![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Hand #1. 5-10. Passive table. I hold 8h8s in the BB. 4 limpers plus me see the flop of 8c5s9c. I bet my set and get raised by middle position. I reraise and he calls everyone else folding. The turn is the 4c. I bet, he raises, I call. The river is the Ks. I check and so does he!!. Did I miss a bet here, should I have reraised the turn or was I properly intimidated by the possible flush?
Hand #2. I'm sitting with Jc9c in the cutoff. Same passive table. 3 limpers to me, I limp, sb folds. 6 hands see Qs4c7c. It gets checked to the button who bets. 3 see the turn of the Qc. I bet, button raises. I reraise, button caps it. The river is the 8s. I check, button checks!. Should I have bet the river?
Thank you in advance for your comments.
On the first hand, what could your opponent have to raise your flop bet? With an over pair he probably would have raised pre-flop unless they were specifically pocket Nines. He is unlikely to have the case Eight for top pair. Therefore, a draw(especially a flush draw) becomes a real possibility. When the third Club shows up on the turn and you bet and get raised you should assume that he has a Club flush and you need to fill to win. When a blank comes at the river, it is perfectly correct for you to check planning to call.
On the second hand, when you make your non-nut flush I think you showed a lot of hair to re-raise with an open pair on board. You could even lose to a higher flush. It would be insane for you to bet the river in this situation. You should check and make a crying call if the button bets. The button is a complete idiot for capping it on the expensive street when the flush card comes. Maybe he had trip Queens but he still over played his hand.
You have to assume you are against sane opponents and that the previous betting action has some significance
Batholemew,
You said this is a passive table so I will assume the opponents involved are normally passive.
In the first hand, he put in an awful lot of action on a medium size pot. His betting pattern on the flop and turn was consistent with a flush draw and a made flush. I think you showed appropriate restraint. My guess is you got maximum action out of whatever hand he had.
In the second hand, you got four big bets in with a made flush when the board was paired. Your opponent capped the turn. You had to worry about the full house being out. My question is this. Would you even be wondering about lost bets if the betting went you bet, he raises, you call on both betting rounds?
I think you got the maximum on both hands. Trying to get one more bet out of either situation on the river after all that turn action will often result in the opponent folding some kind of combo draw/hand or being raised by the actual full. In other words, you will often gain no bets or lose two.
Once again, I will go into shock if Jim disagrees. But then again, I need the sleep (does shock help for sleeplessness?).
Regards,
Rick
In regards to hand no# 1,
My guess would be that he held something like A-10 offsuit, Ace of clubs.
I would have raised you too on the flop if I held the Ace of clubs with an overcard kicker, PLUS the runner-runner nut flush. His raise on the turn may seem a little wacky to some, but who knows what kind of read he had on you. Maybe he thought there was a chance of you dumping two pair, since his backing off on the flop gave him the look of a flush draw. And besides, if you don't dump, there is still the nut flush draw as a back-up.
The river is a blank for him, so he dumps his hand
[You asked if you should have re-raised the turn. Well, that's the beauty of "The Protected Raise", a term that I think was coined by Bob Ciaffone.(His book "Improve your Poker" is a must buy. There, he discusses the protected raise.) The scare card on the turn gave him protection from a re-raise by you(if you have anything less than a flush), while at the same time checking to see where he stands with you.]
-Don Martin
I'm going to guess what your opponents had in each situation before looking at the other responses. Let's see how I do.
Hand 1. I think he had an overpair, and the K on the end scared him.
Did you miss a bet? If this was a reasonable player in middle position, then he would not have raised with a flush draw. However, I've seen this happen by unreasonable players. His raise could not have been a bluff with that flop, since he should know that you will call with overcards. I think you should have at least bet the river. I would normally re-raise on the turn here, but if this player is wild and weak, then I could see calling.
Hand 2. Button has either a K high flush, or a Q in his hand. If he's a good enough player to know that he should bet his flush draw on the button, then he's probably not playing too many suited Kings to start.
However, it's not clear that he doesn't have an A high flush until he checks it down. At the point you are making your decision, you can figure him for a flush, or a Q. A lot of the flushes beat you. Unless he is a weak player, none of the Q's he could have beat you. I think you did the right thing by checking.
-steve
I posted this on RGP last week, and the positive responses were over-whelming. I thought I'd share it with you guys over here. I hope that neither the length nor the content are out of place in this forum.
Here it is:
WARNING: This is very long and very detailed. It is probably even tedious. And it's probably going to read like I'm tooting my own horn. Please understand that the point of this message is "what it felt like". What I'm describing is the most emotional night of poker that I've ever experienced. It was also the most thinking that I've ever done at a poker table. If you're not interested in following a player's thought process and stress levels, don't read any further. If you get frustrated by the detailed nature, I apologize in advance. You've been warned :-)
Like many of you, I've always wondered what a "live" no-limit game felt like. I've played in small no-limit tournaments, but putting in your stack is no big deal when your "stack" only cost $20. I figured that I'd probably never get the chance to find out. But lately a new trend is starting here in Las Vegas: small "big-bet poker". The Stratosphere has been spreading no-limit Texas Hold'em a couple nights a week, with $1 and $2 blinds and a $50 buy-in. The Union Plaza followed suit by spreading pot-limit hold'em with similar blinds and a $40 buy-in. Not exactly what we saw in "Rounders". But live big-bet poker has become affordable, so I thought I'd give it a try.
I went to the Stratosphere Sunday night. I figured I'd buy-in for the minimum, and give "the Cadillac of poker" a test-drive. There was one table going (the no-limit tournament going on was down from 5 tables to 3, so there were plenty of no-limit players in the room), and when I put my name on the list, they had enough to start a second game, which would be a "must-move" game.
I bought in for $60 (I just didn't have the heart to say, "soft-break, 50-10") and sat down. Most of the players bought in for $80-100, except for the player on my right, who had $300.
I immediately noticed the first of many things that I would learn that night: no-limit hold-em MAKES you pay attention. We've all heard a million times that we should be studying our opponents at all times, and not watching the ballgame on tv, and yadda-yadda-yadda. Well, from the moment I sat down, my antennae went up and started twitching. I noticed that the guy who bought in for $300 had his game-face on. I noticed which of my opponents seemed nervous, and were probably playing this game for the first time. I recognized two others whom I had played with earlier in the week in a small limit game. They seemed like the type who spent a lot of time in poker rooms, and I remember tabbing them with a "weak-tight" label.
I spent the first 10-15 minutes trying to get into their heads; which ones knew how to play, which ones came to gamble, which ones were sick gamblers who wanted to lose (there are a lot of them out there). These are things I usually consider, but this night I was INTENSELY concentrating on stuff like this.
(At this point, the reader should look into MY head, to see where I'm coming from. I usually play low-limit hold'em, and usually destroy these games. I've only played higher than $6-12 once, and that was a long time ago, and I got killed. I wasn't very experienced then, and I'm looking forward to putting together a bankroll and moving up. I've been away from the game awhile helping my wife out with the babies. But I've been playing part-time for a few months now, and that bankroll is starting to take shape.
I've read a ton of Sklanskly, Malmuth, and Caro, as well as some Cappelletti, Ciaffone, West, and Zee. While I'm deeply indebted to these men, there is one glaring omission from this list: Brunson. I've read and re-read all those books, and I don't know anything about no-limit hold-em!!!)
I am going to play strictly ABC. I am not going get committed to a pot unless I've got the goods. If my opponents pick-up on this and decide that they're not going to pay me off, that's OK with me. I really don't expect to make much money at this. I'm just here for the experience, and if it ends up costing me $60, so be it.
First hand: first 5 players pass, next player makes it $15 to go, all fold.
I guess this is going to be a lot different than no-fold'em.
Next hand I pick up KJ. I'll usually play this up front in low-limit, if the opposition is weak. But then I remembered being told that for years, the "Doyle Brunson" hand was not 10-2, but AQ. Doyle refused to play AQ, I guess because when it made the second-best hand, it cost a bundle. I folded my KJ.
It became apparent to me that hands like KJ, KT, QJ, or even KQ could lead to a lot of trouble in this game. Mark this down as the second thing I learned that night. I decided to dump these hands up front, and to proceed with caution, if at all, in late position.
Hey, I thought, I'm getting pretty good at this.
I fold my KJ. 5 people see the flop for $2. After the flop, a pretty girl in the #4 seat asks how many more cards will be put on the table. I immediately take note of how many chips she has, and imagine them in my stack. 15 checks later, bottom pair wins a $10 pot.
Well, this isn't very exciting.
Later, a few people call the $2, Mister Three-stacks-of-red makes it $20 to go, all fold to the big blind. She's young, pretty, and lost. She looks at the dealer. "There's been a raise," she's told. "How much to call?", she asks. "$20."
Her jaw drops. She puts in the $20.
I don't remember the flop. She checks. Mr. Bigstack bets $100. BB asks, "He can do that?" This girl had been playing $1-5 stud with her mother, and they both came over to this game at her mother's urging. It seems that she had no idea what the words "no-limit" meant, and she was finding out the hard way. It was becoming clear to her that yes, he bet $100, and that if she wanted to call, she'd have to put the rest of her money in. "Well that sucks," she said, and sadly mucked her hand.
As Mr. Bigstack was stacking his chips, she asked, "What did you have?" He just smiled. "What did you have?", she asked again, thinking that he must not have heard her the first time. He smiled and said that he was sorry, but he couldn't tell her. "Come on," she pleaded, in that persuasive womanly way. He laughed, but still refused to give in. "Asshole!" she cried, but in a good-natured way.
Next hand all fold to the Asian guy in the #1 seat (I mention his ethnicity for a reason. I'll explain why in a minute). He makes it $15 to go. All fold to the same pretty girl, who is now the small blind. She doesn't know what to do. She was not at all prepared for this kind of game. She looks at her mother. "If you have a good hand, call!", urges her mother. The player next to her mentions the one-player-to-a-hand rule. Daughter calls, all others fold.
Flop comes Jack-rag-rag. She checks, he bets about $20, she looks at her mother! Mom re-iterates, "If you have a good hand, call!" Mom gets lectures from everyone at that end of the table, including the dealer. Daughter check-calls all the way, calling all-in on the river. Board still Jack-high. Asian guy shows J6!! Daughter shows KJ, takes it down!!
"My God, these are some bad players!", I think.
Asian guy buys more chips. The reason I think his race may play a part in this hand is as follows: aren't women supposed to submit to men in that culture? I know this may sound bigoted, but I've seen this act before. I'm not saying ALL ASIAN MEN WANT WOMEN TO BOW DOWN. It just MAY have led this guy to over-play his weak-ass hand.
Next hand Asian guy comes in with a raise, Cocky Kid (who hasn't played a hand yet, and is one of the "weak-tight" players I mentioned, but talks a good game) re-raises to about $30. Cocky Kid loves to hear himself say the words "come over the top", and now he does it. Asian guy calls, they're heads-up. Flop is Ace-rag-rag. Asian guy bets about $30, Kid goes all-in, about $50 more, Asian guy calls. Kid show A8, Guy shows A9. Neither improves, Kid is busted, Kid quits. I was expecting some tough competition in this game. These guys just put all their money in on hands that I couldn't play!
