![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
This is a moment that will go down in history. Though Badger may have been wrong before, no one has ever been able to prove it. But I have done it. So savor this moment guys. Here we go. In the thread below concerning AQ, Badger brings up the precise matchup where you get to play headsup behind two jacks. He says that this is a profitable situatiuon for you. He says the jacks would like AQ to fold. Both statements are correct. However in a couple of posts he goes on to say that while both hands make money because of the blinds, the AQ makes more. Whether this is true or not depends on the skill of the players of course. However Badger said that if he was playing against himself he would do a bit better with AQ. For his sake he had better be wrong about that. Here's why. Suppose the player with the two jacks uses the simplistic strategy from the flop onwards of betting whenever he sees no overcards, checking and calling when he sees one overcard and checking and folding if he sees two overcards (except of course when he has made a set.) We will keep this simple and neglect straights and flushes. Lets say the game is 10-20, the jacks raised and the AQ just called (please trust me that if the AQ reraised it would not change the result but it would make the calculation harder). There is now $55 in the pot. If the flop is rags, the jacks bet and the AQ calls. Another rag and the jacks bet $20 into the $75 pot and the AQ should now fold. In a hot and cold simulation the jacks win 45% as Badger said. However under this scenario the jacks win more than this. They will never throw away the best hand except in that very rare case where two overcards appear followed by a jack. However the AQ does not win its full 45% because some of the time it hits an A or queen on the river. This happens about 12% of the time.Its not that bad though because about half of those 12% an ace queen OR king has appeared earlier. Thus we subtract about 6%. Let us be generous and say that the AQ wins 40%. Now what does the AQ win when it wins? With the jacks checking and calling it wins 20+10+20+20+15=85. But it doesnt always win this much. If two overcards flop it wins only 35. Two overcards come later on and it also wins less. I'm not going to do the math but I would estimate the average win for the AQ to be $70. What do the two jacks win when it wins? Well it wins at least $45 when it only wins a flop bet. But sometimes it wins more. This occurs whenever the AQ pairs and the jacks make a set. This should happen about 8% of the time resulting in a win of over $100. The average win for the jacks is at least $50.
The bottom line is that even with this simplistic strategy, which can certainly be improved upon, the jacks win an average of $50, 60% of the time while losing an average of $55 40% of the time(+$8 EV), while the AQ wins an average of $70 40% of the time while losing an average of $35 60% of the time (+$7 EV). And there is no counter strategy that can change this.
So as you can see, that moron Badger was in fact WRONG and I PROVED it. He was right that JJ wants AQ to fold. He was right that they both show a profit. He might even be right that you should usually play AQ. But when he said AQ makes more money than JJ he was wrong. IT MAKES ONE DOLLAR LESS! This day was a long time coming but it is now here. Mark it on your calendar. I'll leave it to someone else to alert those posters on rgp to this event. Just as George Bush is being briefed on top secret national security, there are some things that go beyond petty partisanship. They need to know.
I have duely marked this day on my calender. Badger said that players need to work on their game a lot if they can't win more money in position with AQ against JJ. Now perhaps I won't have to work so hard given the "simplistic" strategy you outlined for JJ. Certainly a lot of players would come pretty close the strategy you specified for JJ. If a player routinely folds JJ when it is an overpair on the flop after someone three bets before the flop they will of course do poorly. Trouble is I don't know many players like this. If a player routinely calls in the face of two overcards to JJ of course they will lose a lot of money when they do. Again I don't see that many players that loose.
Post deleted at author's request.
I already said that I was ignoring straights and flushes so I didn't "forget" anything. Your examples are rare and help both hands almost equally. But since you did not graciously accept your $1 mistake, I must point out that if the jacks made one simple adjustment, namely calling on the river 85% of the time when there is one overcard, rather than calling all the time, you can't exploit this. Yet the jacks save $20 15% of 40% which gives them another buck twenty. We are up to a two dollar difference now. No way you can get that back. But I'll find yet another dollar if you provoke me further.
Post deleted at author's request.
I brought this point up already. Badger 1 might beat Badger 2 but neither Badger could beat my mom using a rote strategy similar to the one I described.
"This is a moment that will go down in history. Though Badger may have been wrong before, no one has ever been able to prove it. But I have done it. So savor this moment guys."
There will never be any victory for opponents of Badger. Defeat is a word his vocabulary lacks. Prove all you want, get a choir of back-up testimonials, it just won't be enough to get Badger to ever admit error. All will learn that engaging him in argument is futile, he never loses because he's never been wrong.
Post deleted at author's request.
David or someone else please help me out here. When I call a raise from an early position player with AQ and the flop is all rags, I fold when bet into on the flop. Why am I calling? There is $65 in the pot and it costs me $10 to take off a card. I only have 6 outs to top pair on the turn so the odds are 41:6 against me and I don't win 100% of the time even when one of my outs arrives. I think folding on the flop is clear. I am beginning to understand why you guys don't cold-call early position raises with AQ offsuit.
Jim,
This is the weird part, When AQo cold calls the raise preflop, there isn't enough money in the pot for him to call. But when AQo re-raises preflop, you wind up with the pot being 3/bet or 4/bet. In the first case it is usually correct to take one off. In the second case it is usually correct to fold to the flop bet.
I honestly don't understand Sklansky's proof at all.
- Andrew
This is the weird part, When AQo cold calls the raise preflop, there isn't enough money in the pot for him to call. But when AQo re-raises preflop, you wind up with the pot being 3/bet or 4/bet. In the first case it is usually correct to take one off. In the second case it is usually correct to fold to the flop bet.
Andrew, I must be missing something. If there's enough money in the pot to call the flop when it was 3-bet earlier, how can there NOT be enough money in the pot to call when it was 4-bet? Is this because of unstated assumptions about the opponent's possible hands when he 4-bets?
Thanx - Fat-Charlie
In general, when the pot is 4-bet (heads-up), AQo is in dire straights. Calling a rag flop only makes sense when the 4-bettor is tricky and prone to excessive semi-bluffs. In that case, calling to the river can be correct sometimes.
- Andrew
I am really lost here Andrew. The pre-flop raiser has AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,99,AK,AQ,AJ suited, or KQ suited. These are the range of Group I,II, and III hands I believe John Feeney is now talking about. Now according to David the flop is all rags such that you have no pair, no straight draw, and no flush draw. Given the presence of both an Ace and Queen there are 30 ways he can have an overpair, 12 ways he can have AK, 9 ways he can have AQ, 3 ways for AJ suited, and 3 ways for KQ suited. So about 75% of the time he is badly beaten, about 15% of the time he is going for a tie, and the other 10% of the time he is a small favorite. Why would you call a flop bet here?
Jim,
In the games in which I play, an early preflop raiser can have a much wider range of hands than what you suggest. Many will preflop raise early with pocket pairs as low as 66, any two suited faces, and ATo and better. They don't make these raises all the time, but they do make them often enough.
The thing to remember, and what I think the thrust of Feeney's essay was about, is that you shouldn't be calling raises with hands from the bottom of the range of hands which the raiser will raise with. Against players who have what you say they might have, I usually fold, unless I'm near the button and heads-up. It always hurts when I fold AQo to the super-tight 65 year old raiser, but I know what's best for me.
- Andrew
Andrew hits it on the head.
