I re-raise. So I call and if he shows me trip 3s next time I'll re-raise. If he shows me trp Jacks then I'll be careful with him later, and if he shows the dreaded 9-10 suited, I know he had every right to be there and just out drew me.
This is where balancing the odds with pyschology shows itself. If you are a player that solely plays the odds then you'll re-raise, but if you are a balanced player using the odds and weighing them against the type of player your inj with your decision making will be much stronger. seeya
Tom and Dan are right, so raise only if he'll play every possible 2-pair combo (i.e., he always limps with J7o) and also tends to slowplay top 2 and flopped sets to the river. If he's loose but not that loose you have a crying call. Since you need better than a 2-1 chance of winning, you'll almost never have a measurable overlay in this situation.
I was wondering about a comment on Abdul's web page:
"When you have a strong draw, you usually want to keep people in"
My question is; if I limp in middle position 3 callers behind me and the blinds, I have AhTh (as a sample hand) 5s 2h9h on the flop
Don't I want to raise the blinds if one of them come out betting to try to win the pot "right there" ( assuming they believe I have an overpair) or I may hit an A or T (turn-river).Also, don't I want to drive out hands like AJ AQ 66 etc behind me in case I don't make the flush ?
I understand that if I was last to act I will try to get more money in the pot since there is no chance to win the pot "right now".
thanks in advance for your comments
Sme
When I have the nut flush draw and two over cards that don't complement the board I like to raise for a variety of reasons:
1. With 9 outs to the nut flush and 6 more outs to top pair and two cards to come, I have the best chance of ending up with the winning hand and I want to make people pay to play.
2. I may drive out someone who would call for one bet and end up beating me.
3. I disguise the fact that I am on a flush draw and someone may think that their draw is live when it isn't. This means I can get unwarranted action when I hit my draw because my opponents don't initially place me on a draw when I make a flop raise.
4. I don't mind a re-raise.
It is not a case of trying to "win the pot right away" since with a bettor and five opponents this will not happen.
One of our best 2+2 posters, "skp", wrote an interesting article for Poker Digest magazine where he discusses 8 different situations where you might want to raise on a big draw. I believe having two over cards in addition to the nut flush draw was one of those situations.
Jim, I also like to raise in this situation. With point 3, about "disguise the fact that I am on a flush draw", is the deception because you are in middle position, rather than late and you appear to be trying to protect your hand.
I find that the free card play does not work in this situation. In this case if I raise the flop, I will have to bet the turn (when I miss). It is here when the true deception occurs. I'll check my top pair if it hits. I'd rather induce a weak bet than be raised at this point. If the flush hits, I bet and hope like heck I get raised.
Regards
The part about checking is for the river card.
"I'll check my top pair if it hits. I'd rather induce a weak bet than be raised at this point. If the flush hits, I bet and hope like heck I get raised. "
Jim:
I understand your points (well done as usual) but I still have 2 questions:
1) Do you disagree with Abdul's comments then?
2) your comment " It is not a case of trying to "win the pot right away" since with a bettor and five opponents this will not happen."
Isn't it true that if the blind bets and no one calls after my raise and he folds (semibluffing with small pair on the flop) I played my hand correctly winning the pot "right there"
Sme
No, I do not necessarily disagree with Abdul's comments when you don't have other outs to go with your draw. It would be interesting to get his opinion on this situation where you have two over cards plus the nut flush draw. In addition, suppose you had both a straight draw and a flush draw? I would be betting and raising vigorously.
Yes, it is true that if everyone folds after you raised including the bettor than you have gained. But I would argue that with a lot of opponents and a coordinated board this is very unlikley to happen. It is almost automatic for the original bettor to at least make a perfunctory call and take off a card with any piece of the flop. Pot odds at that point would make it almost mandatory.
Please read the original msg if you would like to comment..thks
Sme
Of course you have to weigh the chance of winning the pot right now versus the cost of driving people out (and thus winning a smaller pot when you make your draw.)
A nut flush draw has a 1 in 3 chance of coming in by the river, plus your overcards are possible outs. If 4 opponents call on the flop, then you're winning 2/3's of a small bet just on the extra money going in on the flop, not even including the later action or the pot or your extra outs for your overcards (but not including your chance of losing with a flush, either.) If on the other hand you raise and have a 1 in 3 chance of winning a 6 small bet pot immediately, then that's 2/3's of a small bet profit right there on the flop. So then it would come down to weighing the extra money going in later in the hand if you keep victims in versus how much you improve your chance of winning the pot if you drive out several (but not all) of the players.
In the particular example you gave, given the low chance of winning the small pot immediately (or by the river heads up versus the flop bettor) I would not want to forego all the extra bets when it would have held up against several opponents. I recommend calling with the intention of reraising if it comes raised back to you. Of course when it comes back raised to you, you must go through the same sort of cost-benefit analysis, if your raise might drive some players out. If you succeed in trapping 4 opponents in for 3 bets, you'll have made 2 small bets profit just on the extra money going in on the flop, which is pretty darn good on a pot that was 6-way and just 6 small bets going into the flop. Additionally, you will have made the pot so big that your opponents will be tied on to the river, helping to support your draw on the turn and increasing your implied odds without drastically reducing your chance of winning the pot.
For balance, you'll need to sometimes call-reraise with some made hands, primarily sets.
I was going to point to Sklansky's Theory of Poker as covering some of this ground, and it does come close, but I cannot find where it says exactly what I have been saying here. Perhaps a 'noser can assist in finding a quote. You would think that Chapter 13 "Raising" would cover it, but that chapter covers seven types of raising, and none of them seem to be the one I described.
For those who want to see the entire context the quote of my material, see Theory of Sucking Out.
-Abdul
Say you make this play and all fold except the bettor. The turn is something useless like a black queen. Do you automatically bet again when the bettor checks the turn? If the bettor is a blind, you know nothing about his hand except that he liked the flop, so you are almost certainly trailing and your overcards may be dead or half-dead now. So maybe it's easier to bet every time if the turn is a rag (smaller than a 10). But would you EVER check here?
A lot of people like taking a free card here, but I usually bet the turn in such a situation and then check the river. If you check, you'll induce a bluff or thin value bet if the flush doesn't come in and have to pay off by calling with ace high on the river. If you bet, then maybe he'll fold a small pair, and otherwise you can check it down on the river unless you make a hand in which case you hopefully get one more bet. Of course, if I really think my opponent has a hand (perhaps due to a tell or knowledge of his play), then I would be inclined to check the turn and not pay off on the river.
One spot where I would be tempted to check the turn is where there is an ace on the board and one in my hand but I suspect my kicker is no good (perhaps I'm up against an early raiser and called for one bet on a post) and I have a flush draw. Now if I have the best hand, my opponent has very few outs against me, and so I can risk a free card, whereas if he has the best hand I really don't want to get check-raised here because I have to pay it off even if I then know my kicker is no good. Check and induce a bluff bet on the river... that's the best course in such a situation.
A similar spot where this comes up is when you have a pair of aces (either in the hole or using one on the board), there is a 3-flush on board, and you have the nut flush draw. Heads up if you fear you're already up against a flush, you can check and then pay off his bet on the river (raising if you make the nuts, of course.)
-Abdul
I would always keep betting against a lone opponent who checks to me. He might fold on the expensive street in which case I win without a fight. If he calls, I have a ton of outs to make the best hand. A bet is automatic. Checking here would be weak poker.
If the blind is of semi-sound mind, he'll realize that he's out of position. Given that, you should probably respect his bet. Unless he's just trying to scare off the crowd who didn't get anything with this flop, a good possibility, chances are he has something and your raise isn't going to shake him. In short, you probably won't win the pot right there and there's a somewhat good possibility, given that he's the blind, that you'll need two pair yourself, or the flush, just to beat him.
That being said, why would you want to raise anyway? Flushes are made for and crave a large audience. If you make the flush, you're golden with that many players in. If you don't...well, who knows? a pair of tens just might take in the pot.
In the end, it's a matter of knowing the blind. If you respect him, don't raise. He has you beat and you can't go head to head on a flush draw. If you don't respect him, make a choice: lots of players going for a nut flush or head to head with an ace high?
Dan
This is a really good subject, as I believe the article in the magazine couldn't cover it completely.
Jims points are valid, but too me it is more a function of your posisition and how many players are in the pot. If you have several players behind you you should probably just call(even with the overcards imo)and if you just have 1-2 players behind you I would do my best to take control of t he pot as soon as possible. You might not win it right there ,but you might get it heads up and win on the turn.