Later, I discussed this hand with a friend of mine. He said that he knew Cocky kid, and thought that he was excellent at reading hands. If Cocky kid put Asian guy on Ace-no-kicker, he would put it all in with a hand like A8. Since Asian over-played his 6-kicker the prior hand, I guess Cocky kid expected to see the same.
Now pretty young daughter quits. She's not having any fun, even though she's winning. She's very nervous, and she wasn't nervous at $1-5 stud. She picks up her chips and heads back to the stud game.
Three other players follow her. Or should I say, they follow her chips.
This game is on its last legs (and I KNOW that this story sounds like it's on its last legs, but it gets better). Fortunately, my name gets called, and I "must move". I get up, not having been involved in a pot with more than $5 in it. I'm about even. I can't recall the play of any hands, but I think I picked up the blinds a couple of times. I'm about even, maybe down about $5.
I sit in the main game. This line-up looks quite a bit different. They all look like grizzled poker veterans. A lot of Orleans jackets and Binions caps. I fold the first dozen hands that I'm dealt. Very few flops are put out. Some one makes it $8 or $12 to go, and all drop. Tough to get a line on anyone's play, because no one wants to play a hand. I do notice that there is a LOT more money on the table. I'm the only one with less than $200.
Finally, I get to play a hand, and what a hand! Pocket Aces!!
I feel a rush of adrenaline the moment I see what my cards are. I mean a REAL rush!! My heart is thumping. This is a dream-come-true. I'm playing no-limit hold'em, for real money, and I've got Pocket Aces under the gun!!
I quickly recall the only strategy tip that I've ever heard about no-limit: in early position, limp in with a big pair, and if it's raised behind you, come back at 'em hard. I call the $2. Fold, fold, fold, raise-make it $6. Fold, button calls, blinds fold, up to me. There's $17 out there. Winning $17 is not my dream-come-true. I'll keep slow-playing, for now. I call.
Flop comes 9d-8d-2c. I check, raiser bets $10 (I'm disappointed that it's not more), and the button calls. Now there's close to $40 out there, and the board could get real scary, real soon. Slow-playing time is over. I move all-in. The dealer announces, "Raise, make it $50 and all-in." Both of my opponents raise their eyebrows. They muck their hands without hesitation.
(I don't have any idea if I played this hand correctly or not, and I don't think that I have any poker acquaintances who have opinions about live no-limit hold'em that I could respect. I went out the next morning and bought the Cloutier/McEvoy pot-limit and no-limit book, so I suppose I'll find out soon.)
I start stacking the chips, and I think of a roller-coaster. You know how you feel when you step off of a roller-coaster? You've got your feet back on solid ground, and you try to catch your breath, and your rapidly-beating heart starts to return to normal? I know that sounds like a lot of hype, but I'm being sincere when I say that's really how I felt after moving all my chips in, and not getting cracked.
And that was it. No more big confrontations, no more drama. I play for another 30 minutes, and it was rather boring. These guys just weren't giving away their money. I noticed that Mother and Daughter were playing $1-5 stud at the next table. The pots were bigger over there than they were over here. I took my $68 and move to the stud table.
(The no-limit story isn't over. The good part is still coming!)
I know some of the people who work in the room, and I chat about the experience. It was interesting, and I made eight bucks. I probably won't play it again, though. I sit down at the stud table. On the first hand I see, one player is betting his hand all the way, and has 3 callers all the way. He bets the river, fold, fold, now it's on the guy in the #2 seat, who from now on will be referred to as the Fish (I told you the story would get good soon). The Fish announces that even though he has absolutely nothing, he would never fold and let someone win a pot this big uncontested. He called, and was shown a real hand (I didn't notice what it was). The Fish turned up his hand, proving that he really WOULD call with no-pair.
I played at this stud table for about an hour, and watched the Fish squander the remainder of that rack, then another, then another! $300 in a $1-5 stud game in a little more than an hour? I don't think I could do that if I TRIED TO! And the remarkable thing was, he was PROUD of the amount that he had lost! He bragged about calling with nothing, because he "came to Las Vegas to GAMBLE!" When he had the low card, he'd bring it in for the max, $5. And if you raised his bring-in, you'd better keep some chips handy, because he was gonna re-raise in the dark. It was really something to see. And he'd keep making announcements like, "I call. I'm down over $200, but I don't care." After a while it was, "I'm down over $300, but I don't care." It was as if to say, "Well, you guys might play poker better than I do, but even though you've taken a few hundred dollars, YOU CAN'T HURT ME, NYAA-NYAA-NYAA."
Meanwhile, the no-limit hold'em game was breaking up. It was close to midnight, and they were playing short-handed.
I guess the Fish realized that he had no chance to get even in a $5 limit game (and he was less interested in playing after Daughter called it a night), so he picked up his chips and moved to the no-limit game. At the time, there were just 2 guys playing heads-up. The Fish took the #3 seat and pulled out $200. I wasted no time. I jumped into the #4 seat (where else?), and decided that I wanted more than $60 on the table. I was sure that if I made a hand, the Fish would pay me off. I pulled out another $100. As the dealer was selling chips to Fish and me, three more players from that stud game followed us to this game. The two guys that were playing heads-up looked at each other in amazement. They tried to keep from laughing out loud, but were unable to do so. One of them pointed to Fish and said, "This guy sits down, and suddenly we have a game again."
First hand: a couple of limpers, then Fish makes it $50 to go. I don't even know if he looked at his cards. All fold. Fish chides the other players. "No one wants to play? I thought this was Vegas! Let's gamble!"
Fish ran over the next few pots, too. If he didn't overbet before the flop, he would on the flop. He'd usually pick up a little pot, sometimes get caught by a real hand. I noticed that the people holding the real hands were too timid. I didn't fear any of the players who came from the stud game. Most were playing ABC. One of the original heads-up guys was, too. But the other heads-up guy struck me as a solid player, one to be aware of.
Soon a new player sat down. His name was Knox. I don't know if I'll ever learn as much from a book as I learned from watching Knox play.
Knox was a chatterbox. He would talk to no one in particular, but could be heard by all. He was NOT annoying. He had this down-home country accent, and a good sense of humor. He would talk between hands. He would talk on the flop, talk some more on the turn, and usually be respectfully silent on the river, and then start talking after the hand was over. His chatter and humor actually relaxed the rest of us.
The game got a lot looser after Knox got in. Knox would also raise every pot. Not much. Instead of $2 to go, he would make it $5 to go. Every time. The players who had to act before him got into the habit of calling the $2 blind by tossing in a $5 chip. That way, after Knox would enthusiastically raise, they could point to the chip that was already out there and say, "call".
What he was doing was two-fold: the extra money in before the flop loosened up everybody (myself included); and since he could out-play just about everybody in the game after the flop, he made sure that we all put some money in.
And it wasn't long before Knox went to work on Fish.
Fish was still in the habit of splashing chips in before the flop. Knox would usually be the only one to call. And Fish won some pots. But more often, Knox would show him a better hand, or bet enough to drive him out of the pot. Granted, Knox had a good run of cards. But it wasn't long before Knox's original buy-in of $300 had swollen to two racks of red ($1000), and almost all of it came from Fish.
Fish would get busted, buy $200 or $300 more, and get busted again. One time an Ace hit the flop, Fish had Ace-rag, and Knox had Ace-king. Busted again.
Fish bought another $200. He was steaming after that one. He thought that getting out-kicked qualified as a bad beat.
Knox made it $5 to go, as usual, Fish makes it $60. He's steaming pretty good.
I look down and see that I have the button, and I've got Pocket Queens.
First thought: does Fish have Aces or Kings?
Second thought: Fish has 2 random cards. Period.
Third thought: if I move all-in, Fish will not give up that $60 without a fight. He will not fold.
Fourth thought: I hope no one else calls. if they do, I’m in trouble.
Last thought: I haven't played a single hand yet, and they all know it.
"I'm all in," I tell the dealer. I push out about $150.
Everybody dumps, except Fish. "I call," he says, and proudly turns up his Pocket Nines.
I feel a slight sense of relief, but I remind myself that it's not over. I note that my Queens are black, and his Nines are red.
The dealer burns a card, then counts off three cards face down. She grabs the face-down pile and turns them face-up. But I relax before she spreads them out; the top card is a Queen.
Fish doesn't improve his pair, and I've doubled from $150 to $300. This is pretty heady stuff. You don't pull in many $300 pots when all you play is $1-4-8-8 hold'em.
Fish buys $500 in chips now. He's no longer boasting about how much he's losing. In retrospect, I think it stopped being fun for him after he crossed the $1000 mark.
Meanwhile, Knox continues to feast on Filet-O-Fish. Fish comes in for $50, all fold, Knox re-raises $100 more. Fish calls.
Flop comes J-8-7 rainbow. Knox bets $200. Fish calls.
Turn a 6. Knox says "I'm all in," and pushes four racks of red forward.
Fish has about three or four hundred left on the table. He thinks for a minute, then folds.
Knox says, "I'll tell you what, I had the stone bananas that time," and turns up his hand: 4-3 offsuit!! He bet $2000 on a hand that couldn't beat the board.
To his credit, Fish tried to control himself. But he was visibly shaking.
The VERY NEXT HAND, I've got Q9s on the button. A few limpers, Knox makes it $5 as usual, Fish just calls (not as unusual as it would've seemed earlier), I call. Small blind (the solid player) bumps it $20 more. A lot of callers to me, and no chance of a re-raise behind me. I call. About $150 in the middle.
Flop comes Jc-Tc-3s. I got the straight draw, but if this guy makes a huge bet at this $150 pot, I can't draw.
Surprise: he only leads into it for $25. Limper folds, Knox and Fish call, I call (in limit, I love raising in this spot, trying for the free card. Here, a raise would be suicidal! Another lesson learned.)
Turn card: the lovely 8 of spades. I would've preferred a red 8, but I guess I got the nuts, and the button, and $250 in the middle, so I shouldn't bitch. Small blind leads out again, this time for $30. I don't have any idea what he could have, and I'm not sure that I care any more. Knox calls, Fish raises to $100!! Again, he could have anything! This raise causes me absolutely no concern. I've got him! He loves his hand. And after being beaten by a huge bluff last hand, I'm convinced that I will get paid if I put my money in the center. My only decision is whether to put it all in now, or be cute and try to make a few extra dollars.
I look at the board. It's scary as hell to a guy holding the nut straight. Two clubs on the flop, and two spades after the turn card. It's not inconceivable that someone has a set or two-pair, which means there could be more than just flushes drawing against me. There's $400 out there. Like Alec Guinness telling Mark Hamill, "Use the Force, Luke", I hear David Sklansky's voice telling me, "Win the big pots NOW, Bobby!" I remember that slowplaying is OK if you can't get outdrawn, and if the pot is small. Well, since this is the biggest pot that I've ever played for in my life...
"I'm all in," I say solemnly and quietly. Small blind quickly folds, Knox quickly folds, Fish quickly calls.
The dealer puts down the burn card, and I say, "Red card, please." Actually, that's what I WANTED to say. What came out of my mouth was, "RED CARD!!!"
Phew! It's red.
And it's doesn't have too many pips, so I don't think it paired the board. I should be safe.