But Andrew which way are we arguing here? John has made the point repeatedly in his post on this subject that the pre-flop raiser in question has a Category I or II hand and some Category III hands. This excludes the 66 and the kinds of hands you are talking about. Now if you want to make the argument that there is a much wider range of hands that the pre-flop raiser can have than what John has suggested in his article and in his subsequent posting, then you are back in my court wherein it is right to call the pre-flop raise with AQ offsuit.
Bottom line is simply this. The thinking that says you should fold AQ offsuit in the face of an early position pre-flop raiser leads you to folding on the flop in this situation if you mistakenly decide to call the pre-flop raise. The thinking that says you should call the flop bet because of the wide array of hands the bettor could have leads you to calling the pre-flop raise in the first place. But you cannot have it both ways.
Post deleted at author's request.
Well, that was exactly my point with the original post. In general, I tend to play AQ offsuit in the face of an early position raise so I believe that routinely folding is wrong. But if I know the player to be the type who would only raise with Group I and II hands, then I would fold but this is not the norm.
I think a lot of this discussion has fallen into the category of "play of hands" which Badger himself says he doesn't find very useful. If you got back to the original essay I think you'll find that AQo is an illustration of a concept, not the concept itself.
In fact, you'll find seemingly contrary examples of the exact same concept in the maniac sections. The utility of the AQo discussion isn't determining what the optimal play is here, but rather to illustrate a concept which most players fail to understand:
Raises MEAN something.
It's up to each of us to figure out what they mean.
- Andrew
Andrew is one of the few who has understood that essay exactly as it was intended to be understood. (I have heard from some others in email.) I think perhaps the reason a lot of people misinterpreted it was because I included some quick comments in passing that were easy to overlook. The moral? Do not challenge Andrew Prock to a reading comprehension competition. :)
I said, "Andrew is one of the few who has understood that essay exactly as it was intended to be understood. (I have heard from some others in email.)"
Didn't mean that no one else on the forum seemed to have understood it. A few did, and they know who they are.
"The moral? Do not challenge Andrew Prock to a reading comprehension competition. :)"
The real moral "Ask Andrew to interpret John's writing for you"
vince
How about: take a reading comprehension class from Andrew... or any of the five or six others who read and understood the essay without glossing over crucial details.
Jim sayz:
When I call a raise from an early position player with AQ and the flop is all rags, I fold when bet into on the flop.
You called the early raise thinking "hey, AA, KK, QQ and AK are bad news, but this guy will open with the other stuff too", right? You called 'cause there's a good chance to beat him.
So what does the all-rags flop change here? You called preflop and you are not calling on the flop now that you have *significantly* better odds than you did preflop? If against JJ, you should call on flop, the odds are there. If against AA, you ficked it up (drat, a typo!) preflop.
You should at least call on the flop. If you can't, you shouldn't call preflop,
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Of course, the counterpoint on that it is much easier to hit on the flop than on the turn (just playing devil's advocate here because generally, I wouldn't be in this position as I would have 3 bet preflop and I would be betting the flop and putting the other guy to a "fight or take flight" decision...of course, if he had 4 bet preflop, I have a pretty easy fold on the flop given that I am probably drawing dead to the 3 Queens and possibly also drawing dead to the 3 Aces).
No, Izmet. I called the pre-flop raise hoping to catch a good flop so that I can extract extra money on later streets. Once the flop misses me, I am gone. Now if you are always going to call flop bets regardless of what shows up on the board, then Feeney is right and AQ should be mucked rather than cold-calling a legitimate pre-flop raise. But that is not playing well once the flop comes.
I was setting aside all other issues as to whether it is "correct" to play preflop or post flop. I was simply proving that JJ wins a little bit more money in a head up confrontation out of position with AQ, (given the blinds) even when it plays fairly simplisticly. By saying that AQ calls on the flop, I was helping the AQ's cause in this particular situation because of the implied odds. If AQ folded on the flop, the jacks would do better yet.
(n/t)
A good flop will do AQ no good against the early raiser (yea, I'm aware the merits of KJT, keep on dreaming). This is not 87s we are talking about.
A "good" flop can cost you dearly. You need a resonable chance to have the guy beat already if you plan to call raises with AQ. In a clash of two big hands, the flop doesn't change things much. You should not expect the flop to provide solutions for you. AQ is NOT an implied odds hand. The "flop goot or folt" small pairs approach does NOT work for AQ.
Allah designed this hand for raising the flop, not floding. If a sad moment comes when you need to do it, do it early and painlessly. Do it preflop.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Post deleted at author's request.
How about a raise on a rag flop if the conditions are right?
Perhaps AK or a small pocket pair will even muck? Or you may get a free draw (say vs JJ) to the river. Is this too aggressive?
Jim I think it is way too aggressive to be dumping any more serious dough once the flop comes and you are without a pair, without a draw, and basically without a hand against someone who has shown serious strength both before and on the flop. To quote from T.J. Cloutier's article in the latest issue of Cardplayer magazine:
"One of the most frequent errors that limit hold-em players make, including those who play the higher limits, is continuing with only overcards in a raised pot." (T.J.'s Tip From the Top Page 84 Cardplayer 6/9/00 issue)
it uses math to prove the logic.
I'm a begginner to Hold em and have a couple of questions for the experts. First, is A2o worth playing in a normal game in an unraised pot in middle or late position? I'm wondering if the straight potential makes it worth it. Also, is any suited Ace worth playing from any position for any number of raises?
No, Ace-Deuce offsuit is normally not a playable hand. The remote chance of making a wheel is more than offset by the likelihood of flopping top pair and being dominated by a better Ace.
No, a suited Ace less than A-10 is usually a limping hand and should normally be folded in the face of legitimate raise. Ace-little suited is a speculative drawing hand that should be played in unraised pots. The only exception might be when you are in the blinds, it is raised with several callers, and you can get in for about one more bet.
Its been real interesting hearing both sides of the argument. But is the argument even important?
For those of you in the Feeney camp - how much do you save by mucking?
and for those of you in the Badger camp - how much do you give up by mucking?
in $ terms please - $1 per hand? $0.01 per hand?
sorry, assume 20/40 structure.
Newbie, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Frankly if you folded every time in the face of an early position raise you would not be giving up much. In a $20-$40 game, probably less than a $1 per hour but I really have no idea.
I think we would all agree that folding AK would be a clear mistake. I think we would all agree that calling with AJ offsuit would be a clear mistake. I think AQ offsuit is probably borderline.
It is a function of the raiser. IF the raiser is tight, fold, if he is normal or unknown, call and if he is a lunatic re-raise.
Post deleted at author's request.
It is a $15 error in the specific case where you call, the raiser has two jacks, and everybody else folds. On average however, depending on the game, it is either no error at all or maybe up to a $3 error. Likewise playing the hand could be at best a $3 error except against super rocks. Since you will be dealt AQ about one in 110 hands, you will have it in middle position and be raised on your right about one in 600 hands or once every 20 hours. So knowing this situation cold may be worth about a dime an hour. Now can we PLEASE start talking about post flop play?
And this is consitent with what I wrote in the essay. Keep in mind the title of the essay, "Do You Pass the Ace-Queen Test?", and the last line in it. Its purpose was not to show that it is a GROSS error always to play AQ against an early raise, just that in many games it is an error (especially calling cold), which can be used as a quick indicator of whether a player knows what he's doing. (though obviously not under conditions in which the AQ *should* be played)
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Stop speed reading Badger. The $3 figure is for the general case, not the jj case. Secondly I have already stated many times that post flop expected play, makes a big difference in pre flop decisions. I am merely suggesting that we talk more about that post flop play (Example: under what conditions might it be correct to raise on the flop with that ace queen when rags hit?)