A raise with several players might be more effective on the turn instead of the flop, unless maybe the board pairs etc.You might have more of a shot at narrowing the field with the double bet, and it gives you added flexibility if your card doesn't come on the end. For example, lets say your raise knocks most of the players out except for 2, and your card doesn't come, you have a much better chance of bluff being succesful on the end.And the turn raise of course gets more money in their when the flush card comes. seeya
That is the question.
Simple in limit I bet it out like I got it unless I have the nuts I will take a pot as soon as I can get it. In NL or PL I will trap as much as possible.
3-6 Paradise Poker
I'm in early position with QhQd and open raise for $6, one other player in mid position and both blinds call - Four handed
*** FLOP *** : [3s] [Ts] [Jc]
SB bets, BB folds, I raise, MID calls, SB re-raises, I call, MID calls
*** TURN *** : [Kc]
SB bets, I call, MID calls
*** RIVER *** : [Kd]
SB bets, I call, MID calls
I had the SB on either a set or AJ but given he bet into me on the turn I should have figured something better than AJ, the open ended straight draw kept me in on the turn.
I wasn't sure what to do at the River (call or fold) so I called. 28 Small Bets in I figured I had to call even though I was pretty sure I was beat.
I'll post the ending hands several lines below.
Comments? .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MID had [Qc] [Jh]
SB had [Js] [Ks]
Pre-flop of course you open with a raise having pocket Queens. You get 3 callers including the blinds so there is $24 in the pot.
On the flop, the small blind leading usually means top pair or some kind of draw. Your raise is correct because you have an over pair. When the middle player cold-calls it looks like he is on a draw. The small blind re-raising sounds to me like two pair or top pair with a very strong draw. Of course you call. There is $51 in the pot and three players.
On the turn, you have picked up a straight draw. When bet into you are calling because of your draw. When the middle player calls there is now $69 in the pot.
On the river, I think you have to call for $6 with over $70 in the pot.
You played correctly.
I would have raised on the turn, too, by the way. D
Big D,
I mentioned the turn raise too in my post of a few minutes ago. I just want to say that I swear I arrived at this independently and if I am fibbing may my cable TV go on the fritz just as "The Sopranos" come on. I wonder what others may think (about the turn raise, not "The Sopranos" :-).
Regards,
Rick
I love the Sopranos, but I don't like a turn raise quite as much since the turn brought an overcard to his queens. Also, he has a draw but if the A or 9 of spades comes he's got a straight w/problems. Of course these things are easy to say since I've seen what the opponents were holding.
Why would you raise the turn? SB's re-raise suggests two pair or a set (K-J is a surprise). This makes your draw thin. Maybe you see this as a case of raising with second best trying to knock out a suspected draw (MID), but this seems expensive considering your prospects.
Fat-Charlie
Definately call, he might have flopped two pair.
L0QTiS,
This is a well written post but next time post the results later rather than at the bottom. I didn't want to peek but couldn't help seeing what they had. This does influence ones ability to impartially analyze the hand as it is hard to put out of ones mind the actual hands you were up against. But I'll try anyway.
Based on the flop play I was starting to think that one very possible hand for the BB was JT. And I still think that hand was possible when he bet the turn since most players with a wide variety of hands would continue with lead bet aggression after putting in the last flop raise.
In short handed play opponents don’t need much to continue betting at you and one other opponent on the turn. I would have considered raising here. You have a combination of a fairly decent made hand and a draw at this point. You could actually be leading but may be vulnerable from both sides to redraws. And if you are beat big you will find out now and then make the play for your straight.
Given you played the turn weakly, calling on the end was mandatory when the river paired kings. A fold is silly and a raise is not necessary given the lack of pressure from the player behind you on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I consider you one of the best minds on the forum. Please explain your thinking here.
On the end, the hero has QQ and the board is 3,J,T,K,K but you say a fold is silly? On top of that board (scary IMO), someone has bet into him on every round and re-reraised him once and another player has called every bet and raise. He loses to JJ, TT, KJ, KT, AK, KQ and AQ, all likely holdings for a pre-flop raise in a 3/6 game, especially out of SB. (33 is even possible in these games).
Maybe I am too cautious in these situations. I am trying to learn to play more agressively, but I wouldn't be calling this hand with much confidence. And if I folded here I wouldn't call it "silly" poker.
Thanks.
KJS
KJS,
There was no pre flop raise out of the small blind (although he did call a raise, which usually is $5 more in 3/6). So this widens the possible holdings of the SB.
I wrote: “Given you played the turn weakly, calling on the end was mandatory when the river paired kings. A fold is silly and a raise is not necessary given the lack of pressure from the player behind you on the turn.”
I think other possible hands include JT, AJ, QJ, and maybe even J9. All of these hands the QQ beats and they may be played as indicated given that the lead bettor never faced any pressure after the flop betting was complete. You have to put yourself in the lead bettor’s shoes. He bets the turn when a king comes (let’s say he has one of the above hands) and he gets no pressure. When the king pairs again he will usually figure that he will have to call if he checks so why not bet? Anyway, that has been my experience. BTW, I wouldn’t call with much confidence either but I think it is the money play and you can bet I won’t let them see me sweat :-) .
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Good point about the lead bettor leading and not facing resistance. In such a case I could see how you could put him on a lesser holding.
Thanks again.
KJS
I also thought that the most likely hand for the small blind to have was JT. I don't like raising the turn as I still could river the nuts with an A and a very likely best hand with a 9.
Now maybe I'm overly aggresive but I actually think that the river K pairing the turn makes my hand better. Now I can beat that JT and if I felt strongly about the SB's hand I might raise. In this case it's obviously the wrong move but hey I'm being honest.
chris
Raising on the turn is an interesting idea that I had not thought of. I probably would not make it at the table because I no longer feel secure about having the best hand when the King turns up. I feel that I have replaced the best hand with the best draw and I don't want to get re-raised costing me 3 bets to see the river instead of one.
Thanks for the advice. In the future I will keep the end results separate from the original post.
I did consider raising the turn but with the presence of the King and the 3rd player I guess I wussed out. Heads up this would have been more of a possiblity.
Lets say I did raise the turn, MID drops and SB re-raises. I call with my straight draw. After the second King flops and the SB again bets, is a fold here fairly clear?
I would think so, but as it played out I guess I played it safe and failed to charge potential draws the maximum.
L0QTiS,
You wrote: "Lets say I did raise the turn, MID drops and SB re-raises. I call with my straight draw. After the second King flops and the SB again bets, is a fold here fairly clear?"
I would usually fold against anyone but an extremely aggresssive maniac. Your turn raise in a sense stops a bluff. Your opponent has to think you have a hand as opposed to a draw based on your prior actions. So his river bet signals real strength since he expects you to call.
Regards,
Rick
[I am writing not knowing the results of this hand]
Why am I the only one who thinks our hero is playing the 2nd or third best hand on the flop after the MID player cold calls a raise and the SB re-raises? I would put one of them on a set, or at least 2 pair. Maybe even KK or AA.
When the turn is an overcard I would be even more scared for our hero. Plus AsQs (easy call of a pre-flop raise and flop bet) just hit a straight. I'd be gone if I were him, yet others say raise?
I have played 3-6, some online and plenty live and don't expect this much action for top pair only; at least where I play.
Am I advocating weak play here?
KJS
Dear L0QTiS,
I would have felt very relieved to see that second king on the river. I love when a running pair screws somebody's two pair(if he had Jack-Ten that is, which he didn't). I most likely would have popped him one on the end, since the king on the turn didn't seem to help the mid position player(when the mid position player didn't raise on the turn[ruling out a straight), I would have thought it very possible he was on a flush-draw, and since the flush didn't get there on the end, I would have raised just assuming he(the mid. player) had a busted draw,("why only call on the end hoping the mid. position player will overcall", I probably would have thought?). That would have been my reasoning up to that point, but of course he did call, which I wouldn't have liked.
Of course I was totally wrong and would have lost more chips than you did to the SB and his Boat!, but I'm just telling you how I would have honestly played it regardless of already knowing the outcome.
Martin D
PS: I know some people will advise you not to post the holdings of the other players until later, but It doesn't make any difference to me.
Last night I was playing in a 4-8 game that had just been spread. It was our 3 hand when I was one right of the button and was dealt KK. there were 5 callers to me and I raised...All called.
The flop was TT6 rainbow
It was checked to me and I bet. All called again. (I love these low limit games)
The turn was a 4.
It was checked to me again, and I bet. A player in middle position raised. I didn't know this player at all, and was now faced with the possibility that he either had a T or a pocket pair of 4's
Here is the question. Do I fold or raise? If I Re-raise, and he in-fact has only the Tx he is most likely to Just call my raise. If he dose have a pocket pair of 4's then I may expect a re-raise. Depending on his action to my re-raise I can narrow down to what he is holding. But in any case, It looks like I have the 2nd best hand on the turn. It looks like this situation is a raise or fold situation?