It's a Seven. A safe, harmless Seven of Diamonds. Victory is mine. I can relax.
Or so I thought.
I hear Fish say proudly, "I have a straight!"
Oh God, no. You mean I didn't win that pot? I might have to split it?
The board shows J-T-3-8-7. Fish turns over T9.
"Nine makes a straight," the dealer said gently.
I turn up my hand. "Queen-Nine makes a higher straight," she announces.
Fish wound up and punched the tabletop. Hard. I was surprised that neither he nor the table suffered serious damage.
Now I had five stacks of red, two coarse C-notes, and some assorted white chips and coins. This was looking like the biggest score of my young career.
And Fish bought more chips.
Now it was getting close to 4 AM. I was on my 3rd beer. I never drink when I play cards, but Knox ordered a beer when he sat down, and after he won a nice hand, he said, "The beer sure tastes good in this place, don't it?" I gave in to the temptation, ordered a beer, and it DID taste good. I haven't used the expression, "I need a drink" since my high-stress military intelligence days, and I didn't even realized I felt that way, but that beer provided some relief of the tension I was feeling. It didn't seem to take away any of my concentration. It just seemed to take the edge off. The second beer, too.
Most of the weak players who followed us from the stud game had busted out. They made some terrible plays. One called $100 all-in with nothing but a flush draw on the flop, and not much more that $20 in the pot.
The next hand that I played: AK in the little blind. Knox made it $5 to go, I made it $30 to go. I get 3 callers (but not Knox. He mucks).
The flop is Kh-9s-5s. I have no spades. I’m first. Do I bet out, or try for a check raise? There is $120 in the middle. I’ll bet at it, and if no one calls, fine. If someone raises, I’m putting it all-in.
"I bet $200," I announce. I gotta tell you, the next morning, I laughed out-loud every time I pictured myself pushing two stacks of red and announcing that I was betting $200 on a hand that wasn’t the nuts. Remember, for me, heavy action is when I get to say, "Re-raise, make it $24."
Solid Player to my left takes a while to think it over. This makes me a little nervous, but I don’t sweat it. I’ve already decided that I’m committed to this pot.
Knox is still chattering. He points to Fish, and says to me, "This boy’s got 9’s and 5’s. Can you beat 9’s and 5’s?"
I smile. I can see what Knox is trying to do. He knows Solid Player. They’re the only two pros at this table. I’m not accusing Knox of anything, but I believe that when he’s chattering to a player that’s in a hand, he’s trying to guage reactions and pick up tells. Knox isn’t involved in this hand, but he might be trying to read me now, to help him later. But he knows Solid Player by name. It is possible that he’s trying to induce a tell out of me to help Solid Player NOW.
I turn to answer Knox’s question. I’m about to agree with him that I’m in trouble if someone flopped two-pair. But as I inhale to begin speaking, I notice that I don’t feel steady at all. I know that if I try to speak, it’s not going to come out smoothly and naturally. So all they get out of me is that smile. It’s a little bit forced. I’m rather upset that I’m sending out tells like a broadcast beacon, and I’m trying to hide it by smiling, and this quasi-phony smile IS the tell!!
Solid player folds, then everyone else follows. I pick up the $120 in the middle, plus my $200 bet, and I thank the table for folding. I tell them that calling would’ve been OK, too, but folding is fine by me.
Of course, I gave away far too much information with all this chatter. But I was pretty nervous with the kind of action I was involved with that hand, and had a lot of tension to release.
Another lesson learned: you need more than skill and a bankroll to play this game; you need BALLS.
The next time I had the button, I picked up A9. Fold, fold, Knox makes it $5 as usual, Fish calls as usual. I feel pretty sure that I have the best hand (three beers ago, I said I wouldn’t even PLAY a hand like A9!), and that if I put in a good sized raise I would either win right there, or be heads-up with Fish. I make it $30.
The blinds fold. Knox calls and Fish folds.
RED ALERT! RED ALERT!
THIS is not what I wanted. I wanted to milk Fish. I didn’t want to tangle with THIS guy. I look at the tower of full racks in front of him. I’m feeling a fear that I’ve never before felt at a poker table.
Flop comes A-Q-2 rainbow. Knox checks. Knox hasn’t checked very much all night. If he’s in a hand, he’s usually betting or raising or folding. He’s just about never checking or calling. But I know that Knox is paying attention. He’s already made a few comments about how tight I’m playing. He probably has put me on a much bigger hand than I actually have, and he doesn’t like the flop one bit. I’ll bet and give him a chance to drop. I put in $60, about the size of the pot.
Knox calls. I smell a rat. A big one.
I look at his stack of chips again, and I look at my beautiful stack, and I fear the worst. At this point, I’d rather be somewhere else, doing anything else. I decide to get away from this hand.
The turn card is a blank. Knox checks. I take a few more seconds to think about it, then I check behind him.
River is another 2. Board shows A-Q-2-x-2, no flush. There’s a little less than $200 in the pot.
Knox thinks about it for a moment, then bets $100. I’m still puzzled. Why is he playing this hand so differently than all the other hands he’s played all night? He hadn’t checked twice in a row all night. He hadn’t bet as little as $100 at a pot this big all night. What gives?
Of course, he had been playing against Fish all night, and not me. Maybe he was as unhappy to be in a pot with me as I was with him (not that he was afraid of my skills, but rather the fact that if I’m putting money in, I’ve got a hand). Maybe he’s worried, too.
He didn’t reach for his chips until I showed weakness and checked on the turn. Then he bet $100. It sure seemed like a bluff to me. I could also imagine that once he decided to bluff, he didn’t want to lose too much if he got called (or raised). And even though I was playing super-weak-tight, he didn’t know if I could lay down a decent hand when there was now $300 out there.
What if it’s not a bluff? What hand could he have that would beat me? When the board paired on the end, my kicker got better (now I have Aces-up with a Queen). If Knox had AK, I think I would’ve heard about it before the river. If he has AQ, I’m in trouble, but it just doesn’t seem like he’d play it that way.
I figure he either has Ace-rag (which would be a split pot), or he’s bluffing. Either way, I’ve got an easy call.
Knox seems surprised that I call so quickly. He says, "I can’t beat an Ace. If you’ve got an Ace, you’ll just have to take the money." I turn up my hand. "I can’t beat an Ace," he repeats, and mucks his hand. Since he has acted like a classy gentleman all night, I don’t ask the dealer to show us Knox’s hand, so I can’t tell you what he had. He did look upset with himself though, and when his chattering started again I heard him remark, "Boy, I made a mistake there."
The waitress brought Knox another beer. "I didn’t order this," he said. She just assumed that he wanted another one, as he had been drinking them since he got there. Knox pointed to me. "Give it to him," he told her. "I don’t want no more beer, but I know he does." I was thirsty. I took the beer. It tasted good. Doesn’t beer always taste better when you’re happy?
Knox quit the game a few hands later. He was not nearly as jovial after the hand he played with me. He must’ve decided that the beer might have hindered his play. I couldn’t believe that anyone would quit a game that Fish was playing in.
But maybe Knox noticed something that I didn’t notice until much later: Fish was actually playing tighter. He had screwed down, and I hadn’t noticed (do you think that the beer was starting to hinder MY play?).
A little later I get Ah-Jh in the big blind. Solid player UTG limps, a player whom I haven’t seen play a hand ALL NIGHT limps, a new player (who bought in for the minimum and got broke twice by Knox and now has about $11 left) limps on the button, Fish calls from the small blind. There are 5 of us at the table, and everybody wants to limp in. I make it $12 to go. All call (new player is all-in before the flop).
Flop comes 8h-7h-2c. There is about $50 in there. Fish checks.
I bet $50. I hope no one calls, but if someone does, I still have a chance.
Solid player UTG says, "I’m all in." He’s got about $700. I have about the same.
Now what do I do?
I decide immediately that I can’t call him heads up. This $700 I’ve got on the table is a significant portion of my fledgling bankroll. No sense taking silly chances.
Mr. Super-Weak-Tight-Hasn’t-Played-A-Hand-All-Night is next to act, and asks for time. He takes at least 3 full minutes, and no one says a word, nor acts irritated. Now if he calls, can I call? He’s got about $300 in front of him. No, I guess I can’t. Moot point anyway; he mucks.
Fish folds. I sigh. I fold. I wonder what would’ve happened if I had called. Would I have caught that heart to make the nut flush? Ah, to sleep, perchance to dream.
The dealer was counting the rack or something, and lost track of the action. "What happened?", she asked.
"It’s over," I told her. "Give him the pot."
"Wait, I still have a hand!", cried the all-in player. I forgot about him.
The side-pot was awarded. The remaining cards were dealt. The turn card was the 4h. D’OH!!!!
"Why did you have to show me that? Why did you have to torture me?", I asked in vain.
Solid player shows his 72s to take the main pot. He had flopped bottom two-pair.
Of course, my initial reaction was: 72??? Oh yeah, it was SUITED!!! Nice hand sir. WELL PLAYED.
Upon further reflection, though, I decided that calling a small raise with 72s wasn’t a bad play at all, as long as you thought that Fish was going pay you if you hit a hand.
A little later: I’ve got Pocket Sevens on the button. This strikes me as a better hand for no-limit than limit. New player limps, Fish limps, I make it $10 to go (note that since Knox left, there is always less money in the pot before the flop, so the raises have gotten smaller. Before, it would take $20-30 to limit the field. Now $10 does the trick).
Solid player in the SB folds. Mr. Still-Haven’t-Played-A-Hand-All-Night is the BB and makes it $30 to go. New player folds, Fish quickly calls. I need 7-1 odds if I want to try to flop a set. I’m getting 7-2 now, but the sky’s the limit later. I think that BB has a huge pair, and if a seven falls, they’ll BOTH pay me. I call.
Flop comes something like Kh-Th-9d. Not what I had hoped for. Oh well, better luck next time. I’ll fold.
But I can’t. Mr. Weak/Timid checks, Fish checks, so I check.
Turn is the 7h. The good news is I made my set. The bad news is the three hearts on board, not to mention a million straight possibilities.
But before I get a good chance to think this through, Mr. Tight bets $50 into this $90 pot, and Fish moves all-in for a total of $98.
Now the dealer is looking at me, waiting for me to act. "Time, please," I say, "and this’ll probably take a few minutes."
(When I tell this story to my friends who occasionally play poker, I ask them what they would do in this spot. I get the same answer every time: "I don’t know." I always reply, "Well, I don’t know either, but everybody at the table is looking at me, so I have to do SOMETHING.")
I quickly decide that I want to call Fish. He could very likely have a stupid hand. He could’ve put it all-in with the bare Ace of Hearts, drawing to a flush, or an 8 for a straight draw. And if he does have me beat, he’s not gonna get any more money out of me on the river.
What worries me is Mr. Weak. He checked the flop, but bet when the 7h fell. I just couldn’t put him on a hand, because he hadn’t shown a hand all night. I felt that he was only gonna call here, whether I came in or not. Unless he held the nuts, I didn’t think he’d play back. And if he did play back, I’d put him on the nuts, and decide whether I wanted to draw for the boat.
Oh yeah, I might be beat at this point by a straight or flush, but if I am, I have outs! I get to call! I hope that Mr. Weak just calls.