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Think about what you are saying for a moment. Are you trying to tell us that AQo plays well in a 3 or 4 handed pot? If you make the assumptions Feeney makes in his essay regarding the original raiser's raising standards in early to early-middle position, the likelihood that you are dominated is fairly good. Also, since we are playing with hidden cards in the real world, not specifically against JJ, I dont think you will be able to extract as much as you think with AQ, since the lingering cloud of potentially being way behind will invariably slow you down. What do you do when you flop an A? I love getting my early position AKs/o paid off by a mid position re-raiser who is behind the whole hand and we both hit the flop. Moreover, how exactly do you feel when you three-bet and there is one or two cold callers behind you? In this last post you begin discussing which hands might come in behind you. I hope you have at least seen that it is critical to RERAISE AQo in the described situation rather than just calling, since it is so important to have last position after the flop to have ANY chance of making AQo (marginally) profitable. You even stress the importance of getting the hands heads-up in your own posts. How, then, do you explain hands coming in behind you (even if it is the blinds, how much do you like them calling 2 or 2.5 bets cold??). Your hand has certainly not benefitted from this, since AQo is not a hand that plays very well 3 or 4 handed, ESPECIALLY if you have lost last position. Incidentially, JJ loses much less than AQo if a third player comes in with somthing like AKo, KQs/o, AJs/o, since the liklihood of the flop favoring the JJ has now increased (fewer chances of flopping an overcard). In fact, after being 3-bet by AQo, I think JJ would prefer if more players came in holding unpaired Aces Kings and Queens, since this will reduce the liklihood of an overcard on board.
Post deleted at author's request.
But, If you 3-bet in hopes of getting heads up with the original raiser (a play which most have agreed is probably the best way to come in with AQo if it is to be played at all), and 1 or 2 players cold called behind you (facing a possible reraise from the original raiser)wouldn't that increase the likelihood that your AQo is now in serious trouble? I am not familiar with the games you play in LA, but I don't see very many players coming in with 67s for three bets cold, and only sometimes coming in from the blinds with similar hands. This means that if you do indeed get even 1 caller behind you, your AQo has dropped in value considerably (imagine the types of hands even an average player needs to call 3 bets cold in late position). If the caller behind you is NOT one of the blinds, you are in even more trouble, since much of the profitabilty of your AQo assumed last position on each betting round. Imagine a fairly tight player calls in late position behind you, and the flop is AJ6 with 2 suits. Now what do you do when the original raiser bets into you (I am NOT assuming that he has JJ, but any of the original hands that Feeney suggested he would likely raise with in early to early middle position)? You are now in a very tricky situation. You might indeed have the best hand, you might have a hand with very few outs, or you might be drawing almost completely dead. In any case, you certainly cannot extract very much from the hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
I think the problem is you don't come up with $15 with your argument:
1) JJ and TT,
Ok accept your $15
2) the big four hands,
Lose a lot here, how much?
3) 99 and smaller pairs, KQ, KJ, JT, Ax.
Maybe get a little more then $15 here.
Now for the tighter raisers, they won't even have the 3) hands ( I didn't read the 10 pages of posts on this so is this a given hand selection?)
It comes down to how much you will lose on those 2) dominated hands and that I suspect will cut way down on what you win or even may cause the slight loss others predict.
D.
Post deleted at author's request.
"I sure make a whole lot against 77, and John even agreed with that."
I never said anything about it either way, except to say that 77 vs AQ was a TOTALLY different situation from JJ vs AQ.
...I misread your post. Yes, I did basically agree with that.
By a lot I meant at least one bet on every round. This will be a minimum of $140. QQ maybe not but the others. you will lose at least that much.
I think part of the disagreement here is that the pots are fairly small still but the $15 is really small compared to those small pots. Also a small pot where you supply half of it is equally expensive to lose compared to say some huge pot with 8 way action.
D.
Post deleted at author's request.
Oh I meant when you flop something.
AQ vs AK,AA Qpair vs QQ,KK,AA
Don't lose much I agree on the non flops.
D.
What if there are one or two other loose opponents in the hand along with the early tight raiser? Say there is a %70 chance the raiser has you dominated; there could also be a large probability you have someone else dominated. If you are able to pay off the minimum to the raiser and extract the maximum from the bad players, I think it would be profitable to call with AQo. Conversely, if there are other tight callers in the pot, the chances of you being dominated increase dramatically. Often you can look to your left and get a feel for who else will be entering the pot. This should be the primary factor in deciding to call. IMO, it would be marginally unprofitable for most players to go heads up against a tight raiser, but could be profitable to go up against a tight raiser and one or two loose callers.
allan
Lets say you Raise in Early position with AKo. You get a caller on the Button who you know plays Position well. Everyone else Folds.
Now the Flop comes Ragged or maybe Jack high. If you bet and get called or maybe raised how should you play on 4th and 5th for maximum +EV.
I ask this question because in the past I may have been playing too weak. Sometimes it may be right to go to the River. The problem is that when I'm up against a person who will raise me and not let a free card fall I'm usually wishing there were some way I could profitably fold, but with these guys I can't I have to call the river to see if AK high is going to win it.
Off topic a bit. Just the other day I called in early position with TT one other player called and an agressive player Raised the pot in a late position. I called and the other limper called.
The Flop comes 9 high two suited. I bet trying to squeeze the middle player out which works. The agressive player raises which is what I expected. I call. The turn brings a Jack, I check he bets I call (this worries me). The river makes the Flush possible. I check he bets I call. Agressive player shows AQo and I win. The thing is here if I had AKo I could have won also. The problem is that these agressive players who don't have any quams with rasing with and betting all the was make an unimproved AKo very tough to play whenever I try to semibluff they always semi-bluff raise. I usually just call these guys down with mediocre hands because I want them to keep bluffing at me, but its almost impossible to steal against these players.
Some of you may make the point of the semi-bluff Re-raise. The problem with that is that I find it very costly when I'm wrong and being out of position makes it not very profitable since I can't take a free card.
CV
You mentioned POSITION..that's important. Varying your play with AKo is also important. I have never thought this was a great starting hand. I'd give it a one in four chance.
The same problem plagues almost every HE player I know. One way to keep them off balance is to make sure that you vary your play with AA,KK and QQ in this situation. By doing that, you give yourself more options when you have AK in this situation.
For example, let's say that you raise with KK and the button coldcalls. The flop is J,9,3. You bet and he raises. If your action every time you are in this situation is to reraise and bet again on the turn, you may as well turn your cards face up on those occasions when you don't reraise on the flop.
One of the benefits of being heads-up with a big pair is that you have more of an opportunity to get creative with your play. Don't just blindly 3 bet the flop every time. Once in a while, give it the stop 'n' go play (i.e. call the raise on the flop and bet the turn), once in a while give it the turn checkraise play, once in a while give it the "check-call turn and bet out river" play and so on.
By being creative when you have the big pairs, your AK plays can also be more creative i.e. you may use the stop 'n go play with AK on a J93 flop next time and he will be hardpressed to raise you on the turn without a real hand because he knows that you are capable of playing KK the same way. Being creative with big pairs will stop guys from running over you when you raise with AK and get no help on the flop.
BTW, I wouldn't advise being creative in multiway pots. There, you generally just pound away (subject to the loose game strategy of big pairs in the 21st Century Edition).