What do you all think?
Jayman
It is more likely he has a ten, since a reasonable player would not take pocket 4s this far hoping to hit a 2 outer. What are you attempting to accomplish with a reraise? You don't need the information you cite. If your logic is entirely correct and you are able to put him on 4s or a ten...either way you are a big dog. I don't think reraise here. Without knowing what the other players did (if at least one called you're surely DOA) I would think you can safely fold. Second best would be call and hope to river your two-outer king, though given the pot odds (approximately 12-1) this is a very loose call.
It is not a "raise or fold" situation. It is a call or fold situation. He most probably has trip Tens or Fours full of Tens. If he has trip Tens you are playing a two outer. If he has Fours full of Tens you are playing a three outer. A two outer is about a 22:1 shot. A three outer is about a 15:1 shot.
How much is in the pot? Pre-flop your narrative stated that 5 players called and you raised with everyone calling. I assume that the button, the blinds, and the 5 callers stayed for your raise so 9 of you saw the flop for two bets each. This is $72. On the flop another $36 got added when everyone called so there is $108 in the pot. Now on the turn, you bet and got raised so at this point there is $132 in the pot and it costs you $8 to call. Your narrative doesn't state if anyone else called or if it became heads-up. Assuming it is heads-up if you hit you will probably collect another $16 on the end when he bets and you raise. So maybe your implied odds here are about 19:1. Somewhere between a two outer and a three outer. If a Ten shows up and he now has Tens full of Fours he may check and just call if you bet so maybe your implied odds here are only 18:1. Because there is an outside chance that he may not have what he is representing I would just call and see the river.
I agree with the other gentlemen. You either call or fold depending on the size of the pot. If you think he has pocket 4's, you have 2 10's and 2 K's you can catch to win - 10.5 to 1. If he has a 10, you need to catch 1 of 2 K's - 22 to 1.
My interpretation of the pot size was 18 small bets, $72, and 3 big bets, $24, for a total of $96. If your opponent has a 10, it is a bad call. If your opponent has pocket 4's, it is a correct call.
I would have folded.
All called again. (I love these low limit games).
Excuse me, but I can't help but ask if you thought all FIVE callers had inside straight draws ? Perhaps Overcards ? Why not 66 ?
You're play was to check the turn, take the free card and prey you don't have to spy 2 bets on the end, unless you spike a K ......IMHO
Checking the turn is a routine play. If you're best you'll likely stay best. If you're behind you're way behind. By checking the turn you have an easy river call- - as long as it's a single bet. If it's bet out and raised, or bet, raised, reraised, you don't have to throw any more money at this problem. I don't know if this is "inducing a bluff" on the river as much as it is taking advantage of infinite odds on the turn. Tight/aggresive play does not mean bet anytime its checked and raise any time its bet. The game is complex and you must give credence not only to bets and raises but also the checks and calls. What on earth could you get five (is that right?) callers with a flop of 10-10-?(low card). A lot of low limit players play 8-10, 9-10, J10,Q10,K10,A10 from anywhere and a lot of low limit players will slowplay anytime they flop a big hand, even with straight and flush draws out against them. The smartest thing you could have done to take advantage of your opponents bad play is to check the turn. Instead you walked right into a check-raise, costing yourself money, allowing someone to outplay you, and maybe even tarnished your winning image with such a rookie mistake. Sometimes slowing down is the best play.
chris
I thank you all for your insight on this hand. I clearly see that this is a Fold or call situation.
The out come of this hand was good for me, a K fell on the river giving me the Boat. I won a sizable pot when he bet I raised and he called. This was in fact a 3 outer that I got lucky with...Thanks again
Jayman
This may be fairly straight forward, but I'm wondering if I missed any bets here.
I just sat down- first round at the table, now in early position, I pick up QsQh. I raise. Player to my immediate left makes it 3 bets. (I don't have a very good read on him, but he seems as if he'd be a tricky player.) Button cold calls, small blind calls, BB folds, I call. The flop comes KcQd8c. Small blind leads, I call, 3 Bettor calls, button folds. Turn 7h. Small blinds leads again, I make it 2 bets, and player to my immediate left makes it 3 bets. Small blind thinks and calls, I relunctly call, thinking the 3 bettor has pocket Ks. River comes 7d. Small blind checks, I think about it for a few seconds and check. 3 bettor checks. At that point, I know I have the best hand. Did I miss some bets here? I thought about it, and I possibly could have reraised the turn, or raised the flop- the player to my left would have to have exactly KK to have me beat. In my time of playing poker, I can't ever remember checking a full house.. did I miss some bets here? Comments appreciated.
Results- SB had KQo, and 3 bettor had AKo. 3 bettor grossly overpayed his hand..
Hindsight is always 20-20, of course, but in this situation, I think you missed at least a couple of extra bets. You have 4 people putting in 3 bets each pre-flop, so the pot is already a decent size. I tend not to slow-play trips here because anyone even half aware at the table should recognize the possibility you might have a big set with this flop. Why try to deceive them? When the SB bets out, raise. If re-raised by LHO, I would cap it and bet out on the turn to see what the guy on your left does. If he raises you again, this might slow me down a bit, but you are virtually committed through the river, and if he's got trip K's, that's life. If not, he's paying the max, along with anyone else drawing thin or dead. There have been numerous discussions on the forum about betting sets, and worrying about losing to a bigger set, and the concensus seems to be that these type of hands will either win you a good pot, or have you lose several bets. Not much middle ground.
Why do you think he overplayed his hand? While he was in the end 3rd best, he did have AK for top pair/kicker.
Furthermore, he got YOU to believe he had KK and call the flop rather than raise, call the 3 bets rather than cap, and check the river. If anything, he saved himself quite a bit of money playing the way he did.
Despite the fact that you missed several bets, I am wondering one thing: Why did you raise the turn when your hand didn't improve if you merely called the flop with the exact same hand?
Dan
I never had any intention of raising the flop. 2 big bets makes people fold more often then 2 small bets. That was the intention for the raise on the turn.
Why do I think he overplayed his hand? I would not make it 3 bets with only top pair/top kicker on the turn when you clearly have 2 people in front of you who have showed strength and who will probably not fold.
And I do agree- the way he played did save himself some money. From the tone of your post, it sounds like you would play his hand the same way?
Actually, I do think he was quite overagressive. I probably wouldn't have played it the way he did. However, by going into hyperactive mode, he probably saved more money over the course of the hand than if he had just gone along for the ride.
The question you raise is interesting though: to double bet on the turn gets out some players. Good chance it will get out the hands drawing to club flushes. Not as likely to get out heart draws because to stay in at that point it needed to be backdoor to something (which is good for you because a set still beats them). But if you fear the KK, realize that even a double bet isn't going to stop at least a cold call, if not a raise.
Going back to the flush, if they're drawing, make them pay for it every step of the way. Raise on the flop. Even if they had happened to stay in and get it on the turn, you still have 10 outs to let the river sweep the pot your way.
Dan
Pre-flop without knowing the opponent I would cap it with pocket Queens. Some players will 3 bet with slick and weaker hands because they can isolate the raiser and get position over him. AA and KK are not that easy to come by.
On the flop, you should raise with your middle set when bet into by the small blind because the flop is highly coordinated with both a two flush and two cards in the playing zone. Make them pay to play.
On the turn, I would re-raise because there is a third player in the hand who is quite likely on a draw and you want to milk him for all he is worth. The pre-flop 3 bettor doesn't have to have KK. He could have AA or KQ or maybe AcJc who knows?
On the river, you should bet your full house.
I think you missed a lot of bets here.
Given the way you played this hand, it is not clear the guy with slick over-played his hand. His pre-flop 3 bet can be a good move to isolate you with him having the better position. On the flop, since you only called I would have raised having top pair/top kicker so in my opinion his calling was under-playing his hand. On the turn his re-raise was a bit aggressive.
Maybe reraising the flop would have been good, but I don't like capping (5 bets here in Vegas) with QQ and 3 other players, as any A or K of the flop without a Q would make me dump it.
I agree with your flop play, but like I said in my response to Dan, I sometimes change this play up and raise it on the turn to make anyone behind pay 2 big bets to continue. Plus if the flush card does hit, then I can proceed from there.
So you would make it 4 bets on the turn?? When that much strength is shown? Hindsight, I think I should have, and if reraised, check and call it down.
And on the river- if I think I'm beat by Kings full- I should still bet? Are you analyzing my play after reading the results, or is this what you would really do if in the hand?
Your point about the 5 bet cap in Vegas is a good one that I overlooked. I would definitely cap with AA or KK. I believe you are correct in just calling and not making it 4 bets with QQ but it is close.