How much money do I have? I’m up $600? Well, since I’m playing with their money, I’ll make a loose call (when I press my friends for an answer besides, "I don’t know", they usually say, "Well, it depends on whether I’m winning or losing. If I’m way ahead, I’ll call." I tell them that this is a terrible reason to make a call, and that sure enough, I used the same reasoning to reach my decision).
I call. "I just don’t have the good sense to lay it down," I mutter aloud. Mr. Weak calls.
River is a blank. He checks. Fish can’t wait to turn up his hand. I’m probably beat for the main pot. Should I bet my set for value on the side?
There is currently $0 in the side-pot. If I bet and I’m called, I’m in trouble. I decide that no good can come from betting, so I check, too.
Mr. Weak flopped a set of Nines. Fish showed 86. He hit a 2-out gut-shot (remember I had 77 in the hole), and went all-in despite the hearts on board.
I immediately began to dissect my play of the hand, and decided that I was a chump. Calling close to $100 with bottom set, when the board is showing straights and flushes, with the possibility of a substantial re-raise behind me, may have been the single worst play that I’ve ever made since I figured out how to play this game. Maybe I’m being too hard on myself, but I doubt it. And another thing, meat-head: do you think those beers may have played into your decision to be Fearless Man??
I looked at my watch. It’s 4:30 AM. My wife is gonna kill me. I rationalized all night that when she heard my Fish Story, she’d go easy on me. Well, that may have worked at 2 AM or 3 AM, but the sun will be up before I get home. I cannot believe that I’m quitting while Fish still has money, but I’m tired, I’m too drunk to play for this much money, and I might just blow it all if I stay. I started with about $160, and I cash out for about $500. I guess I shouldn’t feel too disappointed. But I do. It was like a really great movie, that had a really crappy ending.
But playing that hand wasn’t the end. Cashing the chips was the end. So I guess there was a happy ending after all :-)
But the sequel doesn’t look very promising. I’ve played low-limit poker 4 times since that night, and I’ve booked 4 straight losers. I’m playing way too many hands, and trying way too many bluffs. I think I’ve been trying to duplicate the adrenaline rushes I felt that night. I’d better straighten up and fly right real soon.
I’ve been back to the Stratosphere since. It’s all tough players again. No Fish.
But the experience was unforgettable.
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
(Disclaimer: I am employed by the Stratosphere Poker room.)
UPDATE: Since the original version was written, fish HAVE been spotted in the Strat's no-limit game. They may not bring a few thousand dollars to the table, but the still leave broke almost every time.
Next time we play, I'll annihilate you you racist pig!!!
I liked your story. But, now you see that it is impossible to feel the same excitement playing limit poker. Now, you know why.
I immediately noticed the first of many things that I would learn that night: no-limit hold-em MAKES you pay attention.
1. ABSOLUTELY true.
2. On your AA hand, I would have moved all in after
the first raise because you had more than one opponent.
3. Good all-in with QQ, knowing the Fish was the key
to this one.
4. Good fold with the AJs hand.
5. Yes, the beers impacted both Knox and your play.
6. Only in America can you play N/L hold em with the
Fish and the pretty girl who is lost.
Bobby,
GREAT report. I noticed the ads in Card Player for both the Plaza and Stratosphere games, and after reading Ciaffone's stuff, I finally got to pay big bet poker at reasonable limits on vacation in LV the week before last.
I didn't have a Fish that bad in the game, but I still had a great time. Since your stack is always at risk, your awareness is heightened; you see things, and hopefully, you begin to think like a poker player.
Every decision becomes more important. It's hard to go back to limit poker after my big bet sessions. I hope these games thrive and are still there when I get back to LV in ttthe fall. I'd also like to see a lot more discussion of big bet hands in this forum. What a great game.
Fat-Charlie
Great post.
For the record, I think you did fine on the hand with AA UTG. When the two suited flop came it then became time to go all-in.
Dave in Cali
Hi there. I am a fairly new player playing at the Canterbury card club in Minnesota (just opened up), and i was wondering something while re-reading HEFAP. It says the different hands to call/raise/fold in different positions, but what if i am in a loose passive game where the players are really bad?
*If* there is a raise pre-flop at the 4-8 table, there always seems to be at least 4 callers. So my question is this: how low on the S&M chart can you go and with what position?
characteristics of many Canterbury players from my experience: -Ax is keepable, by some players it is very raiseable -position and pot odds are not even thought about -*anything* suited is playable -players with few chips try to raise in an effort to buy the pot
i just feel bad folding my 76s in early position against a raise (and sometimes a straddle!) because someone has AX and they feel they must raise it...and then the pot has 4-6 players calling.
Fistdantilus
Fistdantilus,
I believe you are in a game that is very tempting to lure players into making poor plays because they see the garbage everyone else is playing and the frequency with which they are playing it. Playing hands for raises and hands out of position are a sure fire way to burn through a bankroll.
In regards to cold calls of raises, this is a pet peeve of mine. I just finished re-reading John Feeneys book and I agree 100% with his assessment that you can basically get a good feel for opponents by watching how many times they cold call a raise. From my experience, players who cold call raises with any frequency are usually poor players and do not last very long in the games. Do NOT fall into the trap of cold calling raises.
In regards to position, do NOT fall into the trap of playing hands like 6-7 suited up front where you are at great risk of having to call a raise and then be in crap position for the entire hand. You are giving up very little by not playing hands such as these but are risking a lot when you start playing hands such as medium suited connectors in early or middle positions.
Starters and position in holdem are crucial elements of the game. Just because others fall into this trap, I assure you that consistent winning players do not. I would suggest practicising self-discipline and exercising patience and waiting for a situation where you have premium hands or very strong hands with position and then invest heavily in those situations. Just my thoughts, hope they help.
Michael D.
I need some advice on playing short handed. I'm talking about 6 handed, 5 handed, 4 handed... these are how the games at my club usually slowly break every night. I am a skilled ring game player but it seems I dont have as strong a grasp on short handed play. If anyone can offer help I would be greatly appreciative.
Thanks.
Read the shorthanded section of HFAP 21st. It's very useful.
The optimal strategy in ring game fullhanded play is tight aggressive. The optimal strategy or "gear" in short handed play is loose aggressive. Once the game starts to breakdown and go from fullhanded to shorthanded, take advantage of those players who are stuck in ring game gear by quickly shifting gears from tight aggressive to loose aggressive. Stop playing small suited connectors because these hands go down in value (due to the lack of implied odds) in shorthanded games. Shorthanded play is a big card game. If the game has as little as 4 players or less, you can raise with any As or Ks or even Qs. Because in shorthanded play no one is liable to have good cards, it's imperative that you raise, bluff, and steal with any hand, especially if they have a big card (or two big cards) in it. Be a maniac in shorthanded play and try to run over the rocks. Be a warrior, gladiator, carnivore, as opposed to merely being a player, or worse, a grinder.
B.F.--Can you give examples of starting hands for 5 handed, 4 handed.....Thanks
Don't play the hands. Play the players. If the table is full of weak tight players, raise every hand. If the players are maniacs, leave.
Much of the wisdom touted on this forum is to never give free cards to drawing hands when you have a good but beatable hand. "Make them pay through the nose to draw", Jim Brier is fond of saying. You don't want to give them infinite odds on their draw. Does it follow then, that if you have a draw you always want a free card? (Unless of course you're going for a semi bluff)
No it doesn't follow.
Some draws are strong enough, if there are enough callers, they gain from the extra betting and even putting in the raises themselves.
I think the confusion is this. With just one or two opponents you don't want to give any draws a free card. With many callers, they can't all be on good draws so you don't want to give the weaker draws a free card. You will share the EV with the really good draws though.
D.
Here are a couple examples: 1) Lets say you have the nut flush draw on the flop and there is no pair. One guy bets and 6 other guys call. When you raise you are getting more money in the pot compared to the odds against making the flush. If everybody calls the raise you are getting 6to1 on a hand that is less then a 2to1 dog. If it were heads up your reason for raising would be for a free card as you are now only getting 1to1 on your almost 2to1 dog.
2) Another example of where you would definetely prefer the freebie is when you have a gut draw. If you are getting 18to1 from the pot you would have to call the bet which reduces your odds from infinite, to a mere 18to1. You see the difference between the two?
You should bet a super draw like an open ended straight flush draw, or a flush draw AND a straight draw, or a flush draw AND two overcards, or a flush draw AND a gutshot, etc. When you have 12 or more outs with two cards to come you should usually bet since you are frequently a mathematical favorite to make a winning hand. As others I have pointed out the number of opponents makes a big difference as well.
Not to be nit picky, but a number divided by zero isn't infinity, it's undefined. Of course, when expressed in terms of odds I use the term *really good* when drawing for free.
Betting a draw is one of the most flexible weapons a poker player has. Each situation needs to be analyzed as to the effectiveness of a bet, raise or check-raise. I don't think that Jim was indicating that you should only wait for your >12 out hands to bet! These hands are not mathematical favorites to make a winning hand except in specific instances, but they are usually favorites to earn money.
I think the best coverage of these hands is in Sklansky & Malmuth's Hold'em for Advanced players. There is also a good section in Hold'em Poker (sklansky).
Most importantly, when you have a strong draw, you try your best to manipulate the size of the pot so that you get the best return on the equity you have in the hand. John Feeney points out (in his book) that he often sees players bet draws into sure raises, and in the situations to which he's referring, it has exactly the opposite effect of what you would want.
If a player bets what you *know* is big (top) pair with a good kicker and you're in a multi-way pot, why would you raise a medium flush draw if you're next to act? If you had a good overcard to the board (say the flop is 9 high) you might have a valid reason to raise even if you had a small suspicion that your opponent flopped a set.
If you have no way to improve your chances of winning more money with aggressive action, generally it's better to take the draw as cheaply as possible.
Low-Limit hold'em,
You've got something like A-4 offsuit in the Big Blind. Actually a pretty loose game, but there are only two callers and the small blind folds. You don't raise(mistake?)and the flop is: A-7-A, no two flush. You have a fairly conservative image, so if you bet the other two will most likely fold. Besides, the last guy to act will almost always bet, especially with a scary flop. So, you check and the notorious bluffer doesn't let you down.
How would you milk this guy from here on?
I only called the flop, and the third guy dropped. On the turn I check-raise him(I think a 9 hit)and he dropped, so I think this was possibly a mistake. The thing is that I wasn't too confident he'd bet the river if I checked again since I'd been calling him all this way with SOMETHING.
On these not-so-common occasions where you it's just you and a bluffer who happens to be acting last, plus you're pretty sure you've got him beat bad, I'm never sure how to go about getting that second big bet from him(not counting his flop bet or pre-flop bet).
-Randy
I think a check-raise on the turn is wrong. When you get a free play in the big blind and catch an Ace (or two), and you have a weak kicker, you basically have to play check and call. If your opponent has an ace, you're most likely beat, and if he doesn't let him keep betting at the pot. Maybe he'll catch a king or queen that pairs him on the river and he'll bet it or call if you bet.
Pre-flop, A-4 is not a raising hand out of position against two opponents.