Well skp there you go agian with that good info. I do play as you suggest. Its just that going up against better players that get tricky and don't fold heads-up has been a pain lately. Life was much easier when a) the pots were multi handed, or b) my opposition was weak tight.
Now that I'm starting to move out of the 5/10 and under games I'm finding myself in these tricky situatations more often. I guess I just need more experience, though I don't like the thought of being an underdog.
Thanks, CV
I've read some posts about playing weak-tight. I've also read some posts about knowing when to lay down a hand.
How about a situaion where say you're in late position with T9s and there are 6 limpers to you. You call and the big blind checks. So 8 players see a flop of 689 rainbow. It's checked around to you and you bet - 3 players drop. The turn is a 2 (no flush possible). It's checked to you, you bet and all but one player folds. The river is a T - so you have top two pair and the pot isn't small. Now your sole opponent bets. What do you do?
Suppose on the turn all but two players folded. The first player bets out and the second calls. What do you do?
If the second player raises, I fold - is this weak?
Thanks,
-Michael
To your first question, you must call the river bet due to the pot size even though you are usually beat by a straight. There is an outside chance that your opponent may be betting top pair which you can beat. This is not weak tight. It could be criticized as being too loose.
To your second question, on the turn when a blank comes you still have the top pair, an inside straight draw, and an over card. When it is bet and called to you, I think it is close as to whether or not to call. Now someone could argue that folding is weak-tight.
To your third question, if the second player now raises on the expensive street I believe folding is clear since you could be playing with virtually no outs and having to call two double bets cold with the possibility of further raising. Folding is not weak-tight it is decent poker.
With these sorts of situations, you need to consider two factors in addition to pot size. First, consider the number of opponents who saw the flop. The more people who saw the flop, the greater the chance that a draw is out there against you than if the pot was heads up from the flop. Second, consider the number of opponents at the decision point. On the river, a typical opponent is much more likely to bluff 1 opponent than several, and be much more inclined to call than overcall.
How about a situaion where say you're in late position with T9s and there are 6 limpers to you. You call and the big blind checks.
As an aside, I would raise in this situation in almost all games. T9s is a fairly strong hand and if 6 limpers typically see the flop, they're playing all sorts of garbage hands that are severely hurt by paying 2 bets to see the flop.
So 8 players see a flop of 689 rainbow. It's checked around to you and you bet - 3 players drop. The turn is a 2 (no flush possible). It's checked to you, you bet and all but one player folds. The river is a T - so you have top two pair and the pot isn't small. Now your sole opponent bets. What do you do?
Heads up, I call in this situation almost 100% of the time. I *really* have to know my opponent to fold for 1 bet on the river heads up. I'm often beaten, but the pot is big enough that I should still profit from the call. I'll often see a 7 or QJ, but sometimes I'll see a cold bluff, and other times I'll see something like T8 or even AT.
Suppose on the turn all but two players folded. The first player bets out and the second calls. What do you do?
This one is tougher. If the second player wouldn't call here indiscriminately, you could make a case for folding. It depends on whether the first player would try to bluff 2 opponents or bet a relatively weak hand, and also on the skill of both opponents. If they're good, there isn't really anything they could have been drawing to on that flop other than a straight, and there are few hands the second player would call with on the river that you can beat. But, if the second player is a loose goose and could be calling with a hand like KT or something, I might call.
If the second player raised, I would almost certainly fold. The only way my hand could be best is if the second player is top notch and knows the first player is bluffing, so he raises to drive me off a better hand.
-Sean
I just realized after reading Jim's reply that I might have misread the second and third question. (I hadn't read it before replying because I use the "digestify" feature.) My replies to the second and third question assumed that two opponents were left on the turn, and then after both opponents check-called the turn, the first opponent came betting out on the river.
-Sean
BB, 4, and 6 seat are in. I raise on the button with black Jacks. SB, BB, 4, and 6 all call.
Flop: 6 7 8 unsuited.
All check to me and I bet with what I'm pretty sure is the best hand.
Even though I have the best hand here, should I check since I won't be able to chase a straight draw out or bet as I did?
Turn: 5 (no possible flush)
All check to me, should I bet or check?
Results to follow.
1. Bet 2. Bet
No free cards for them!
My answer was hasty and I read the post wrong. No time to give a full discussion here. Now I am anxious to hear from others.
Some one could already have the straight and be looking to check raise. The odds are 4.8:1 against that. If they don't have a straight out there, coincidentally, the odds against it hitting the board is 4.8:1 so, they are already getting pot odds of 7.5:1 to call your bet. If the straight hits, and no one has a 10, you haven't lost any thing but the time it takes to chop a pot 5 ways.
Then there is the possibility of two pairs coming against you. But you also have 12 cards that will improve your hand.
You know what, I can't think like this at the table other than to compute my drawing odds and pot odds. I will still take the aggressive approach and bet. I like my chances. If raised, I fold. If bet into after the river card, I fold.
This is still a hasty reply. (just giving myself outs against criticism :-))
14 cards will improve your hand.
Definitely bet the flop! And yes, you may well chase out a gutshot straight draw with a bet, unless they also have a pair.
Bet the turn as well. I'd be more worried about a 9 than a 4, but chances are no one has one.
If you get raised, that's when your superior player reading skills will come in handy
I did bet the turn. The SB called and the BB raised. 4, 6, and I all folded. SB called the raise.
River: 2
SB checked and called the BB. BB turned over 95o for a straight. SB showed his 4 for the smaller end of the straight.
It should be noted that when I said I probably wouldn't chase any straight draws out, I meant open-ended straights, especially 9's.
I still bet. Getting check raised, knowing reasonably where you are from the check raise, and losing a bet is still better than giving a draw a free ride here. By the way, should the straight have waited and check raised the turn when the bets were higher?
I'm a relatively new (coming up on 200 hours) Hold'em player looking for leaks in my game. Although I think on the most part I'm a little too weak tight, in this area, I think I'm a little over-aggressive.
I tend to play in a fairly loose passive 3-6 game.
On the button, I'll play any Axs and about 50% of the Kxs which I pick up.
I'll almost always try for a free card in two scenarios: A) I flop the (2nd) nut flush draw. B) I flop 2nd pair with an overcard and a backdoor flush draw.
So far so good, right?
However, now assume that a reasonably competent opponent (usually the original bettor, but occasionally a new face) three bets it. My tendency is to cap it and hope they check into me on the turn. If not, I'll quietly call the turn and cross my fingers. (Occasionally, case B is now a fold if the cavalry did not ride over the hill on the turn and I'm not getting the odds to draw anymore.) Certainly this is high variance, but is it also bad poker? Can I play this better some other way? Is there perhaps some situation specific dependency?
Also, suppose in case B that the turn brings another of my suit, perhaps an overcard, although not one that pairs me. The original bettor bets into me again. Now, S & M would recommend raising the turn as a semi-bluff. However, in a no-fold'em game, the fish aren't going anywhere, and any competent opponent showing so much aggression usually has at least 2 pair and will probably reraise. Should I raise anyways, or just call?
Fire away!
Dave
On the button, I'll play any Axs and about 50% of the Kxs which I pick up.
I agree with the Axs hands, but if the pot is
raised, Kxs is a bad hand.
I'll almost always try for a free card in two scenarios: A) I flop the (2nd) nut flush draw. B) I flop 2nd pair with an overcard and a backdoor flush draw.
So far so good, right?
You also can do this with an open-end straight or
a gutshot with 2 overcards.