I play sets very aggressively and it is rare that I lose to set over set. I figure I have the best hand and the best draw. I am sure you have heard of the cliche: "If you flop a set and lose to a bigger set you should lose a lot of money otherwise you didn't play it right". There is actually a lot of truth to this humorous statement.
Obviously if you think you are beat my Kings full then I can understand just checking. But I really believe there is a substantial difference between being worried about being beat by Kings full and knowing that you are beat. Keep in mind that this is a limit game so it is not the end of the world if you lose a couple of big bets here. In addition, with a third player in the pot when you do have the best hand you can collect from two players frequently instead of one. Finally, you really have to know the player extremely well to put him on Kings full and rule out many other hands he could have been playing with. You said the player in question was one you were unfamiliar with but that he seemed tricky. This really leans me towards playing very aggressively. Against a known rock or an LOL I might back off at some point but against anyone else I keep firing when I think I have the best hand in a jammed pot where I know players will stay with me.
With this hand, QQ, and the flop that followed youshould have been putting in the last bet on every round except the river. And the river is a maybe because more than likely your opponents would have relinquished control to you and would be check-calling or bet-calling your raise.
Preflop you have the best hand. Preflop I would play QQ as best until I was convinced that it wasn't, which you couldn't do because it'd be capped before that happned. When you flop a set of Q's, again you play it like it's best. Notice that playing it this strong will get you a lot of action against SB. He might put you on AA, and by golly he can beat that. If it get down to two handed you might back off if your opponent keeps raising but again if I was playing the hand it'd be past the cap point anyway.
I don't think you did anything wrong with this hand. You probably don't lose as much on the hands you lose with, which is a positive. I'm simply saying that with this hand, this flop, this turn card and this river card I would have gotten as many chips as possible into the pot. I think you showed too much respect to the man on your left. Keep in mind this is limit. If Doyle Brunson were on my left and Johnny Chan was in the SB I'd have capped it every round if I could've. In limit your losses are finite. Don't let people know that you can get spooked by one raise. It'll cut into your profitability and I would think that it'd be bad for your table image. This isn't tight/aggressive play, it's tight/weak.
hope the above doesn't sound too harsh
chris
I think you should have raised on the flop. If you were slowplaying, yes this disguised your hand for the time being, but it probably wasn't worth it. And given the all the pre-flop rasing and size of the pot, it's doubtful that you needed to give the other players a chance to catch up.
On the turn, I like your raise. When the player to your left re-raises, I think a call is reasonable, as is a re-raise. He three bet pre-flop and now, so he's now doing his best to represent the set of kings that are certainly a decent possibility. However, if he had flopped a set, there's a good chance he would have raised on the flop after you and SB have both already put in a bet. Also, he would want to make anyone on a club draw pay. I agree that his 3-betting with just top pair top kicker is weak - his re-raise isn't going to get everyone else to fold and he should have an inkling that one or both of you have him beat. BTW, the SB almost cold-calling 3 bets with KQ is also pretty weak IMO.
On the river, I like betting better than checking. Like you I'd have concern about the bigger K full house, but, as Yogi Berra once said, sets are hard to come by and you takes your chances.
You've gotten good advise here. The only thing I would add is that if you had raised/reraised/capped the flop, then bet the turn you would now "really" have a better idea about what's out behind you by his turn action. Set over set is uncommon, I think we have all lost bets this way so don't feel bad. I read somewhere that if you disguies your hand early it may become more difficult to play later. This is compounded by being new to a game and not having a read yet. But I bet we can all come up with a fairly low estimate of how many set/set we see during the year. Get lots of small bets then try not to loose more than 3 big bets if you fear a stranger. Speaking of which, I think we all fall prey to stranger-danger when that FIRST hand hits, but is not the nuts against Mr.Tricky. It's just that some won't admit it, or forget it. IMHO
I'm examining my pre-flop play with these two unsuited hands after a short poor run of results. I will normally raise under most game conditions and during the past 2 weeks I'm not hitting enough flops and also not getting my fair share of steals after missing the flop costing me the maximum. I know things will turn around but I have spent a little time limping in as well.
AK and AQ have 3 components to their value pre-flop. They make top pair with top kicker when they hit the flop. They are often the best hand in small pots when everyone misses the flop. They also afford the ablility to semi-bluff on missed flops often forcing 2nd and 3rd pair to fold. These three factors, when all present lead me to believe that pre-flop raising is mandatory.
The situation I'm often in is a loose game where many players cold call pre-flop raises on suspect holdings and go too far with them. This really cuts down on any chance to semi-bluff and to win with an unimproved AK. Is this situation enough of an impairment to the value of AK and AQ to warrant limping in? I'm thinking it might be. Is the high pair value enough to counter-balance the loss of steal equity in loose games?
No, I believe you are better off raising pre-flop with these hands. AK is considerably stronger than AQ. Sklansky wrote an article once explaining why and I think it is in his book called "Poker, Gaming, and Life".
With slick, I always raise against limpers regardless of how many of them there are and regardless of my position. It is especially important in loose games where players routinely come in on suited trash and connecting crud. Now in those situations where you don't flop top pair/top kicker or a draw then you frequently have to check and sometimes fold if a lot of players are still in the hand and you get bet into or get any kind of serious heat. Just because you raised pre-flop does not obligate you to stay post- flop.
With AQ ("Big Chick") I usually raise against limpers but sometimes if I am in one of the blinds and lots of players limp in I may decline to raise in order to vary my play. However, with a small number of limpers I will always raise with AQ from any position. Once the flop comes you have to be willing to get away from this hand if it misses you.
I have not found much value in trying to steal on later streets in loose games. In a tight game I can frequently steal but in a loose game I will usually get called sometimes just out of curiosity.
The Sklansky article is indeed in Poker, Gaming & Life, pages 124-126. David shows how, against a single tight opponent who has a big hand (A-A, K-K, Q-Q, J-J, A-K or A-Q), you win about 1/2 of the time with A-K, but less than 1/3 of the time with A-Q.
I have played in loose low limit games for quite some time. My records indicate that it is correct to raise preflop with both of these holdings. However, AK is much better than AQ.
If I miss the flop and there are lots of callers, I will usually check. There are exceptions to every rule and I will bet if I feel it is correct for that specific situation.
To answer your question, I feel the high pair value more than offsets the loss of steal equity in loose games.
What steal equity in loose games?
Thing with these great starting hands is they lose a lot of value or gain in value after the flop. You have to be ready to muck if you don't hit the flop and the flop is potentially gonna beat a big pair.
Thing about AK,AQ thay can't beat a pair of 2's. But have potential to be a monster.
I say raise limpers where ever you are with these suited or not. You might wamt to vary your play so you are not predictable and stealing pots in loose games is a bit tough - got to learn get away from these when you don't hit it.
There is no steal equity in loose games! Save your attempts for when there is only 2 or less opponents in the pot.
Make sure to check raise when you hit the flop to balance the times that you raise and then check when you miss. I know you know this already, I'm just posting a reminder. If your first in I would continue to raise with these hands and only call when there are 3 or more callers already in the pot.
Other than that you just have to ride it out and relize that stealing and loose games don't mix well. seeya
You say they'll cold call two with suspect holdings. Well, would you prefer them to get in cheap for one bet and be playing with very little negative expected value, or would you prefer them to make a huge mistake by cold calling two? It really makes a huge difference with a cheesy hand like 86o. Your hand has the best of it preflop, and you'll very often be continuing on after the flop while those 86o's will be getting out if they completely miss the flop. If you had your way, you'd have everyone push all in preflop... "Let's gamble!"
Perhaps you are expecting to win too often or semi-bluffing too much (i.e., at all, in this type of game.) Raise preflop, and then check-fold when you don't like the texture or the action of the flop... this is how AQ and AK often play out in this type of game. If you do take a card off on the flop for one bet, then you have to be prepared to fold if you don't have a pair or gutshot straight draw plus two overcards on the turn, and you can't be too thrilled if you turn a pair. In a tighter game, a semi-bluff bet on the flop (and turn) becomes the normal play and you often ride AK no pair all the way to the showdown.
-Abdul
Back in town last night in my usual 3-6HE game after thrashing the other tourists last week in Vegas. Pick up 5s-4s in the SB. 7 callers, I throw in the extra $2, BB calls and 9 of us take the flop of Ah-Qs-4c.
I check, and surprisingly, it gets checked all the way to the button,a solid young player, who bets. I was a little leery of getting check-raised (what are they all in on?), but I call and 4 others also call. Turn card is the 5c. This apparent "blank" doesn't change much other than putting the club draw out there, and I suppose a bicycle for anyone playing 3-2, but I figure my best chance to win this pot is go for a check-raise when the button bets, and make it difficult for all the gut-shot straights and/or Queen-somethings to call 2 bets cold. To my surprise, it gets checked out.