I think a check-raise on the turn is wrong. When you get a free play in the big blind and catch an Ace (or two), and you have a weak kicker, you basically have to play check and call. If your opponent has an ace, you're most likely beat, and if he doesn't let him keep betting at the pot. Maybe he'll catch a king or queen that pairs him on the river and he'll bet it or call if you bet.
Okay, I can't say I agree with this at all. There's a big difference between flopping a pair of aces with no kicker and flopping trip aces with no kicker. Once you've flopped trips there's only one more ace in the deck. Even if the whole table took the flop you're not likely to run into that case ace, and if you do, who's to say he's got a kicker (that beats the board) either?
What you recommend in the above paragraph is reasonable advice with just a pair of aces against an overly aggressive bluffer, but with trip aces it's extremely unlikely that someone has anything better on a board of AA97 rainbow. It may not be wrong to check-call the above opponent, but your thinking here is very weak-tight.
FWIW, I think the original poster played it just fine, if he was concerned about the bluffer not betting on the river.
Pre-flop, A-4 is not a raising hand out of position against two opponents.
Obviously not. A4 isn't much of a raising hand at all, except to steal. But what does that have to do with this situation?
Me: [regarding the out-of-position A4 raise] But what does that have to do with this situation?
I didn't see this part of the original post: "You don't raise(mistake?)" which prompted Andy's comment about not option-raising with A4.
Yes, it is indeed less likely an opponent has an Ace when there are two on board. But since your opponent knows this too, he is much more likely to continue his bluff. I still don't like a check-raise on the turn; see Rick Niebolo's thinking on this below, with which I agree. I still think it's better to wait until the river if you're going to make a move here.
And, yes, my comment about not raising with A-4 was in response to poster's question.
You would not want to be raising out of your big blind with Ace-little offsuit. In fact, if someone else had raised you should fold unless it was a steal raise from the button.
One thing to keep in mind is that just because you bet and your opponent folds does not mean that you made a mistake. If your opponent does not have anything he probably was going to involved with the hand anyway. One tactic might be to just check-call the flop and then lead on the turn. Many opponents will try to buy the pot on the cheap street but freeze up on the expensive street and just try to check it down. However, an habitual bluffer will sometimes get suspicious when you suddenly lead on the turn after a blank falls.
Randy,
I would not even consider raising two loose game callers out of the blind with Ace small offsuit.
The best way to milk the guy is to check-call the flop, check-call the turn, and try for a checkraise on the river. If he checks behind on the turn you might again check on the river as he may bluff off his hopeless hands and bet some that will call your raise yet be beat.
Regards,
Rick
You played it fine. Your best bet with top set against a constant bluffer is to wait for the river, unless he'll tend to give it up when you don't drop on the turn. In this case, however, the problem with waiting for the river is that you're out of position. If you check on the river and he's picked up a litle something, he'll check. But if he gives up the bluff and you bet, he might call if he's spiked a pair.
Another alternative is to represent a counterbluff. Let's say, for example, that there were several players between you and the bluffer. On the flop, your best bet might be to checkraise -- quickly now -- in the hopes that he won't believe that you'd try to isolate him with top set. In effect, you're daring him to show you that he's not bluffing while suggesting to him that you're bluffing. When it works, it's incredibly profitable.
I raised early with Ac Ah and was 3 bet by a very solid player in middle position. All fold to me and I called.
The flop came Jc 5d 3c
I bet, he called.
The turn was the 6c
I bet, he raised, I re-raised, he called.
The river 5s
I bet, he called with the Kh Kd
I wonder if I played this too fast. When he called my flop bet, I figured he was planning to raise the turn. And when the 3rd club fell and he indeed raised the turn, I felt I could now re-raise with impunity since he could not re-raise again because I held the Ac. This also allows me to bet the river for value (even if I am beat by a flush or set) without fear of a raise. However, I wonder if he mis-played his hand given the clubs. Comments?
I wish that my only problems playing poker were whether or not I extracted as much money as I could from my opponents.
I don't know how you could have played the hand any better. I think your opponent made some tactical errors not necessarily due to the clubs being on the turn. He probably also made a "reading" error in that he put you on Queens (which you elicited by not 4 betting before the flop).
I probably would have raised you on the flop with my Kings rather than wait until the turn. I do this largely because this approach gives my game balance, but also because I need to give your bet some consideration on a flop like this, and I believe the hand is easier to play if I control the betting for one raise. If you 3 bet the flop, I will *know* that my Kings have run into a serious threat. In other words, I would rather lose 3 small bets than 3 big bets if I'm beat. Your opponent thought he had trapped you by representing over-cards on the flop, and pulling the trigger on the turn, but he only trapped himself. (Had you been raising with hands like A-J from this position?) I think he's pretty committed to going to the river with this hand head's up, though.
Pre-flop your smooth call of his 3 bet in this heads-up situation is okay but I would rather make this move when I have position over my opponent so my preference is to 4 bet and simply take control of the hand. I want to make sure I collect something on every street.
On the flop your lead is fine and I think your opponent should have raised your flop bet with his Kings. He needs to get a better feel of where he is at on the cheap street. Had he raised, you would of course re-raise to extract maximum money otherwise you lose your market if an Ace shows up.
On the turn, your play is fine and his raise is not at all that bad because he has the King of Clubs giving him a flush draw as well as his big over pair. At this point, based on the action so far he has no reason to believe he does not have both the best hand and the best draw.
I think you played the hand well.
Hand #1
6 handed game. Solid player raises 1 off the button, I call in the BB w/ 6s 5s. Heads up.
Flop= Ts 5d 2s
I check, he checks.
Turn= Th
I bet, he folds.
Does anyone think it was reckless to bet the turn? What about the call pre-flop? What if this same situation occured in a full game?
Hand #2
Preface: I had been going through a stretch of raising pre-flop only to have to lay down my hand on the flop or turn. I also made a big laydown against this player earlier.
I raised 1st in and was called by a loosish aggressive player in the sb. Heads up.
Flop came Tc 7h Th
He checked, I bet, he raised, I re-raised, he re-raised (capped), I called.
The turn was 3d
He bet, I raised, he mucked.
Aside from the fact that I didn't feel he would've played a ten in this fashion, I thought it was time to make a stand. I never show bluffs, but this time I turned my AKo face up and made a joke about being tired of getting pushed around. I also received action from him for the rest of the night. Did I play this whole hand foolhardy or are there times when it is correct to play a situation/player in this manner?
It would be easier to comment if I knew the limits you were playing at. With regard to the first hand, were you planning to check-raise the flop? Personally I'd have bet the flop. Solid player may well be on a steal, particularly as it is short-handed and you have a flush draw and middle pair - that is plenty to be betting with, and maybe even check-raising. On the turn he would have probably bet the flop if he had top-pair so feel free to bet the turn when another ten falls. All in all I'd say you weren't 'reckless' enough.
As for the second hand, if you had a good read on the player then by all means play the hand as you did. A lot of people would slowplay a T (although this is less likely when there are two of the same suit showing). However, he could well have a 7, or a pocket pair. Your aggression on the flop didn't buy a free card on the turn, so I'd have probably checked and called turn and river. But like I say, you know the player better than me.
Keyser.
Keyser-
I apologize. The ten and two were cubs not spades. I don't have a question if they were spades. I posted in a hurry. Sorry.
I apologize for my carelessness. The T and 2 were clubs not spades. I did NOT have a flush draw which of course makes a huge difference and is the reason for my question. Sorry....
I would be inclined to bet the flop. A check raise doesn't work as well here because if he's got over-cards he'll pull off a card for the extra bet and your hand may become difficult to play because you're out of position. Since you didn't bet the flop, betting the turn is designed to take the pot. Against an aggressive player that won't check twice, you might check-raise here.
Second hand: It sounds like you played the guy off of a small pair by representing a big pair. Good play, but I don't know that I would have shown my hand. Now you've basically made it impossible to use the same play later against anybody at the table. I don't know what kind of a player your opponent was, but it sounds like he was playing you for something like A-K, but was convinced by your betting action that you had him drawing thin. You likely stole a good sized pot with a 6 card out. I wouldn't want to give up on that option by showing my hand.
First Hand:
"I would be inclined to bet the flop."
Even with no hand? Isn't there too much of a chance that an aggressive player will raise with just overcards? Now you must fold. (remember I made a mistake in my original post. I did not have a draw) On the other hand, I would have folded the flop had he bet. But then I don't lose any more. His check surprised me. I thought he is either trying to trap or he made an out of line pre-flop raise. When the top card paired, I figured there was a good enough chance that a bet would win. (I could have been going for a check/raise on the flop).
"A check raise doesn't work as well here because if he's got over-cards he'll pull off a card for the extra bet and your hand may become difficult to play because you're out of position."
Agreed.
"Since you didn't bet the flop, betting the turn is designed to take the pot. Against an aggressive player that won't check twice, you might check-raise here. "
Again, are you saying that it is sometimes correct to make these plays with absolutely no hand?
Second Hand:
"Good play, but I don't know that I would have shown my hand. Now you've basically made it impossible to use the same play later against anybody at the table. "
You may be right. But I do not often put in 4 bets on the flop then raise the turn without a hand. This was purely a muscle play because I thought I was being muscled. In addition, I thought it may alleviate any weak/tight image that may have been fostered due to the cards I was getting and the way I had to play them because I was not hitting flops. I thought eliminating this weak/tight image was in my best interest. So my question is, does this make it correct to show this hand? I usually do not.
If I recall the first post, didn't you flop a pair of 5's? Head's up in a six handed game, that IS a hand. From the description of your play, I don't think you have to worry about a "weak-tight" image much. If you are folding in a head's up pot, in a short handed game, you are giving up too much. I'd read S&M's "short-handed play" section in Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players 21st Century edition.
If you fold on the flop shorthanded when you flop middle pair with a bunch of rags you're giving up way to much.
All good points. I'm assuming the first hand was heads up-- which makes it an O.K. pre-flop call (but not a no-brainer). If he's the type of player who will just call the flop with overcards, then a bet here is automatic whether you flop a pair or not. If he WILL raise with overcards then it's almost assured that he's also the type of player that will BET his overcards, which makes a check raising a nice play for two reasons-- first, you know where you are if he three bets (he probably has an overpair, since almost all players will slow down with nothing on the flop), and second it allows you to take it down on the turn.
As for the second hand, this is one of those plays that probably break about even in the long run. Sometimes they have something, sometimes they don't... I probably would have just called the flop raise and then two bet the turn, since you should be able to get him to lay down on the turn if he has nothing, and if he DOES have something you save money by not three betting the flop.
The first play was good. You should probably check-raise the flop if he bets, and bet about any card on the turn. This type of play will usually make your opponent fold overcards. But a bet on the turn is pretty standard good play. On the second hand, i think you overplayed it a tad. You put a lot of money in the pot hoping your opponent would eventually fold (after the 4th or 5th time you raised, he finally folded). It worked this time, but i wouldn't make a habit of this type of play. But given your read of the situation, it may have been a better play than it looks like on paper.
I won't look at the ohter replies... before posting.
I think your preflop call depends on what is happening at the table, is everyone raising before the flop? Or it is the case the raiser is playing as if he was playing a full game. I would prefer to be getting better than 3 1/2 to 1 but I think calling is ok.