However, now assume that a reasonably competent opponent (usually the original bettor, but occasionally a new face) three bets it. My tendency is to cap it and hope they check into me on the turn. If not, I'll quietly call the turn and cross my fingers.
I agree with this.
(Occasionally, case B is now a fold if the cavalry did not ride over the hill on the turn and I'm not getting the odds to draw anymore.) Certainly this is high variance, but is it also bad poker? Can I play this better some other way? Is there perhaps some situation specific dependency?
No, if you miss the turn and there is action in front of you, a fold is ok. The more players in the hand,the more likely it is you need to improve.
Also, suppose in case B that the turn brings another of my suit, perhaps an overcard, although not one that pairs me. The original bettor bets into me again. Now, S & M would recommend raising the turn as a semi-bluff. However, in a no-fold'em game, the fish aren't going anywhere, and any competent opponent showing so much aggression usually has at least 2 pair and will probably reraise. Should I raise anyways, or just call?
With only one card to come, just call. You DON'T want to pay 3 big bets on the turn.
When I say I play these hands on the button, I am talking about an unraised pot. Any raise, and I'm gone.
I also use the free card play in the situations described by TR above; however, I'm interested in play with these particular hands.
I'll try to explain better in future,
Dave
On the button, I'll play any Axs and about 50% of the Kxs which I pick up.
I think in a loose passive game you can play these hands (in an unraised pot) 100% of the time.
I'll almost always try for a free card in two scenarios: A) I flop the (2nd) nut flush draw. B) I flop 2nd pair with an overcard and a backdoor flush draw.
So far so good, right?
Also, suppose in case B that the turn brings another of my suit, perhaps an overcard, although not one that pairs me. The original bettor bets into me again. Now, S & M would recommend raising the turn as a semi-bluff. However, in a no-fold'em game, the fish aren't going anywhere, and any competent opponent showing so much aggression usually has at least 2 pair and will probably reraise. Should I raise anyways, or just call?
However, now assume that a reasonably competent opponent (usually the original bettor, but occasionally a new face) three bets it. My tendency is to cap it and hope they check into me on the turn. If not, I'll quietly call the turn and cross my fingers. (Occasionally, case B is now a fold if the cavalry did not ride over the hill on the turn and I'm not getting the odds to draw anymore.) Certainly this is high variance, but is it also bad poker? Can I play this better some other way? Is there perhaps some situation specific dependency?
For case A) I think you need to think about the math a little bit. Since you make the flush (by or on the river)a little more than 1/3 of the time (when you flop a flush draw)as long as someone besides the intial bettore you can cap for *value* ! this definitely isn't bad poker.
The downside of the free card play is the intial bettor reraise causes everyone to fold excpet you! (THough now you almost certianly have odds to call all the way to river now, as there are pbly at least 12 small bets in the pot after you call (or raise) his 3 bet. And on the turn there will be at least 12 small bets and you have an easy call ( you will make the flush 9/46 times) so you easily have pot odds to call.
I think this standard play works well when the table is passive and the bettor is less likely to 3 bet and lose the rest of the field. Get to know your players!
Also, suppose in case B that the turn brings another of my suit, perhaps an overcard, although not one that pairs me. The original bettor bets into me again. Now, S & M would recommend raising the turn as a semi-bluff. However, in a no-fold'em game, the fish aren't going anywhere, and any competent opponent showing so much aggression usually has at least 2 pair and will probably reraise. Should I raise anyways, or just call?
How many people are left? You pbly have 9 (flush),+ 3 (2 pair) + 2 (trips) outs. SO you'll make one of these hands 14/46 times. So you are a little less than 1/3 to make one of these hands. So you can raise if you are sure at least 2 others will come along and are certain your hand will be good if you make it.
I think I wasn't as clear as I could have been. But I think if you think about the odds of making your hands and the pot odds and how the players act it will help alot.
Don't get too hung up on the free card play. If you're 'almost always' going for it, you're doing it way too much. The free card raise is just another tool to use when the situation is right. And that means:
Now, you should still raise with big draws in late position a lot of the time, but don't think about it so much as a 'free card' raise as a raise for value and strategic gain. Raise, gain the initiative, and then depending on what happens on the turn you can make the correct play. If the top card pairs and two opponents check to you, you may want to drop the idea of taking a free card and go ahead and bet. If you raise the flop and six people call, you may want to bet the turn for value. If you pick up a pair to go with your draw, even if it's an underpair to the top card on board, you may want to bet again in the hope of being able to check it down on the river just in case your hand is good.
Feeney: "Fold AQ to an early to mid position raiser"
Badger: "Worst poker advice ever..."
You've seen the arguements, so what are you going to do when faced with this situation? This situation comes up once in x hours acording to Qz. So you must be prepared. Well maybe not. You see Oz doesnt regard close preflop decisions as worth the effort so maybe this is just an exercise of egos. After all Badger can't really mean that it is the "worse poker advice he ever heard". Can he? I think he was just trying to rile old Johnny. And John really couldn't be serious when he called Badger a "Moron". Or was that Sklansky that said that? So much mud slingin goin on I'm not sure who said what.
Back to the main issue. AQ after an early - mid raise. SKP I believe said fold or raise. So now we have Badger:"Call". Feeney: "Fold." SKP: "Fold or Raise." Sklansky: "Can we talk post flop now please!" Couldn't be that they are all correct now could it? Well maybe not Sklansky and that worse advice comment and moron thing should be taken illiterally.
What do I do? Yes, I play mid limit Holdem. Yes, I have a position on the correct play. I know the answer to this question. So do most experienced players. This is not strictly a math question as some would have you believe. Most experienced slid players know that the answer is in the depends category. When I read John's essay in his new book I was surprised to see him include Mid position in the same category as Early position for this play. After all even Sklansky and Malmuth only recommend folding against an early position raiser (HPFAP1). I thought quite a bit about this inclusion of mid position but didn't think it was a big deal since I knew John was poining out what he viewed as problem plays a good player makes. I just figured mid position was a close call so I let it go at that. But after reading Badgers response I realized that there may be a more fundamental strategic issue here. What's wrong with John's essay is not that it is a mistake to fold this hand. I'm sure John would play this hand if the correct situation arose. I am also sure that Badger would toss this hand under specifically defined unprofitable situations. No John's problem was that his book, at least what I have read of it, is designed for an audience of Advanced players. Likewise Badgers comments about calling are also, IMO, directed to the advanced player. The advanced player understands the problems with this situation. The advanced player does not play poker by rote. He does not ALWAS fold nor ALWAYS call, nor ALWAS Raise or Fold. He plays the situation. He takes into account the opponents and his own abilities. He weighs these factors and makes a decision.
So whose right? What do you do? With me, it depends!
vince
Vince - I have this speech down pat now. Nowhere in the essay do I refer to middle position. Nowhere. I refer only to "early-middle" position, which, as I have said, it precisely and only ONE SEAT. Once you start getting much later than that, the raiser's raises start to be more likely classifiable as semi-steals, and should often be met with a 3-bet on the part of AQ.
I made that position point crystal clear in my very first post in the original thread. Yet Badger never retracted or apologized for his near slanderous first post. I therefore decided to meet him on his level, which I had avoided doing in the past. Of course it had no effect.
I was wrong, in my sleep-deprived late night thinking, about the precise value of AQ in the specific matchup against JJ. Badger was wrong in his thinking about which hand would come out ahead. But that was only a distraction from the original point anyway, about which I was right. (He will never admit that though.) If you want the long version, see my epic post in the original thread. If you want the concise version see Andrew Prock's wrap-up of the basic point in the post to which I responded, "BINGO".