River card, though, is the lovely 5s. I now spring to life, cursing all the missed action on the turn, and to my surprise, player UTG raises! Everyone folds, and I of course re-raise. I've got a nice surprise waiting for this guy, right? When he just calls, I say,"Ship it" and turn over my boat. This guy shows me AA!
Talk about a shock to the system. As he's scooping in the pot, I jokingly asked the guy ( I had seen him around a couple of times), "Run out of chips, there, pal? What did you think I had... quad 5's?" He says," You never know."
Anyway, points to raise about this little hand:
1. Mistake to call out of the SB with low suited connectors like 54s? I know I would rather be in late position with this type of cheese, but with what promised to be an unraised 9-handed pot, I just couldn't resist.
2. What about calling the buttons' flop bet? It appeared I had a 5-outer to his presumed pair, and barring walking into 2 bigger pairs or a set, it looked like 2 pair or my own trips would have a good chance if I hit the turn.
3. Once I hit the 2 small pairs on the turn, who would bet out, and who would try to protect their hands with a (failed) check-raise with this board?
4. Let's talk about the play of UTG for a moment. If the purpose of not raising with AA is to vary your play and deceive your opponents, it sure worked here. Personally, in the loose, passive environment of these low-limit games, I just can't bring myself to smooth call up front with premium hands like this. I find the players will call with such crap anyway, that I might as well get in the double bets and take my chances leading the parade. I guess I could have maybe stopped for a second on the river after he raised, and considered what type of holding he might have to pop it, but my first reaction was that he had a good Ace and missed his own check-raise on the turn, or that maybe he had caught trip 5's himself. I suppose I should be happy that it didn't cost me another $6 when he didn't cap it!
Thoughts?
River card was the 5h. Pretty tough for the 5s to come up on the board when I had it in my hand.
Dunc,
Looks like the AA was playing unpredictably, which hurt you in the end. Personally, I would not have seen the turn with low pair/no kicker and two big cards out, especially when so many LL players limp in with Ax. If you are playing low suited connectors, be ready to muck if you don't flop two pair or better, an open ender or a 4 flush. One underpair is just not enough outs when the bets double. A common leak for us LL players. There are good reasons not to play these hands, especially in bad position.
I might use hand this as evidence for betting out and skipping the checkraising in the LL games. The last bettor could have been trying for a free card by betting the flop and you helped him get it by checking the turn. For sure bet out when you hit two pair, given the possible position/free card bet on the previous round. Plus, if UTG raises, you might get a hint he has trips.
I think the AA was slowplaying with his check/call on the flop and had a busted checkraise on the turn. Both made him hard to put on the right holding. When he raises the river you have to call with your boat (and curse him to yourself).
KJS
PS. I am going to Vegas 2/11-2/13; send me a personal email about where you thought the most beatable games were. I am staying at Harrah's.
3-6 what can you do grin and bear it.
BTW I have never said "ship it".
Best thing to say is nice hand and bite your tongue.
Dunc:
Were do you find games this good? And how dare you take money out of Las Vegas and back to Canada (if I’m not mistaken)? But I’ll answer anyway.
”1. Mistake to call out of the SB with low suited connectors like 54s?
With eight opponents, I would call even if I knew the big blind would raise. I don’t think this one is close. But I’m mostly looking to flop a draw rather than a pair. Call me the “anti-Rounder :-).
2. What about calling the buttons' flop bet? It appeared I had a 5-outer to his presumed pair, and barring walking into 2 bigger pairs or a set, it looked like 2 pair or my own trips would have a good chance if I hit the turn.
While I thought this was an easy call pre-flop, I would fold post flop. IHMO, three of your five outs give you a mediocre hand (two small vulnerable pair), and the two 5’s would only be a good but not great hand against a potentially large field. Note that if under the gun bet and all folded to me, I would take one off. Here the dead money makes it worth going uphill (even though I would have been drawing dead in this case but of course who could know that at the time).
I would have considered check raising; however, you have too many opponents who have not acted yet, and the potential dead money does not compensate IMHO. Although I am often in favor of the check raise against what I suspect is a button steal with a marginal hand (call me the “anti-Jim Brier”), “solid young players” do not steal against eight opponents. And this hand is way less than marginal.
3. Once I hit the 2 small pairs on the turn, who would bet out, and who would try to protect their hands with a (failed) check-raise with this board?
If I accidentally called the flop by knocking three chips off my stack into the pot, I would tend to bet. I do think it is close. Of course, I would also check raise the button had he bet. Generally, I like to keep the rest of the field under pressure between my now fair but vulnerable hand and a potential turn raiser on the button. But the alternative is not bad since you really expected him to bet.
4. Let's talk about the play of UTG for a moment.
Not me. I’m doing my taxes and got to get back to work. That is why I sound so grouchy -;).
Regards,
Rick
.
Dunc:
Were do you find games this good? And how dare you take money out of Las Vegas and back to Canada (if I’m not mistaken)? But I’ll answer anyway.
”1. Mistake to call out of the SB with low suited connectors like 54s?"
With eight opponents, I would call even if I knew the big blind would raise. I don’t think this one is close. But I’m mostly looking to flop a draw rather than a pair. Call me the “anti-Rounder :-).
"2. What about calling the buttons' flop bet? It appeared I had a 5-outer to his presumed pair, and barring walking into 2 bigger pairs or a set, it looked like 2 pair or my own trips would have a good chance if I hit the turn."
While I thought this was an easy call pre-flop, I would fold post flop. Three of your five outs give you a mediocre hand (two small vulnerable pair), and the two 5’s would only be a good but not great hand against a potentially large field. Note that if under the gun bet and all folded to me, I would take one off. Here the dead money makes it worth going uphill (even though I would have been drawing dead in this case but of course who could know that at the time).
I would have considered check raising; however, you have too many opponents who have not acted yet, and the potential dead money does not compensate IMHO. Although I am often in favor of the check raise against what I suspect is a button steal with a marginal hand (call me the “anti-Jim Brier”), “solid young players” do not steal against eight opponents. And this hand is way less than marginal.
"3. Once I hit the 2 small pairs on the turn, who would bet out, and who would try to protect their hands with a (failed) check-raise with this board?"
If I accidentally called the flop by knocking three chips off my stack into the pot, I would tend to bet. I do think it is close. Of course, I would also check raise the button had he bet. Generally, I like to keep the rest of the field under pressure between my now fair but vulnerable hand and a potential turn raiser on the button. But the alternative is not bad since you really expected him to bet.
"4. Let's talk about the play of UTG for a moment."
Not me. I’m doing my taxes and got to get back to work. That is why I sound so grouchy -;).
Regards,
Rick
I think it is okay to call out of your small blind with 8 limpers when you are already partially in having a suited connector and it is an unraised pot.
On the flop, I believe your call is correct since you are getting such good pot odds to go ahead and play your 5 outer.
On the turn, I would bet out because I cannot afford to have it checked around and hand out free cards to a table full of opponents. Players frequently stop betting on the expensive street. If raised, I would re-raise.
I don't know what to say about your UTG opponent other than I think he must have learned poker in a forest. You should make sure you spend a lot of time playing against him.
Jim,
You wrote:"On the flop, I believe your call is correct since you are getting such good pot odds to go ahead and play your 5 outer."
In my post above I indicated I would fold on the flop and described my reasoning. Generally I consider you about the most solid player who writes here so when you say call I wonder if I should re-evaluate. I seem to have this pattern of being on the tight side on my flop calls against a large field when the turn can make me just a fairly good to good hand.
I'm asking you to rethink this if you have time and/or pick apart my reasoning here. If you want call it Nebiolo Problem 1.1 since it really is just a minor upgrade :-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick, you may not be giving up much by folding here. There are 10 bets in the pot so you are getting immediate pot odds of 10:1 and your 5 outer is about 8.5:1 so you have a tiny overlay. I like Ciaffone's reasoning when he wrote in an earlier Cardplayer article that you can sort of figure simplistically that your implied odds cover the times you hit and lose so look at it in terms of your current pot odds versus your outs. Clearly if you think that someone who checked may be planning to raise, then a fold is clear. I cannot help but think that if one of the opponents had an Ace he would have bet rather than having it checked around to the button. I don't often encounter too many check-raises in these situations.
1. Mistake to call out of the SB with low suited connectors like 54s?
No, you're getting 12:1 or so. This is an easy call, and assuming I could outplay my opponents postflop, I would call here with almost any 2 suited cards. (With a 1/2 sized small blind, I would call with any 2 suited cards.)