I would bet the flop, you might have the best hand, and you have a great draw. And I like betting the turn, although you pbly have the best hand. And if not you most likely have 11 outs. The only reason to not bet is to try and induce a bluff. But I think you shold bet the flop, as in a short handed situation you can't give your opponent credit for a big hand. (Were you planning to checkraise the flop?)
In the second hand, I wouldn't have gone that far (was it still 6 handed?). Who is this player in the second hand?? Has this player /the table been overplaying hands??? I think if this is the case maybe making a play like yours isn't bad, for the long term perspective...
I have to apologize to all who took their time and responded to this post. I must have been half asleep when I posted this hand. I described the flop all wrong. I did not have a flush draw or a pair. I had absolutely nothing on the flop. When we both checked the flop I made a pure bluff bet on the turn when the board paired. My question was is this a reckless play?
Again. I apologize for taking the time to those who responded to my incorrect post. I will be more careful (and rested) in the future when I post hands. Sorry.
Steven H
[Also posted today to RGP]
Critique my theories on gutshots, then add your own...
We all know that since you're 11:1 to turn a gutshot, your pot odds or implied odds need to be at least that. Typically, I'll take a card off with a gutshot even if I'm getting as little as 6:1 or 7:1 as long as I figure there'll be two opponents seeing the turn with me, as making 2-3 big bets on the turn and river makes up for taking a short pot now. Heads up, 8:1 will do fine since the fact I'm against only one opponent may mean I have pair outs in addition to straight outs.
How about gutshots on two-suited boards? You now have 3 outs to the nuts, so your odds of turning the nuts are about 14.7:1. So, if you're getting 11:1 on an immediate call with two opponents seeing the turn with you, you're doing okay. Of course, just because the flop is two-suited doesn't mean there's a flush draw out there. You can't play hold'em constantly fearing the nuts, so maybe you don't quite need odds as good as 11:1. So what kind of odds would you typically chase on the flop with? 10:1? 9:1?
If it helps, assume here that you have the top two cards of the straight draw, but that there's an overcard to your hole cards. (e.g. you have JT, flop is A87)
When would you chase a gutshot on a paired board? Assume an ugly paired board like 664, not one where you very well could be drawing dead, like T99. Would you ever chase a gutshot on a paired, 2-suited board? -- Terrence Chan http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand
"It profiteth the wise, to be deemed a fool." -Oceanus, Aeschylus' _Prometheus Bound_
IMO,
"2-3 big bets on the turn and river makes up for taking a short pot now". This sounds about right, I might be a bit more conservative against tough opponents. You should be careful about raises behind you, though.
Against a suited flop you will have to pay off a flush if you hit the wrong out. Even if you hit one of your 3 good outs, a flush draw has a 9 out redraw. This, in effect, gives you less than three outs against a flush draw (you would need > 15:1 to take one off). If you are against many opponents who all appear to be calling on the flop, I would want more than 10:1 to take one off.
Greetings,
Here are some hands where I wasn't sure if I went to far or not. I'll note where I think I made a bad mistake. Please tell me what you think and if I went too far. All of these are from a 10/20 game which had a few players I wasn't familiar w/ and a few I hadn't played w/for months.
1)I have QQ in early position and raise. 2 cold call and BB calls.
The flop comes j 6 2 rainbow. Check I bet 1 st folds, 2nd calls, BB checkraises, I 3 bet other cold calls and BB calls. (At this point I was pretty sure I had the best hand, and thought AJ was in one hand and maybe other other had two pair... and the action on the turn should definitely clarify things).
The turn is 8. Check I bet call call. (Hard to imagine they have a hand that can bet me as BB is fairly aggressive but respects me, other player I ve never seen before and hasn't played many hands in the 20 mins at was there...)
The river is another 8. Check, I bet call call. I turn over QQ, BB says chop it up, and late position player turns over KK. I was drawing dead from the flop (and pretty thin before the flop). They all seemed to think I had JJ or AA. Did I go too far?
2) 1 player limps (new fish to the table) I raise w/ KhKd in mid position. 1 cold call as does BB and fish. FLop comes
Td 8d 2h. Check fish bets, I raise, BB (tight player from first hand w/ KK, who rarely plays anything) cold calls, fish calls.
Turn is a small diamond. They both check to me. Now since I had Kd I thought a bet was correct even thoguh I strongly suspected the BB had diamonds. Low and behold BB checkraised fish folds and I call.
RIver is Ah. He bets and I fold. (Sick and tired of paying off on the river). Almost anyone else Ill call but this guy hasn't raised anything. If he bluffed me out I'll tell him congrats.
3) SB w/ Qc3c, 4 limp fish on the button raises (as he was doing every other hand) and I looked to the left and saw all were planning to reluctantly call. Expecting something like 11 1/2 to 1 1/2 I call which I wouldn't had a)This been a legit raise b) the infrequency of limpreraises at this table. They all called.
The flop comes Q T 9 w/ two spades. I check BB bets all call so for 18 to 1 I call.
The turn is Q still no flush. I check (mistake), BB bets 2call, I checkraise all call.
The river is an offsuit 7. I bet and get called in 3 places. BB has KQs.
Thought the checkraise seems a bit much on the turn I have a good chance of having the best hand, and even if someelse has a better Q (or straight) I have 6 outs which will chop (if we aren't chopping already) w/ the other Q and 3 which give me a full house. And with all these probable straight and flush draws paying .
There were a few more but I think that this is pbly long now.
All commments appreciated!
Thanks alot.
#1 and #2 look like decent play to me. QXs is a piece of crap that will drag your sorry ass down more than one way. It can also make 2nd (and 3rd) best flush. Dump it next time.
-Fred-
Nothing wrong with your play on #1 and 2. If you are going to play #3, which probably is a bad play to begin with, you should muck on the flop. You need to hit the flop perfectly or you're through. I don't care if you have top pair. You have no kicker and you are up against straight and flush draws. As it turns out on the flop you are drawing real thin.
Bruce
Your plays on the first two hands are reasonable. On the third hand it is okay to call a raise from your small blind with Queen-Jack suited, Queen-Ten suited, and maybe even Queen-Nine suited but never Queen-shit suited. I would have bet the turn having made trip Queens rather than going for a check-raise that may not work since the turn is a scare card to anyone who does not have a Queen and may want a free card to a flush draw on the expensive street.
Thanks for the replies. Seems the first hand was much less remarkable than I thought. (It is a very unlikely event that 2 people ahve the same pocket pair, and another has an overpair...)
I knew no one would like the call w/ Q3s. Does everyone tighten up even if the raiser is a ridiculous one? Certainly Id play this hand if it wasn't raised, and expecting no reraise thought not a great call it wasn't bad. As for folding on the flop, I'm getting something like 18-1 on my call. There is areasonable chance I have the best hand, and even if think I need to improve it is reasoable to assume I have 5 outs (though this wasn't the case here but it usually is as if the Q comes out the probability someone else was dealt a Q is 18/47). Indeed I could have stayed out of alot of trouble by folding preflop, or even the flop!
3 limped and I raised with Ac Qc in late position. 1st limper re-raised all called and I capped. The flop came Qd 9s 3h
Checked to me and I bet, 2 call.
Turn= Ts
Checked to me I bet, and first player raises, next folds. I thought he may have a pair with a spade or straight draw. I re-raised, he called.
The river was a blank
He checked, I checked in case he did limp re-raise pre-flop with AA or KK. My Queen was good.
Questions:
1). Was my re-raise pre-flop Ok for deception purposes?
2). Was my re-raise on the turn correct?
3). Did I miss a bet on the end?
Thanks. I appreciate any help with how I played this hand.
1) Nothing wrong raising with AQs pre-flop. You probably have the best hand and you'll buy the button and after getting reraised why not raise again to take the initiative on the flop. It only costs you one more bet. You still may have the best hand and if not you can certainly make the best hand.
2) I don't like the reraise. You may be drawing dead at this point. It's a big pot and by calling on the turn and river you will see your opponents hand. What happens if your opponent reraises you? You will have a difficult time calling and if you do it is going to cost you two more bets.
3) I would check the end if I reraised on the turn. You can't beat AA, KK, or a set.
Bruce
I think you over played your hand. With regard to your questions:
1. You should not cap it with AQ suited. Your initial pre-flop raise was good but when you get 3 bet by a limp re-raiser who will usually have AA or KK I think you should just call.
2. You should not re-raise on the expensive street with a pair of Queens since the betting usually means you are up against AA or KK. Keep in mind that whenever you raise you run the risk of a re-raise and you are risking 2 bets to win 1 bet. You already announced a good hand when you capped and then bet the flop.
3. I would check it down like you did since you have already over bet your hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
But Badger, even if the guy only has AK you are seriously dominated. While I am no big fan of limp re-raising my observation is that the vast majority of the time it is done the limp re-raiser usually has AA or KK. Occasionally it is done with AK suited and sometimes with AK. But all of these hands are much better than AQ suited. I have yet to see anyone, even a flake do it with a pair of Jacks or AJ suited but then I don't play in Southern California much.
Post deleted at author's request.
So is the concesus that you should never re-raise the turn without the nuts??? I thought this person may be check/raising with a pair and/or a draw. Since I was willing to call his bet on the river (2 more bets to me), I decided to get both bets in right away in case he was drawing and I had the best hand. If he 4 bets the turn there would have been little doubt I was beat and would've mucked. If I was beat by AA KK it cost me the same $$$ since I checked the river. Is my thinking flawed?
1) I like your preflop cap due to your last position and the two probably weak limpers trapped in the middle.
2) Your reraise on the turn was overly aggressive IMO. If your hand is beaten, you are wasting money by reraising. If the guy was semi-bluffing, he might have bluffed again on the river had you not reraised.
3) You could have bet the river for value had you not reraised on the turn.
1. I don't think that any deception you may have gained BTF would be worth the extra bet. I find that when someone limp-reraises up front they usually have AA or KK, but I have seen some AKs limp-reraises too. Actually, I will occasionally limp-reraise with AKs in a very loose game with typically 5-8 preflop calls.
2. reraising the turn was not that bad since you had picked up a flush draw, but I think I would not have done it. There is too great a chance that you are beat by a big overpair and you don't want to put more $$ in as a dog.
3. I think checking the river was OK. There was lots of $$ in the pot and you didn't want to get check-raised.
Overall I think you overplayed it though. Good post.
Dave in Cali
3-6 game at Mohegan. Table is comprised of calling stations, one or two decent players, and a complete fish who has a strong affinity for bluffing (sitting directly to my right).
Big blind, I pick up 93d. Uncharacteristically, there is only one limper, fishboy throws in two-thirds of a bet from the small blind, and I check.
Flop comes K32 rainbow. Fishboy bets out. While it's possible that his hand is legitimate, it's more than likely he's betting on any two cards, an Ace, or bottom pair. After playing with this guy for about 2 hours, I have a pretty good read on him.
I raise, both for information, and to knock out the other limper, who has routinely folded to aggression. Sure enough, the limper bows out, and fishboy tanks for awhile before calling. I'll note here that he had and would reraise with top pair here, so the only thing I'm worried about is being outkicked on middle pair.