As I mentioned, even the overgeneralized, oversimplified version of my advice in Jim's original post is not bad advice. It just needs refinement and elaboration. But it could keep less than very good players out of trouble, and would cost them little, maybe save them a bit. But the more specific advice presented in the essay is simply common knowledge among a lot of very good players. Who do you think I originally learned it from? Well, it was Oz himself. You can also find essentially the same advice in HPFAP-21, or doesn't anyone around here read that? ;-)
It's not an important matter, but the point of the essay was that if you see a player who is incapable of laying down AQ to a raise under the not-so-rare circumstances when it's correct to do so, then you're probably seeing a less than great player. Not a biggie. I think it's just that someone who fails the AQ test wants to question the validity of the test to begin with. ;-)
I said, " I refer only to "early-middle" position"
So that's not misunderstood, the sum total of what I refer to in the essay is:
1. early position
2. early-middle position
#2 is like "medium-rare", ya know?
John,
It's a minor and unimportant point to me. I did however interpret early-middle position to be seat 6-7. In other words "early middle" when I first read it was mid position 1 and maybe 2.
I believe that there was some important things in my original post in this thread. Maybe not. It seems that the focus now is more on whether Badger or you get in the last dig.
Vince.
Vince, I say in the essay that it depends, just as you do in your post at the start of this thread. I list a number of the situational variables involved. But the idea of the essay was not to examine all the variations in how to play AQ vs a raise; it was just a little point about players who can never lay it down. There's nothing more to say, is there?
You commented on my mention of middle position. I corrected you. Vince, count the seats. There can be only one seat that is called "early-middle". There are (going by HPFAP definition) three middle positions. If you break them down further as I did, only the first can be called "early-middle". The next would be "middle-middle", and the third would be "late-middle". It feels really weird to be spelling this out, but since everything seems to be misinterpreted, I guess it's best.
I read HPFAP: see my original post quoting same in the long thread below. And I agree with 1) you; 2) HPFAP; and 3) your characterization of some of the criticism as misinterpretation and/or misreading of what you wrote.
Yeah, I did see that, Andy. Didn't mean to ignore you in that way. You were the one person who mentioned that it was about the same as the caution about AQ in HPFAP.
...I mention in the essay several of those situational variables that can swing the decision one way or the other.
Sklansky's right. I say this because he gives a good example with the math to back up the logic. Most posts to this board do not do this. Just look at all the posts on the Texas Hold'em forum. The majority of the posters here do not know the math to back up the logic, including myself (I'm still learning). I would like to see more posts like this, because this is how I improve my game.
If you don't know the math to "back up the logic" how do you know Sklansky is right?
Vince
I know the basics. But, I didn't know how to figure it out. I always had problems with essay math questions anyway. When it's explained, as in the AQ post, it makes sense. David's post logically explained the play of AQ and used mathematics to demonstrate why it is correct. Or, maybe I'm an idiot. You tell me who's right.
Today, while waiting for a 3-6 seat {I've only been playing a short while} I was reading MMs article in card player magazine on the advantages of 78s vs other high cards and against 78o. Immediately upon finishing the article I ewas called to a table. About three rounds into the game and on the big blind I was dealt 7h8h. There was one raise and seven people in to see the flop, including me. THe flop comes 4h 6h Xo. I call the first bet and when it gets back around it has been raised twice. There is a 300 dollar high hand jackpot every three hours so I'm pretty sure calling is correct, so I call {maybe I should have raised?} There are now myself and two other people in the game. The lady across from me bets and we both call. {I'm pretty sure I'm beat now, but I say out loud {man do I ever need the right card} The river comes 9d. I check, the lady across from me bets, the guy to my right folds and I make a crying call. The lady turns over her cards and announces TWO PAIR. unbelievable
What was the turn card?
Sorry, the turn card was the Ah which gave me a very weak flush on the turn. Sorry that got left out, but it really happened.
Few comments Dan,
1) General rule I've adapted that you might find useful. Never ever (ever ever ever) play a hand where, if you hit the flop you're looking for you're afraid to bet it. You got your flush! What more could you possibly ask for with this hand?
2) When the Ah fell, that took away the possibility of someone having Axh. Well...duh, you say. But what else do you know? Someone had to be playing Kxs (whatever X is) to make their flush. Yes, yes, it's 3-6. People play everything. But they're still more likely to be playing Axs than Kxs.
3) When you hit your flush, it makes it that much less likely that someone else holds two of your suit. It's not exactly rare, just not a common occurance either.
4) The interesting thing is that, assuming both that the straight flush would give you the $300 and that the man wasn't going for a check-raise, your call on the turn was correct if only to try for the 5h. I can show you the math if you want.
But you call was correct for many more reasons than that. As you can clearly see, people don't need the nuts to bet in this game. Sometimes they don't even realize they don't have the nuts, or even what it is given the board. Sometimes people misread their hands. Sometimes people are way more agressive than they should be. Sometimes they're perfectly aggressive if it's going to get a better hand to fold. Which you almost did.
The point that I'm making goes back to point number one. You had the best hand here and you never ever bet it! You can't play suited connectors if you're willing to let that happen. If everything was the same in this hand except that the straight flush wasn't possible you might have folded the winner here. Can you see how disasterous that decision would have been?
Dan
Yes, I do see, and more and more I see why experience is so critical. thanks.
. . .especially with the ace of suit on board. Yeah, I know, in 3-6 they lay T2s, but ask yourself what percentage of the time you actually get beaten by a higher flush. I think you'll find it's something like 5-8%, probably less. Yes you should have raised on the flop, and again on the turn, and if they were dumb enough to give you another whack at it, on the river too. If you back off like this with 87s when you hit the flop and turn you'll definitely lose money with the hand overall.
Well, to state the obvious, a flush with 87s is weak on the turn, because if one more of the suit hits on the river, chances are very high that it will no longer be good (if facing several opponents.)
-Abdul
But that is exactly why he has to get his bets in now. He has to make any draws pay as dearly as possible. Make the king of that suit pay 2 BB to see if another flush card comes.
If you let people complete their draws against you cheaply you are giving up a LOT.
-SmoothB-
tough high-limit game. I am UTG. I get KK - I raise. Two to my left (tough, tight player) reraises. Tough aggressive player (who may currently be on tilt, definitely playing too many hands, but still something to consider) calls...everyone else folds. I call.
Flop is T83 rainbow
I bet, preflop reraiser raises. Third player calls. I call (I considered raising, but I figured if I reraised on this street, I may lose bets on fourth...and I'm only giving one overcard a free card).
Turn is a 5. I bet out again (at this point, I wondered if i should have reraised on the flop, as now I put the preflop reraiser on AK, and I was afraid the turn would not have been bet - maybe I should have checkraised on the turn)...anyway....both call.
The turn is a Q.
Possible straight in J9, possible trips in QQ. The preflop reraiser has either AA, QQ, JJ or AK - if he has JJ or AK, he may not call if I bet, if he has AA, he's calling, if he has QQ, he's raising...I decide its best to check against him....the other guy, since he may have been on tilt, I thought there was a chance that he may have had J9s or QTs or something stupid like that....anyway, I check.
I win the pot with my KK.
So, my question....was I too scared of a monster under the bed - should I have bet?