2. What about calling the buttons' flop bet?
I don't like taking a card off with an A on the board in general because you never know if your kicker happens to match the kicker to someone's A. I might call if my call closed the action (but I still wouldn't like it), but with a ton of people left to act, I'd often just fold. People in these games love to slowplay just about anything (the vast majority of players in these games will check-call the flop, check-raise the turn with any set, and sometimes even any 2 pair), so not only do you run the risk of having to pay additional bets, but you run the risk of drawing very slim.
3. Once I hit the 2 small pairs on the turn, who would bet out, and who would try to protect their hands with a (failed) check-raise with this board?
I would bet out. I don't want to give a free card to any weird draw, and since there's a decent chance the button's bet last time was a steal, there's likewise a decent chance he won't bet again.
4. Let's talk about the play of UTG for a moment. If the purpose of not raising with AA is to vary your play and deceive your opponents, it sure worked here.
There are a variety of reasons for limp-reraising with AA, but did his lack of a raise preflop really deceive you all that much? (I.e. he could have just as easily held A4.) UTG played this hand incorrectly on every street--imagine how much more this could have cost you if he played his hand correctly. He slowplays top set like a fool and then fears quads when it's only 3 bets to him. Sounds like a typical "tricky" fish to me.
BTW, against this type of player, the type that loves to trap and will check-call/check-raise a set close to 100% of the time, I find it's usually best to shake your head and congratulate them on how well they trapped you. It is to your benefit for them to play like that, because it makes them much more predictable and saves you money in the long run. When this type of opponent bets or raises the flop, and you hold bottom set or top two, you can know with a large degree of certainty that you have them beat.
-Sean
Thanks, group. I knew pretty much at the time that peeling one off after the button bet the flop was marginal at best; I just needed some of that positive reinforcement from the group. It isn't so much that I should fear walking into trip Ace's that much. It's those A-4 or A-5 limpers that I should be worrying about. I got pretty much about what I deserved on the hand, it was just the unusual ending that caught me off guard that I thought I would share.
I get so much out of your posts!! Thanks for sharing.
SammyB
I am being badgered by a friend to give him some hard and fast rules for early position, pre-flop raising (and re-raising) independent of the style of the game. He will not take, "It depends" for an answer. I can provide guidelines according to the magic Sklansky table, but my badgering friend wants rules (He is a physical chemist, what did you expect). Oh yes he plays 2-4 while he waits for 3-6 and 5-10. He usually looses, gets loaded and I drive him home.
Your alcoholic friend sounds like a rigid, anal-retentive personality. You will not be able to "teach" him anything, and it is obvious he is not learning from experience. On the other hand, we have an opening in our game and would be pleased if he could play... . Good Luck! Black Jack
Is this guy Nate Lewis? You never told us whether he was a good poker player or not...
That's a funny one. The guy is absolutely not Nate Lewis. Nate is far from that. I have never played cards with Nate, in fact never met him in person, just on the phone and did part of an NIH submission with him. The guy is an exceptional Chemist. I suspect if he plays at all, he probably plays goods cards. I know Nate's science, and it is cutting edge. I would not be surprised if he wins the big one some day.
The guy I refer to playing cards is a relative form Phila.
Nate teach you chemistry at Caltech?
Independent of the style of game? Well, then, we had better be darn conservative.
You said early position, game style specified as unspecified. Open-raise with 88-AA, ATs-AKs, KQs, AQ-AK. Fold everything else. If it's reraised back, just call unless it's multiway, in which case reraise with AA, KK, QQ, AKs and AK. (The 4-bet with AK is mostly for balance and you can just flat call with it if you wish.) If it's two cold back, call with 99-AA, AKs, and AK.
Poker is not blackjack or chemistry, however.
-Abdul
but if any aspect of poker can be played without, well, playing poker, it is certainly early position preflop. i am not saying it's a good attitude to have. but i want to extend the benifit of the doubt and assume he intends to specialize in post flop play.
scott
There was a time when I played only 3-6 when I NEVER raised pre flop as it didn't drive any one out and only tipped my hand. I have "grown" since then but at LL it wasn't a bad strategy.
Early pre flop I generally raise with Big pairs, slick and chick AJs ATs and JJ TT 99. Maybe with less depending on the game.
Your friend should understand the game is situational so hard fast rules are not possible and if he wants to win he should quit drinking at the tables.
Loose game.
I'm in the BB with KcTs. Four players limp, SB calls, I check, 6 of us see the flop.
Flop is 8sTh6s. With all the possible draws, I figure I better check and hope to be able to raise to limit the field. Like clockwork, it checks around to the button, who bets. SB folds, I raise, 2 players call cold and button calls.
Turn is 7d. I figure someone must have a 9 or maybe had me beat already, so I check. It checks around.
River is Ks. Now the straight and the flush seem to have come. I bet.
Huh?
You were afraid of the straight on the turn so you checked - but when the flush came you suddenly had the confidence to bet? - was this with the intention of folding if you were raised? Calling if you were raised? Both seem like bad decisions that give you very little chance of winning the pot and cost you one extra bet.
I don't see the "value" bet here.
Pre-flop you should be grateful you got a free play in your big blind with this weak hand.
On the flop, you should bet out. You cannot afford to have it checked around and then have an Ace, Queen, or Jack turn up instantly killing your hand with 5 opponents still hanging around. It must be nice when the button bets your hand for you. They are not always that cooperative.
On the turn of course you check and get ready to fold promptly if anyone bets. How nice that no one finds a bet. You would think that the button might try a move here when all three opponents now check to him.
On the river you have the top two pair and of course bet since your opponents denied a hand by checking the turn.
Sorry, I did not notice the Spade flush possibility at the river. I think you should check since with 3 opponents it is very easy for someone to have been on a flush draw.
In addition, it would be problematic for the button to make a move on the turn because it is quite likely he will get called by someone on a flush draw.
Jim,
I enjoy your posts and your insights. However, I disagree with you this time. If you main objective is to reduce the field, why do you think that leading is more effective than check-raising? Of course, we do not know the players and their tendencies.
In most situations, I believe that checking (with the intention to either raising or folding) is a better play than leading. Let me give you a few reasons.
I would check-raise a late-position better, and maybe call an early position bettor. I definitely would fold if the action gets too heavy. My hand is not all that strong. Even if I hold the best hand now, I could easily be a dog to go to the river, with the texture of the board and the pre-flop action.
The most important factor not considered here is the players. However, in most situations, checking the flop is a better play than leading.
Jim is more than capable (and more capable than I) of responding, but I just wanted to address the issue of limiting the field on the flop.
This was an unraised pot so there is no clue as to who will bet the flop. After you check, the next player might bet, then all call before it's up to you. Now your raise will eliminate no one, since they already have one bet in. But had you bet, the next player might raise, eliminating the rest of the field, since they would now have to cold-call two bets.
With the pot unraised by any late position players pre-flop, and with the flop apparently dangerous in terms of flush and straight possibilities, it's much less likely than usual that a late position player will take a shot at the pot by betting. Jim correctly pointed this out in reference to the turn, but I think this holds for the flop as well.
So I don't think it's necessarily that you have a better chance at limiting the field by checking than by betting.
I agree with you that betting out on the flop is better than going for a checkraise but I like a bet on the turn as well. If you just get called you have increased the pot by 3 additional big bets, If you get raised it's a pretty easy fold with all the possibles out there. Once it gets called all around on the turn then I, too, would check on the river. Since no one had a 9 or a flush draw I wonder what they did have, but whatever it was I want them to pay to try and hit it.
Its a bad bet imo since the board is so scary, most likely you will only get played with from a a made hand. the way you played it implies that you might have a flush draw since you didn't follow up on the turn.
Against 6 players I wouldn't have even called on flop, although you might have got lucky and won.
How can you fold on this flop top pair good kicker could easily be the best hand??
Shawn Keller
You have to put top pair into perspective as to the amount of players and the texture of the flop. This scenario is very similar to the article Mr Feeney wrote about recently.He advocated raising also.
Simply, with both realistic straight and flush possibilities and 5 other players a one pair hand with limited outs is going to get squashed. If I had backdoor flush possibilities I'd call the late posisition bettor, but no raise. I didn't notice whether there was a backdoor flush possible with the K10, if so I'd stay.But I wouldn't be happy
Also with this many players there is a good chance that another early position player flopped two pair or trips and is looking to check raise. The more people in against you the better the hand and outs you need . If the flop was something like 10s 6h 3c, I'd stay in and I'd be betting the hand. seeya
I am surprised that no one brought this up yet but I think that you should bet the turn and then fold if raised. It seems unlikely that either of the 2 players who cold called 2 bets on the flop would have a 9, unless one of them has J/9 for the open ended straight. Even though your hand might not be good on the turn I think it is still worth betting to try and get out a hand like QJ which might have called the flop, or middle pair ect.