Turn comes another king, fourth suit. I'm positive the one hand that my opponent does not have is three kings here. He checks, and I bet out, hoping to pick up the pot. Opponent tanks once more, and calls (even more reluctantly).
River is an 8. He checks, and I check behind him, just in case he's paired the 8. At the showdown, he turns over J2o for kings and twos, and I display my hand for kings and threes.
The table gapes at me, open-mouthed. I suddenly start getting a lot more action, and I end up having a great session.
So, was all this pure lunacy/luck on my part, or did I play any of it legitimately?
The fact that you had such a perfect read of the table makes what you did extremely good poker. Congrats.
Well played. Just because you have crap preflop doesn't mean you can't play it agressively after the flop.
Bruce
You played your opponent rather than your cards and got a good result. If you are this proficient at reading players, you should consider playing big bet poker like pot limit or no limit. The late, great Stu Ungar was the best at reading his opponents and got spectacular results.
Good read. I think I would consider betting on riv just in case he *did* have a bigger kicker, picked up an eight, or had a pocket pair bigger than 3's. Makes a tough call for him when you've been betting the Kings all the way.
IMO, you played this hand just fine. You observed the playing habits of your opponents and made plays based on their most likely reactions. Your raise on the flop was a calculated risk that paid off. Reading your players allowed you to take a marginal situation and turn it into a winning hand, where you otherwise would probably have folded. Your thinking here shows that you are paying attention to the game and your players and applying what you know. Good post.
Dave in Cali
Hey people,I take exception to your bashing of Roy West as I am his student and have been for years.I was with the Master and had the privelage of witnessing this lay down in person.Several major points have been omitted in the previous posts.We had just gotten orders of pizza nachos and bbque'd chicken nuggetts delivered to the table,also leftover potato skins were on our immediate left(LOPS),Dr.Browns Root beer on our right,(DBRB),and 5 or 6 callers which meant it would be several minutes before the hand was over.This was a no brainer,an easy fold.Dont forget to kill your bankroll on the way out.
Oh, man. We forgot to consider the Root Beer factor.
I, for one, feel properly chastised.
I've been playing and studying Poker for a year and a half now and I recently made the big step into playing outside of my friendly home poker game. Got the nerves to go to the nearest casino and played 5-10 Hold'em. I would have liked to play a lower limit but this is the lowest available. My bankroll can handle it. Anyway the games are good: usually I'm the player with the best knowledge of the game with most being loose/ average. A very beatable game.
I've been playing with Sklansky/Malmuth starting hands from HEFAP. I found them easier to remember when I started. I modify them to suit the lower limits : tighter in early position for example. I play the flop/turn and river according to Jones. I also play according to Jones if there is a pre-flop raise in front of me.
I haven't been playing for long so I know that the short term effect here can't be conclusive but I've been loosing so I was wondering if my overall play was ok or if I should adjust it now or maybe just learn the Jones starting hands.
Any help appreciated...
theprince
Who is Jones? Can you give us an example of how his post flop advice would deffer from S & M ?
"I play the flop/turn and river according to Jones."
I think this is an indication of your problem. You need to play "poker" from the flop on. I don't believe Lee Jones suggests a specicfic way to play at all times.
You need to learn what your various opponents are doing and how to read hands. Then you can make better decisions about what actions to take. Both Lee Jones and HFAP will be valuable to give you ideas that you can use at various times.
As far as calling raises before the flop, both books have the right idea, don't call legitimate raises with something like an AT and you will be on the right track.
Also when you may want to provide some numbers about your results before anyone can comment on the signifigance. Also reading the 2+2 literature on the bankroll, variance, and getting into the long run will tell you how to evaluate your results.
D.
the prince00:
Move beyond the books. Instead of playing "according" to Jones or S&M, try playing according to your opponents. That is, focus on what works and what doesn't against the particular styles and habits you're up against. So muck AJ on the button against the tight early raiser and (sometimes) 3-bet with AT against the stud trying to run over the table. Note who bets out upon spiking their second pair on the turn or river and who likes to check-raise. Learn exactly which range of hands each of your opponents can have upon raising particular flops. Understand how they react to losing and what they think of you and how you can use that against them. These are some of the real problems you'll need to confront in order to beat the game because anyone can play big cards in position and calculate drawing odds. You might not want to believe this, but your opponents who are playing inferior starters preflop but with better instincts postflop are probably outplaying you overall.
At the table, constantly think about the range of hands your opponents could be playing and what it means for what you should be doing. You do this not because you're trying to learn exactly what they have -- obviously you can't -- but to keep the range of possibilities at the front of your mind.
If you're interested in a different take on starting hands, go to "Abdul's PosEV Page" in the Favorite Links part of this website and print out "Hold 'em Preflop Strategy According to Abdul." Read it many times and think a lot about the issues he raises. Contrast his approach to playing against preflop raises with Jones and decide for yourself what works best and why. IMO, Jones' (admittedly cursory) advice about calling raises preflop with trouble hands is wrong or at least incomplete.
BTW, if your 5-10 game makes a dent in your bankroll, there are a lot of 2-4 and 3-6 games online.
can I find Lee Jones starting hand requirements anywhere on the Internet???..../gen
Thanks a lot Chris...
I was playing $15-$30 at Hollywood Park and I got the pleasure of meeting Rick Nebiolo's student that he has been tutoring. Despite having only played a short time she plays an excellent game and is definitely a favorite in this game. However, there was one hand I thought would be instructive to post. In California they seat 9 players. The student is in Seat #1, the big blind is in Seat #4, and I am in Seat #7 with the AhQh. #5 limps in, #6 folds, and I raise to $30. #8 and #9 both fold. The student cold-calls the raise. Everyone folds to the limper who calls. There is $115 in the pot and three players.
The flop is: Jc8h6d
The limper checks. I bet $15 with my two big suited over cards and backdoor nut flush draw into two opponents. The student calls. The limper calls. There is $160 in the pot.
The turn is: 9s
The limper checks. I check. The student checks.
The river is: 5c
The limper bets $30. I fold. The student raises to $60 and the limper calls. The student wins having the 7h7d for a straight at the river. The limper mucks.
I have 3 questions about the student's play on this hand.
1. Pre-flop, was her cold call of a bet and raise having pocket Sevens in the cutoff seat correct?
2. On the flop, was her call of the flop bet correct given the presence of a pre-flop raiser who is betting into her and the two over cards on the table?
3. On the turn, was she correct it checking and taking a free card?
Preflop
This hand should normally be folded particularly if Student intends to routinely fold on the flop after the preflop raiser bets (which he generally will do). A call might be the proper play if the button and/or the blinds play loose and are likely to call (giving her 4 or more opponents).
While reasons can be given to 3 bet here, I generally don't like doing that with medium pocket pairs particularly when there is a limper before the preflop raiser (i.e. the isolation 3 bet may not work).
Flop
I don't like the call. I would usually fold. Not only can Jim have an overpair or AJs, Student has very little info concerning the limpers' hand i.e., his check may not mean much if he is in the habit of checking to the raiser. In short, Student is really acting under the gun here if one were to assume that on the flop, the limper would automatically check and Jim would automatically bet.
If I were to play with 77, it would be with a raise given that I only have 2 opponents.
Turn
Having just called the flop, a bet on the turn here is I believe mandatory. Jim's hand is likely marked as being AK or AQ. So, Student should know that her hand is better than Jim's hand at this point. While the limper may have Student beat, he sure has not done anything to indicate that he does. Besides, even if Student is trailing the limper, she has some outs on the river.
In any event, there is a good chance that Student's hand is tops at this point. She should bet and protect it.
Another important reason to bet is that it may cause someone (like Jim) to fold a Queen. Thus, if Student goes on to hit a 10 on the River, she avoids the "drawing dead" syndrome.
skp,
You wrote: "Preflop this hand should normally be folded particularly if Student intends to routinely fold on the flop after the preflop raiser bets (which he generally will do). A call might be the proper play if the button and/or the blinds play loose and are likely to call (giving her 4 or more opponents)."
She is not big on routine folding ;-). But in this game, she should have gotten the button and one blind most of the time. So in retrospect I won't argue with the call before the flop.
"While reasons can be given to 3 bet here, I generally don't like doing that with medium pocket pairs particularly when there is a limper before the preflop raiser (i.e. the isolation 3 bet may not work).
This game was not one to make isolation plays in.
Flop: I don't like the call. I would usually fold. Not only can Jim have an overpair or AJs, Student has very little info concerning the limpers' hand i.e., his check may not mean much if he is in the habit of checking to the raiser. In short, Student is really acting under the gun here if one were to assume that on the flop, the limper would automatically check and Jim would automatically bet. If I were to play with 77, it would be with a raise given that I only have 2 opponents.
I thought the call was wrong for the reasons stated in the first post I put up tonight. But now that you mention it, I wonder if a raise would not be a bad idea. She knows enough about Jim to realize that he probably won't three bet without an overpair and maybe not even then given the dangerous middle card board.
"Having just called the flop, a bet on the turn here is I believe mandatory. Jim's hand is likely marked as being AK or AQ. So, Student should know that her hand is better than Jim's hand at this point. While the limper may have Student beat, he sure has not done anything to indicate that he does. Besides, even if Student is trailing the limper, she has some outs on the river. In any event, there is a good chance that Student's hand is tops at this point. She should bet and protect it. Another important reason to bet is that it may cause someone (like Jim) to fold a Queen. Thus, if Student goes on to hit a 10 on the River, she avoids the "drawing dead" syndrome."
I agree with this logic 100%.
Regards,
Rick
RERAISE - "Pump it or dump it" - Under no circumstances would I call in this situation. I may easily have the best hand against two face cards. Raise or fold.
By 3 betting you will likely: (a) buy the button (b) knock out the blinds (c) May knock out original limper and get it heads-up (d) Put you into a guessing game.
If I were the student, I would continue hammering you until you fold or pay me off with a better hand.
The only way I would just call would be if there were 4 players already in the pot. RIGHT or WRONG - This is my style, very aggressive or sitting on the sideline.
Bob,
This was not a Wednesday afternoon game at the Bellagio. This was Sunday afternoon at Hollywood Park. Three betting before the flop would have resulted in three opponents on the average (although maybe not this particular hand).
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Why, when the enemy suddenly shows weakness, do you want to now play scared and check on the turn? When neither player bets on the expensive street, you could have both the best hand and the best draw. Against only two opponents, there will be a significant percentage of the time when you will win without a fight by just betting out. If you get called, you have 8 outs in case you do not have the best hand.
I am mystified by a playing strategy that has you cold-calling raises pre-flop against a small number of opponents in situations where you are a huge underdog about half the time and a marginal favorite the other half. Then you find the guts to call flop bets when you fail to improve, two over cards to your pair show up, and you are being bet into with the possibility of getting raised from behind. Now having shown all that courage you suddenly get cold feet on the turn and want to check it down. Is the strategy here play loose pre-flop, play loose on the flop, but freeze up on the turn just in case you were wrong on the first two streets?
Post deleted at author's request.
She doesn't have the best hand on the turn. Why bet then?
Steve,
Her player reading skills are very advanced at this point. She may have world class potential here. Knowing why she is making a play needs work, and of course many plays are debatable. That is why this is fun.