Monsters are mostly chimerical. I think you would have heard from A-A or Q-Q on the turn. You should bet K-K into a board of T-8-3-5-Q.
By the way, I like your play of merely calling the re-raise pre-flop, but I would have let the re-raiser bet the flop (a re-raiser nearly always bets any flop) and probably just called, administering another Fekali enema on the turn.
I think you made a common error preflop by not capping.First, 9 times out of 10 you've got the best hand here. Don't be araid of that other one time. Bet for value.
Second, you gain valuable information by capping. If you are perceived as a good player, the first thing anyone's going to suspect is AA or KK. That's good. Now by betting out on the flop (the cheap round), a raise tends to indicate Aces; a call tends to indicate you still have the best hand.
There is a lot of possible hands out there in this scenario. If you cap the flop there is a good chance that you will have both your opponents in a tough position when you come out betting. Winning on the flop is a good thing.
I think just calling on the flop is an intersting option, but newbie did not take advantage of the deception that he/she created by putting the wood to them on later streets. I don't know what "chimerical" means, but I am going to bang away with KK here until someone stops me.
Newbie you should have capped the betting pre-flop with pocket Kings especially since there is a third player in the hand. On the flop, you should re-raise especially since there is a third player in the hand. You really missed some licks on this one.
Judging by this message and the previous one on playing AA, I think you may be falling victim to Fancy Play Syndrome. You're getting just a bit too tricky with your hands.
In this case, you should have capped it pre-flop, given your position. If you're last to act, you can consider just calling so that you can get a raise in on the flop. But in early position you're probably going to bet most flops anyway with only 2 callers, so you might as well cap it before the flop.
If I had had your hand, I would have typically played it like this: I would have capped it before the flop, bet the flop, re-raised if raised, and if it's not capped I would have bet the turn as well. If raised on the turn, just call, and check-call the river. If the flop had been capped, I would have check-called the turn and river. Against extremely tight opponents, it's possible I would have released the kings somewhere along the way, but not likely.
In general, when you have a great hand like AA or KK before the flop, just keep betting and raising until someone tells you to stop. (-: The deception you gain from one less raise is typically not worth it. The exception would be when you're playing heads-up against a very good player, or perhaps with two players and you having position.
For much the same reason, I think you should have re-raised the flop. If you had been in last position a smooth call is worth serious consideration, because the last raiser on the flop will usually bet out on the turn, and you get a chance to pop him again. But from UTG, your strategy of only calling the raise means you have to go for a check-raise on the turn to take advantage of the deception you've created, and that has risks of its own.
Whether you should bet the river or not really depends on your understanding of the other players, and an argument can be made for either one.
In general, I don't like giving away cheap or free cards when I have the best hand. I'd rather build my action by playing big draws agressively, bluffing correctly on the river, and in general keeping my opponents always in doubt. You don't have to be a maniac to accomplish this - if you bluff with the correct frequency you'll get called enough that people will remember you as a bluffer. And if you jam with a flush draw and two overcards and hit your hand, people will remember that too. So you should get plenty of action when you have the real goods.
I recently moved past that stage of my career where I tended to miss bets with big hands because of what "might" be out there. It's a gradual thing, of course, but it's been a while since paranoia led me to check down or call with what I should have known was a big favorite, and I used to do it all the time.
If you can, I advise you to skip this stage altogether.
In the first place, if you underplay good hands, it probably means that you're not really playing for the money. No sin in that, of course, but for nearly everybody here that's the purported goal. If you softplay too much, then you'r playing to protect a weak bankroll, or to overrotect a strong one, because you fear humiliation or disapointment, or because of some other dubious priority. Instead, just play to maximize your earn, which means grabbing every edge you can find. If your attitude is that you'll be satisfied with 8 bets when you could have made 10, you probably won't make it. (I know that sometimes you just don't know where you stand because your opponents are so screwey or the board is so scary. I'm not talking about those situatations, I'm talking about the ones like you described in your post).
Second, as you advance, you tend to play more aggressively, probably too aggressively at first. If you just play the marginal hands more aggressively and softplay the strong ones, you're going to run into a problem. This may be something that contributes to "intermediate rut."
Great post. If you can skip those first two stages (which it seems almost all players go through), you'll save tons.
It really boils down to common sense. Keep betting when you think you're the favorite. Don't try to get too tricky.
Deception is important, but a little goes a long way.
You should have capped the action BTF with pocket kings. Get the $$ into the pot NOW since you probably have the best hand.
On the flop, you bet out which is fine. Then you got raised. When you bet out with the best hand in early position you are hoping to get raised so you can three bet. This play is pretty much automatic for me, I RARELY deviate from this play.
In general, when you have the best hand, NOW is always the best time to get as much $$ into the pot as possible. Charge them the MAXIMUM RIGHT NOW to try and beat you. I feel it is best to just play straight forward and not get fancy except in VERY RARE circumstances. If someone were to analyze all the possibilities, I think that this straight-forward strategy would work out to be the mathematically best play.
You won the pot with the best hand, how much more $$ would have been in the pot if you played it the way I (and others) suggested?
No monster under this bed...
Dave in Cali
another hand in the high limit hold'em game - I am two to the left of the big blind. UTG folds, I have AA - I raise. I get two callers - the little blind and the big blind. The little blind is the third guy that i described in the previous post (very aggressive player, probably good, but may currently be on tilt right now). The big blind is a tight player - who has lots of respect in the club - including mine.
Flop is K84 rainbow.
They both check - at this point, I decide to check as well, figuring if I bet, I may not get any callers since they may be afraid of AK, and if one of them has a K, then I can raise on the turn. I understand I'm giving up a free card, but I'm willing to get the possibility of inducing a bet or bluff on the turn.
Turn is a 6. Small blind bets (not unreasonable since he is aggressive, he could have had anything). Big blind flat calls (he may have a weak K). I raise. Small blind calls, big blind folds.
River is another 6. (board is K8466 - no flush possibility). Small blind checks, I bet. After thinking about it for 2 minutes, the small blind raises. Since he took so long, I decide that he can't possibly have a full house - because he would have acted quicker, and he probably doesn't have a 6 either - so I just call (even if he had raised immediately, I would have called anyway).
He throws his hand away without showing, I have no clue what kind of draw he could have been on - maybe 97 or something like that.
anyway...please critique the following :
1. checking on the flop 2. raising on the turn
I thought I played it right, and played it smart (although its not too difficult to play it "smart" when one has AA)...but I would like opinions.
1. good play
2. very good play
Keep in mind though that "if one of them has a K" you'll probably be raised on the flop and you can then cold call and administer the Fekali enema on the turn anyway. Better yet, you might only be called on the flop and then check-raised on the turn. The reason to check is not necessarily because one of them might have a K, but rather because one of them might have, say, Q-J and pick up a Q or J on the turn.
K-8-4 rainbow is the perfect flop to play the hand the way you did. Nice job.
Interesting play.
It seems to me to be a move that should be used by every good player. You need to gain the respect of players that constantly call raises to pick you off if you show any weakness. I will also make this play with AQ with the same flop once in a while. The key there is once in a while. If they catch me then they will pay me off later when I have aces.
Later.
You are also giving up the opportunity of being check raised on the flop, just calling, and then raising on the turn; or making it three bets on the flop.
The only time when I wouldn't bet on the flop is against extremely wild, aggressive players who are now guaranteed to bluff on fourth street and the river if they have absolutely nothing. Part of the reason to make this bet is that with other hands, for example AQ, you would also bet this flop hoping everyone folds. You don't want to become known as someone who only bets when he doesn't have it.