If all called a bet on the turn I would probably check the river and fold if someone bet unless the bettor was a very tricky player.
Shawn Keller
Value bet?
If you will call if someone else bets and you can bet and if raised can safely fold then this bet might make sense.
Can you safely fold if you get raised?
Unless the opposition is very tricky you can fold if raised because you have already shown so much strength.
Shawn Keller
This is very true. But the question is if the poster can do it.
10-20 game. 4 maniacs, 4 loose/passive, 1 tight aggressive and myself. I'm on the button with 10 Js. There is a straddle, a dead preflop raise to $30 and another maniac raise to $40. Should I have called preflop with 10 Js for $40?
CT AL,
Even though you probably have a better hand then the average maniac, at least one probably has you high carded. JT suited wants more opponents and would rather see the flop relatively cheaply.
Also remember that you will pay dearly for any draw that you flop. The EV may be in fact be close on this one but the variance will be very high. The hand will be over soon and you might as well wait for decent pairs and high cards against this bunch. Then you will have better expectation and a lot smaller swings.
Regards,
Rick
No. See HPFAP, 21st Century Edition, page 165: "When the game is good, you should play more hands, specifically suited hands, but only it if appears that you can get in cheaply with them."
The key point that is that you have to get in cheaply. You want there to be 4 bets after you've got the goods, not when you're (essentially) on a draw.
No. There are two reasons for this. The first is that you have to put too much money in the pot meaning that you won't get the implied odds that you need.
The second is that you are describing a game where if you just play very tight and are very selective of the hands that you play you must win. On the other hand, if you get in there and mix it up with questionable hands not only might you lose, but those players who will give away a lot of money may get ahead and quit.
Ziggities. Before I read Mason's response, I thought for sure I was going to reply, "I totally agree with Mason." However, I totally disagree with Mason.
(I'm assuming that by 10 Js, the original poster meant JTs, jack-ten-suited.)
Implied odds? You don't need no stinkin' implied odds. Your hand is a favorite in no fold'em against two totally random hands and an almost random hand, plus you have position. My only concern is the players left to act, because if they have a big pair you're hurting, but you're on the button, and so there are only two sane players left behind. I call this risk "exposure."
Mason's second point is about wanting to milk the opportunity slowly rather than increase the variance and thus risk losing the opportunity before you've gotten much profit. This is an interesting concept I've heard before. I agree it with under some circumstances, like when playing heads up versus a fish. Here, however, your actions will have virtually no impact on the variance of the fish. If you sit back and wait for a big hand, a fish might bust out or hit his win limit before you get any piece of his action. If you get in there and appear gamble with them, while actually having the best of it, you won't be increasing the pot size by a big percentage and so you won't have a significant impact on when they bust out or hit their win limits. You'll also probably be rewarded with additional action from them.
I can't imagine Ray Zee not getting in there and gamb0000ling with the fish. Perhaps when he gets back from his bear observations he'll chime in.
On the other hand, there is no question that playing like a rock will produce a profit in this game, and because of "exposure" you should play fairly tight when you're in earlier position. Also, if you're tight on bankroll for this limit, this would be an ideal hand to fold for the sake of variance.
-Abdul
(Abdul - I wrote this late last night and forget to post it. It was still on my scratch pad so I'll repost it now.)
Abdul,
This post is my dying gasp before I hit the sack. I agree that this hand may be positive EV, but only slightly so. I also wonder what the original poster meant by "a dead preflop raise to $30". Was this a raise from one of the tight players? If so, the hand has negative EV.
I don't agree with Sklansky that you must sit way back and play only the very best, precisely because of the real world considerations mentioned by both you and Mason. But that is just my opinion. I could be wrong but I'm definitely tired.
Good Night and Regards,
Rick
I took that to mean that after the straddle the next player posted a raise (which is not live, just a blind raise).
Randy
For 4 bets 4-or 5-handed, what's the break-even suited connector here and how does JTs stand in relation to it?
Obviously not 34s. 87s seems dangerously low as well. My guess would be T9s or 98s, meaning that JTs would probably pick up maybe an extra fraction of bet or less in EV at a sickening level of variance. If I have an "average" bankroll of 400-500 big bets and only see this kind of game perhaps a couple of times a month, wouldn't I be much better advised to wait for a bigger hand?
My question would be how to play this after the flop, with a variety of scenarios (all assuming quite a bit of action from the maniacs):
1. You flop a jack, rainbow, with one of your suit.
2. You flop a ten, rainbow, one of your suit.
3. Same two as above, none of your suit.
4. Flop no pair, flush draw.
I know a lot depends on the action and the players, but it seems to me that it would be fairly easy to get sucked into this hand, especially in scenarios one and two, (especially because of the odds the pot is laying you) and get ripped to pieces by AJ, or something like that.
Responses appreciated.
Max
Mason knew that Abdul would be so anxious to disagree with him, that he would unwittingly champion our cause regarding the strenth of that JT suited, that he had previously deprecated. Good work Mason.
Sure David! Mason pwayed a twick on wittle Abdul! Mason ain't played a trick on anyone since he got you to agree he should run 2+2 and then look who he was dealing with. Nice try!
Vince.
The feature of the type of game is paying a lot to see the flop and continue from the flop. I like to play hands that can either hit a big made-hand (like pairs), or a nut draws (like A suited cards), since they are easy to release on the flop if you miss, and easy to continue from the flop if you hit. They have high win rate if you hit. Hands like J10s can cause some troubles both for made-hand and drawing hand (execept the nut staight draw) to continue from the flop. I feel this is the main part that I don't like this kind of hand very much in those kind of games, because it takes a lot of gambling and swings if I want to continue with those made-hand or drawing hand that could be potentially in trouble.
I now try to avoid this kind of games, because this game also can cost more to play. You usually have to give up more the blinds which you might call 1 raise or get a free play in a normal game.
regards,
jikun
How about AA on the button for one bet? Can Jim, Dan, Mason, Abdul, Rick, Big John, Rounder, Gary, John and P Feeney, scott, Scott, Scott, Michael and everyone else agree that we want to play this hand? Come on guys!! Is every play we've talked about recently so close that the debate itself is meaningless because either way is so close it just doesn't matter? I'm certain the debate in and of itself is helpful in clearing away cobwebs and allowing us to think faster at the table because we've thought about it away from the table but I think it would be sort of joyous if all of the disciples(apologies to Mark Glover) would all sing just one little hymn in unison. Come on guys, belt one out, we'll have Gary accompany you on the house organ.
SammyB,
OK. I'll play AA on the button for one bet but only if I am feeling lucky. Oh yeah, the aces must be suited.
Regards,
Rick
Sammy this is what seperates us from the maniacs who see any two suited cards and call any amount of bets with them and raise if their coupled. However partial I am to JT - Oh hell, I probably call here as Having 2 maniacs in a hand is OK with me. They usually tail down as the available cards deminish and fold by the river.
Since the flu is back with full force I can't be responsible for my comments so disregard them.
"Come on guys!! Is every play we've talked about recently so close that the debate itself is meaningless because either way is so close it just doesn't matter?"
SammyB,
But it's not meaningless to all of us. I for one would like to hear the debate, especially on JTs in this case. Because I used to play this hand in this situation before and now I don't. I thought it was correct to play it in situation such as this. What would happen after I got involved is this:
I would loose a ton of money on the hand and then question myself if it was right to call or not? Now because I thought it was right to play did not mean it was right. And this type of situation would put me off my game time and time again. Why? Because I wasn't sure how far off I was on a play. Now Abdul comes in and says he thinks it is correct to play it and the others think it is not. So now if someone else respected comes in and argues for calling I might just start calling again with my new found knowledge and not go off my game because I will know it is close after all and winning players do play these hands.
JTs is a lot more powerful hand than it appears on the surface. I play it to a raise in late position and limp with it in mid to late position unsuited. Trick is knowing when to get away from it. You almost always get a piece of the flop so mucking it takes some dicipline.
It can me the most profitable and most costly hand you can play so be careful.
"JTs is a lot more powerful hand than it appears on the surface"
stradle to 30 and then a maniac makes it 40. In my understanding this hand is very powerful in this situation and not to play it here from the button I think is a shame. Like I said in my understanding. However when I get burned I'm thinking I'm just a gambler who should have known better because the book sort of says the implied odds go to hell, so who is right. The book must be. So if the book is right and I played the hand anyway I must be on tilt/off my game. If I wasn't I'm now.
I'm sure you've heard it a thousand times, when analyzing a situation many times the correct preflop play will depend. Depend on what you say? It will depend on the flop!!