This is her read on the limper: Very loose before the flop, unaggressive on the flop to the finish, seldom checkraises, will play middle cards up front, and will call down with most pairs.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
I do agree with Badger about the check on the turn. The limper showed weakness on the flop by checking, but now he called the flop . Thus the 9 on the turn is almost bound to hit partially his hand unless he is a total fish and called with something like TA. A bet is in order if it is positive he would fold a pair under a jack with no draw but this would be a very rare player (and then you should raise the flop)
I would fold preflop.
I would raise on the flop in most cases. 77 is almost even money to be beaten by you at this point if you would raise preflop and would raise on the flop with any two flop overcards and with pairs above 88 plus JA and JKs. Again a raise is especially good against weak-tight limper.
I would only fold on the flop if the limper would never lead on the flop against a preflop raiser even with top pair.
To sum up, I am interested in the flop only because the limper didn't show interest about it yet. Now that he did call and showed some interest I have to check the turn.
Badger,
Student agrees with you 100%.
Regards,
Rick
Well obviously, I disagree with Badger on almost every street.
I am really perplexed by Badger's advice on the turn...how in the world can a check be better than a bet here...Jim's hand is marked for 2 overcards i.e., AK or AQ. I suggest betting to get him to drop AQ. Badger says Jim would automatically call anyway. I doubt it. If Jim has AQ, he can't be saying to himself "well, you know, I have a 10 outer and therefore will call". Jim probably can't count the 3 Queens as outs and may not even be able to count the Aces as outs. If Jim can count those cards as outs, he should bet the turn rather than check-call. In any event, even if Jim will call with AQ...so what...Student should still bet.
If Jim has AK, Student obviously should bet and Jim will likely be erring by calling.
Ah yes...we do have the limper to be concerned about. On the other hand, all he has done so far is check-call the flop and checked the turn...so, I wouldn't exactly be quivering in my boots while looking at him.
I say "bet the turn"...and I also say what I have already said concerning Student's play preflop and the flop (although I am not nearly as vehement mith my selections on those streets as I am on the turn play).
I would be interested in more opinions on the turn play.
I wrote my message before I read yours, and I agree with you on the turn bet. Way, way too many dangerous free cards to give out here if 77 is in fact the best hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
Maybe you are right. But this makes the flop call even worse. Student is laughing at me right now.
Regards,
Rick
Badger wrote:
"You are wrong about free cards, Dan. Think about it. What could Jim have that he would fold? AQ is a gutshot and two over cards, he should call one bet from the last player with that. AT is an open ender. TT is to, and is a pay off pair. All pocket pairs 6 or above are either a set or a gutshot or an overpair. The *only* muckable hand is AK. All the other hands we will not be giving free cards to. He's going to call! So, therefore you have to look at the *value* of betting 77 against AQ or AT. There is precious little value there."
The problem with this analysis is that while it correctly contemplates various holdings that the other two players could have, it gives very little weight to the fact that they have both checked the turn. Their checking the turn makes it unlikely that they have many of these monster hands that Badger seems to be concerned about. I mean, if you had a set here, would you check on this draw-infested board?...Didn't think so.
Let us examine Jim's "possible" hands:
10,10 - No. He just turned an openender. He was the preflop raiser. There is only one overcard and there was no raise on the flop. He would be nuts to check 10,10 on the turn.
A set- No. He can't afford to check with this draw-infested board. Besides, there is only one player left to act and she may not bet. A slowplay here with a set would be crazy.
A,10 - Possibly and he will call Student's bet on the turn. But so what, if I am student, I would prefer he fold but if he calls, I am still the favourite. In other words, I like his call but love his fold. I hate not betting at all and giving him infinite odds.
A,Q - Quite likely. I disagree with Badger that Jim should automatically call with AQ. He can't count the 3 Q's as outs (particularly if limper also calls Student's bet). If Jim were to check-call with AQ, he ought to have bet AQ on the turn. After all, he was the preflop raiser and his bet on the flop was met with no resistance. Also, as with the A,10 analysis, Student would like a call from AQ but would love a fold from AQ. She has to hate giving a freebie to AQ.
AK - Very likely. If you knew that Jim had AK, it would be silly for 77 to check here.
Based on the action so far, it is highly likely that Jim has AK (with AQ being a close second choice). In either case, Student should bet.
Now, let's take a look at limper:
Once again, for the reasons already given, a set is unlikely. Firstly, sets are hard to come by. Secondly, a set really should be heard from earlier on this type of board. And if you go around fearing sets all the time, you will never be able to bet without a strong hand on the turn because a set is possible on every board no matter how raggedy it looks.
Now, we are talking about HPC games. I have never been there but I gather from Rick's posts that these games are not exactly the tightest games on the planet. So, when limper check-calls the flop and checks the turn, why in the world would you assume that he must have Student beat. Could he not have called preflop and on the flop with a hand like A,10 or KQ. He could also have something like A,8 and peeled off a card on the flop with second pair and then been ready to fold on the turn. There are lots of hands that he could have that Student beats. While there are lots of hands that he could have which beats Student's hand, the point is that very few would be strong enough for him to checkraise with. In fact, some hands (such as A8) though stronger than Student's hand may be folded at this point by the limper.
Bottom line vis a vis limper: Ya, Student could be called by a better hand. So what? Is not the expense of 1 big bet worth a shot at the sizable pot?
I can't help but go back to Mason's infamous 44 hand. His bet on the turn was something that everyone agreed with. In fact, he may have got the chump of the year award if he failed to bet the turn on that hand.
Badger is rarely wrong but I really think that there is something amiss with his turn analysis here.
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
I guess the premise of your argument is that Student has no chance of winning the pot with a bet. That's where you and I disagree.
I think we are on common ground that Student's hand is definitely better than Jim's hand at the turn.
As to the limper, I can think of:
a. Several legitimate hands that he could have which Student beats i.e. AT, K10, A6s, 55 and down, KQ, 76s, 65s
b. Some hands that he could have which beats Student's hand but which he may lay down for a bet i.e., A8; Q9
c. Very few hands with which he would checkraise Student with (i.e. if you agree with me that he is not likely to check a set in this situation).
The penalty in betting and being called by a better hand is small: 1 big bet
The reward in betting and driving out even one of the other players who may go on to hit the river is several big bets.
It is easy to conceive of a situation where betting halves the number of collective outs as against Student's hand.
I make the bet every time.
Let me ask you this:
Suppose Student checks the turn. A deuce comes off on the river. If limper bets and Jim folds, what should Student do?
If you say "call", her check on the turn is a clear mistake i.e. the call you make on the river may as well be the bet you make on the turn.
If you say "fold", you are a lot less suspicious of river bluffs after a display of all-around turn weakness than I am.
Anyway, I enjoyed the debate. If you don't mind, let me have your E-mail address. I want to run something by you in private concerning this hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
"You guys are grabbing at a chance to lose this pot."
I don't get it.
This assumes that you too believe that 77 is the best and that betting somehow will expose you to dropping the best hand in the event you get checkraised. If anything, I think that checking is "grabbing at the chance to lose the pot".
As I have already said, it is unlikely that you will be checkraised here. Yes, a check-call flop/ checkraise pattern by the limper often signifies a set. But not every checkcall flop/check turn is made by a set. The vast majority are made because the player ain't got SH*T. In other words, you don't have to fear a set until and unless limper comes to life on the turn and he often will not (and if you disagree with me on that one, there is NO WAY in hell I can win this argument).
And even if he does raise with a set (which is highly unlikely given that he would likely have bet considering the layout of this board and the simple infrequency with which sets crop up in play), 77 still has some outs.
"A pair of eights or better ain't ever going to fold for one bet."
Oh...so you are saying that it's absolutely ridiculous for 77 to bet the turn but perfectly reasonable for the limper to call with something like A8?...eh?
"A player who routinely loses that river bet (as opposed to the turn bet) is going to make a lot more money than somebody who loses the money on the turn. When you have the draw, you want to see as many cards for free as you can (against one or two opponents)."
Disagree. That may be true when you have just a naked draw. It does not apply when you have a draw and possibly the best hand (or a draw with the second best hand where the best hand may fold to a bet).
"You really think there is *any* chance *both* players will laydown for a bet on the turn? "
Yes - a good chance. And even if 1 lays down and you catch the other on a draw, your bet has helped you tremendously.
"I don't understand your point about calling when a deuce comes on the river. Why does this make the check on the turn a mistake?"
The point I made is also made by Dan Hanson and probably needs not to be repeated. Betting the turn and checking the river is a common and effective use of position. It's one of the reasons that you can often bet AK on the turn against your opponent even if you are unpaired. You then check the river. Another way to play it is to check the turn and call the river even if you are unpaired. I generally prefer the first alternative. This situation is not much different in principle.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger wrote:
"Are you saying you would muck A8 if she bet? I don't know that I've *ever* played with anyone who would."
Oh c'mon. This is way too melodramatic and wrong to boot. Are you saying that you have never folded 3rd pair on the turn?
Of course, I could fold A8 on a board of J986. If you are saying you would always call I revoke the license I gave you to call ME the live one;)
Actually, I know that you wouldn't always call here either. I just don't know why you would say the opposite here.
Badger wrote:
"Well we disagree totally on the one point. I think it's ludicrous to think both will muck. They basically *both* have to have AK!"
Why in god's name does that have to be the case. In one of my other posts, I set out several hands that the limper could have none of which beat 77. Are you saying that none of those hands are probable? Have a look at them again and tell me why if you will. And we know that Jim doesn't beat 77. So ya, a bet can win the pot and a bet can certainly knock out at least one opponent.
Badger wrote:
"Betting in position is often a good thing that leads to checks on the river, but who cares about that in a situation where you are very likely betting the worst hand and losing value?"
Well, this retort assumes that you are correct. It is not an argument advanced to prove your theory. Thus, it really doesn't add anything to the debate.
I could just as easily dismiss off all your arguments with a wave off my hand and say:
"Checking with a draw is often a good thing that leads to saved bets, but who cares about that in a situation where you are very likely also betting the best hand and therefore gaining value?"
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
OK, even if they don't lay down to a bet, won't a bet on the turn stop a bet on the river that she would prefer not to call but may have to because of the size of the pot?
Regards,
Rick
Boy, this is fun...but Badger also wrote:
"If I had JJ, and had one of you crazy crap-betting guys behind me, I'd sure check and let you bet the limper into me, then checkraise!"
So, let me get this straight:
You espouse calling a middle position solid player's raise preflop with 77. The hand is not "crappy" then.
You then espouse calling the solid player's bet on a J86 flop with the limper still left to "really" act. The hand is not "crappy" then even though you could be drawing to a 2 outer or some remote runner-runner straight.
You then say the hand becomes "crappy" on the turn after *both* players *check* and after the hand has also become an open-ended straight draw.
Aaaah...no...it ain't right.
Steve,
It seems to me that you are offering a reasonable alternative of how Student can go about saving $30 by checking. I will grant you that your idea of checking increases Student's chances of saving 30 bucks.
But, you are overlooking the fact that betting is a reasonable alternative of how Student can greatly increase her chances of winning a $160 pot.
I weigh the two and the contest is not even close: This "crazy crap-betting guy" would bet every time.
Post deleted at author's request.