Yep. The flop is usually where faith is decided. I for one would not question myself or get upset if I was sure what the correct play was preflop. I sure like to know before I get involved. It helps my head. And JTs in situations like this was not helping my head.
It is an important 40% but you have to play the MAN and situation.
Now, what you are looking at with the straddle is in reality 1 raise from a maniac. I might reraise here with a really marginal hand to slow them down.
You have the button you have seen your cards the idiot straddle has acted before seeing HIS cards I like your chances. Sometimes you have to screw the book and play the situation.
NO question about it!
berya,
I go through the same thing you do. I read a post and usually if Jim Brier has responded I read his remarks first because I've come to know him to be reasonable, risk averse and quite experienced at the lower levels where I play. And then I read Dan hanson, and when these two take different sides I realize either way you play it has its advantages. So, I catalog that play as something I can flip a coin with to vary my play when necessary. However, if Abdul and Mason disagree as they do above I'll side with Mason. Not that I don't respect Abdul, but he seems to play with greater abandon and I try to keep my approach a tad more conservative than the rammin jammmin style I hear from Abdul.
But my post was more to point out that if any of the clique disagree then you can pretty much go either way and not be wrong, because there will always be some 2+2 powerhouse to take your side.
no, sammy. i don't play AA on the button for one bet. it will be at least 2 bets.
scott
I actually left it at one bet for a reason. Of course, practically everyone would raise on the button with AA (suited or not, Rick :-) ) but I'm sure some notable might put forth an analysis that smooth calling here could have its advantages depending on the number of limpers and the tenacity of the blinds. What do you think?
i would smooth call a raise if i thought it would be heads up anyway. but that would be 2 bets anyway.
scott
The idea is not to get a consensus but rather a total view of a subject from experienced players. Poker is a dynamic game where nothing is true all of the time, and ADAPTATION is the key.
If you are trying to use this forum to get absolutes you are mistaken. Use this forum to improve your thinking about the game and help your decision making process while playing.seeya
Hands like TJs are very context dependent. So you're going to get equally-reasonable but varying points of view on how to play it.
Part of the problem is that the parameters of the situation are usually ill-defined. Someone says, "I called with QJo in late position, after five people limped." Is that a good call? Well, it depends. If this is a game that is usually heads-up or three-way action, and suddenly six people take the flop, then QJo may be a losing hand. If there's always six people in the pot, it's a money-winning hand. (In case you can't see why, the main reason is that tight limpers will often have hands that dominate QJ, and loose limpers won't).
So you get disagreements from good players because they are sometimes attacking the problem with a different set of starting assumptions.
If the situations were more clearly defined, you'd see more agreement.
Thanks for clarifying, Dan. For a second, there, I thought it wasn't going to depend. :-)
Two things that makes poker interesting and difficult are the multitude of variables and the ability to rationally argue over how much weight should be given them. If we wanted a slide rule approach, we'd be blackjack players.
You sure make a good point Chris, and I am a blackjack player and I'll admit I miss the air of detachment I had when I had my big bet up, I gotdealt 99 against a dealer's seven, I glanced at the discards, calculated the true count to be +4.5 and I calmly split. It was easy, it was painless. Win or lose I had done the right thing, the pos ev thing and there was no doubt about it. I miss that. Now the pos ev thing has strings attached, risks to consider, kelly bankroll calculations to make, sacrifices to offer, but it is a lot more fun than blackjack. So, when a situation comes up that we've persecuted to the fullest extent of the law I'll look at the muck pile, wait for a vision and act. How far off can I be?
The Over posting police may just come and arrest you.
Note, however, that the things we generally argue about are not things like calling a tight player's raise with ATo. There ARE a lot of pretty clear decisions in poker, but the type of people on this forum already understand those, so we're left to argue about the finer points. And those usually are context sensitive.
Thanks to everyone for your responses. I folded the hand preflop. The hand ended up 9 handed. The flop came QKA rainbow. The flop was capped. The turn was a 4 and the river brought a 6 (no flush possibilities). I don't regret dumping the hand preflop. I just let it go and played about six more hands that nite. After all, any hand you hold can turn into the nuts. 27o can flop 777 or 222, right? There were two legitimate hands. The tight/agressive player flopped a set of queens and and one of the maniacs flopped aces and jacks. The problem I have with this type of game is quite a few premium hands you can get occur when you are in early position, meaning you have no position! Typically, I try to avoid this type of gambling free-for-all, as I will in the future. When I first sat down, the game was loose/passive, but changed quickly after player at the table turned around quickly.
"10-20 game. 4 maniacs, 4 loose/passive, 1 tight aggressive and myself. I'm on the button with 10 Js. There is a straddle, a dead preflop raise to $30 and another maniac raise to $40. Should I have called preflop with 10 Js for $40? "
Then you say: "The hand ended up 9 handed"
Very nice accurate description of a hand. Thanks.
CT AL:: "The flop came QKA rainbow...one of the maniacs flopped aces and jacks..."
BL: I would have called the floor over to sort this out.
Love.
Abdul's reasoning is sound. JTs is going to win more than its "fair share" of pots against these random or weak hands. But unless almost every pot is capped we should not presume that "maniac" means 80% or more of the time he raises. CT AL may very well view 30% of the time as a maniac.
And I like the part where the live ones think you're just one of the boys.
- Louie
Al,
Just curious, did this hand occur at Foxwoods? Were the maniacs "Dave" and "Vinnie"?
15-30 game, five-handed, lots of aggression. I'm UTG with Ac10c and raise, button calls, sb calls and BB makes it 3 bets. All call. Flop is Ah 6c 10d. sb checks, BB bets, I raise, fold, fold, reraise, I call. Turn is 7c, bet, I raise, he calls. River 10h, Bet, raise, reraise, I call, he shows his pocket AA. I can't understand why he stopped raising on the turn. He must have thought I had raised pre-flop with 89? I briefly thought about getting in another raise on the river since he hadn't reraised me on the turn. What stopped me was that I couldn't think of any hand he could have 3 bet pre-flop, reraised on the flop, raised on the turn and reraised on the river with that I could beat. If he had reraised the turn, I would have just called, putting him on top set, and probably just paid off his river bet.
Was his turn call of my raise justified in any way, or was it a misplay on his part?
Turn is 7c, bet, I raise, he calls.
To me it looks like he saw a flush comming and he hit the breaks just in case.
Once the River paired the board he was feeling much better.
Best of it !!
MJ
Raise with ATc get reraised by the big blind. You gave me hope Big John I thought for a second you were going to win this hand.
I think he just got too tricky on the turn or in other words misplayed the turn.
P.S from a fellow ATs raiser.
Ditto to Mchicago, After you were re-raised on the flop and then raised again on the turn, he probably put you on AXs or the straight, (stranger things have happened) and he slowed down to see the river card.After I reraise on the flop and you raise on the turn, knowing that you can't have a big set, I would probably put you on the straight myself. I think he played it well. It was probably you with the aces right???? seeya
No, Al, it was me with the Ac10c. Thanks for your imput.
John I give up trying to figure out why some of these yahoos do what they do sometimes there is just no figuring it out.
I just came off a win at Casino Arizona early tournament so you guys better be ready I ahve been eating a lot of red meat (raw) for the last week and I have my "all in" gloves on. :-)
See ya Friday night.
Mike
You started too weak, flop perfect and catch perfect-perfect and were drawing almost dead the whole time. I hate it when that happens.
He just called the turn because: 1) He's tricky and that's what tricky players do 2) He viewed you as hopelessly predictably tight on the turn and river and put you on a straight, forgetting you raised UTG 3) As others said he suspected you just picked up a flush draw which encourages a check-raise on the river if its a blank. 4) He's squirrely.
"What stopped me HELLO! Its amazing how many players CANNOT put those observations together much less deduce a just-call, and then actually just-call. This isn't brain surgery, but you do have to think A LITTLE.
As Spock said, if your choices are the impossible and the improbable, pick the improbable. He slow played a set of Aces on the turn.
Except for before the flop in this aggressive game, well played. It sure LOOKED like AK or AQs, eh?
- Louie
Shorthanded, I don't think my pre-flop raise with A10c can be considered too aggressive in this game. If I'd capped it pre-flop, then *that* would be over-aggressive!
I pretty much avoid mid-limit Hold'em because I feel like most players can outthink me in the game. This might be more a function of lack of playing experience at these levels. It seems like just about everytime I sit in one of these games a play occurs that leaves me baffled and distracted.
The funny part is that I can play these same people in NL and feel totally comfortable and at ease.
Just as an aside, that is almost identical to the hand at the beginning of "Rounders", where Teddy KGB fleeces Matt Damon with AA vs. A-9 and a board of A-9-x-x-9.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 February 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 February 2000, at 8:38 a.m.