I would definitely bet the flop here. You have one pair only, not a monster. If they fold, great: you have just won 2 big bets. If they have a king, they will call you down: also good.
I just can't see not betting the flop.
Betting the flop is clear because you have two opponents and you will get crying calls from any King perhaps all the way to the river. You should bet the flop with anything in this situation because you might win the pot outright so it is important to bet the flop when you really have something. Of course you raise the turn when a blank comes.
Bet the flop. Don't give up free cards when you have a relatively vulnerable hand like AA.
It *might be correct to check the flop if you're guaranteed a bet on the turn so you can raise and put maximum pressure on both hands, but I don't think it's all that likely in this scenario, for the simple reason that it's very suspicious when a good player checks a Kxx flop in last position after raising in early position pre-flop.
Given that you're in last position, I can't see you legitimately checking this flop with ANY raising hand. If it's checked to me and I have JJ I'd be betting.
You also may be losing bets from weak hands that will call a flop bet but not a turn bet. It's very common for average players to chase all sorts of scrap for a small bet, and routinely fold on the turn. So get the money out of them while you can.
I agree with most of the advice in this thread, and I'll bet in this situation the vast majority of the time. But, against opponents that I suspect are unobservant, I'll sometimes check this sort of flop with AA or AK. It's certainly not a play you want to overdo though.
As an example, I played a 20-40 hand not long ago where one opp. limped in early-middle position, another in middle position, and I raised in late position with AK. The flop came K84, both checked to me, and I checked. I knew both opponents were sort of tight (although they played too many dominated offsuit type hands up front), and the first especially didn't strike me as very observant, so I figured that he wouldn't notice that CHECKING THAT FLOP WHEN RAISING PREFLOP IS ONE OF THE MOST SUSPICIOUS THINGS YOU COULD DO! I also was pretty sure that both would call twice if they paired on the turn. Turn a 9, the first guy bets out, middle drops, I raise, he calls. River blank, he check-calls, AK beats KJ.
Now, I only gained $10 by playing the hand that way versus betting the whole way while he checked and called. But, I'll occassionally play a hand like QQ-TT the same way against a more observant opponent, figuring that by checking the flop, I'm more likely to get them to fold a king on the turn. So, in order to make a play like that work, I need to play AK the same way against the clueless ones.
-Sean
Good point Sean. Comments like "I can't see not betting this flop" are very one-dimensional. Your thought, and game should be dynamic.
I personally will employ the above play maybe five percent of the time, but it keeps my opponents on thier toes.
Adam.
Thanks for the response. I guess my comment is that neither of these guys were average players. I considered both of them very good players....one very good aggressive player, another one is very good tight player. I had a high expectation that I'd see a bet on the turn when I checked the flop. Luckily for me, I was right. I guess the best way is to mix it up...make this play sometimes, and bet on the flop sometimes...keep them guessing.
thanks for all the responses. I guess, generally, people are suggesting I should have bet on the flop (instead of checking as I did), and maybe check a small percentage of time to mix up the play.
one question to this advice : do you think it matters what limit the game was? would you suggest the same in 6-12 as you would in 80-160? this assumes that I play in either game regularly - and my opinion is that both players are very good players. what I am trying to hit on is that - if I was a 6-12 player, my opinion that these two guys are very good players should not hold as much weight as if I was a 80-160 player and that my opinion of these guys are very good players (imagine for now, that I average .75 big bets per hour in these games), because if I can average .75 big bets per hour (not saying I do in this game, in the 40/80 I do, but not in the 80/160 - I haven't played it enough yet) - then my opinion should be a very good opinion...whereas, if I average .75 bets in the 6-12 game, my opinion on those players would be worth less.
did that make sense? thanks for all the reponses.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you should have bet the flop. For one thing, you may have won the pot right there. The VAST majority of the time, the best time to win the pot is RIGHT NOW. Your hand was not even near close enough to slow play. Your checking could have given someone with KQ a free card! or perhaps 99 or 22 or something like K9s! You never know what people might call with. You had the near PERFECT flop for your hand but you very well could have blown it by checking the flop. IF you had bet and gotten check-raised, then you could three bet and really charge them to try and beat you.
Raising the turn is fine, good job here. You are lucky that one of the blinds didn't three bet you with the two pair he got on the flop from the free card you gave him. The BB could have easily called BTF with almost anything since he had 5:1 odds on his call with no chance of getting raised. Perhaps he called with 68s, TT, or KQ.
Straight forward play is almost always the best way to go. Getting tricky is rarely useful but will often get you in trouble. Giving free cards is almost always playing with fire with a good chance of getting burned.
Dave in Cali
The way I see it, in a multiway pot, 2 pair is almost never good enough to slowplay. (Heads up is an entirely different matter.) If that is the case, then a single pair, even if it's an overpair, is NEVER good enough to slowplay. In this case you would prefer to win the pot as soon as possible, because even though you probably have the best hand right NOW, you have very very few outs to improve, whereas your opponents, collectively, have many ways to improve their hands.
I would always make it 2 bets here.
-SmoothB-
Page 103 of HPFAP 21st Century Edition:
"When you are planning to raise you usually need to be about a 2-to-1 favorite to have the best hand on the end (except for bluff raises) because of the possibility that you may be reraised and the fact that you might not get called unless you are beat. A raise is generally correct when you think you will have the best hand 55 percent of the time that your raise is called. (The two statements above are not contradictory. Do you see why?)"
My answer to this question is "NO". Actually I have a guess but I think it is beneficial for me to find exactly why this is true. I hope someone can help me with this.
assuming your beat but are going to call anyway when your reraised, you don't lose anything if your a 2-1 favorite when you raise and your opponent calls. When you raise and win you win an extra bet. Two times you win an extra bet for a total gain of two bets. One time your reraised and call, and you lose: you lost a total of 2 bets. So your even, and of course if you should happen to win no matter how small a percentage when your opponent reraised then you have positive expectation. I can't explain the 55% cause I don't get it. Someone show me the math too please.
The 2-1 figure is for having the best hand whether he calls of not. (If you figure you are 66% favorite to have the best hand you can raise).
while the second figure means you should be a 55% favorite to have the best hand with the hands he will call or raise w/. (eg won't fold with). I think the authors will say you need it to be more than 50% because you may get reraised, there is an analogous figure in the text of betting in last position if your opponent has checked to you on the river, you want to be more than a 50% favorite bc of the possiblity of being checkraised (I'm paraphrasing)).
SO the 2 statements aren't contradictory as the two figures refer to probabilities for 2 different events.
I was accepting Badger's figure of 55% for two jacks versus AQ in my earlier calculation. Poker probe, however, says it is about 56.5%. That cinches it. Badger with two jacks does better than Badger with AQ behind him just like everyone else does.
you can't be serious. You know quite well that posisition + aggression (ala the reraise will alter the literal results received from a computer.
You pot stirrer! Is that a word?
You came to this discussion late. I was merely saying that my previous results of a head up confrontation, assuming a simple strategy, had to be adjusted slightly toward the two jacks. The earlier results ssid that jacks win a tiny bit more, though they lose bigger pots. As to your comments about taking the initiative with a reraise, we have always advocated that. However the strength of that play comes mainly when you both flop nothing. That doesn't come into play much when you are specifically against two jacks.
Before you throw dirt on the grave you should consider the effect of straights and flushes.
Ten cents this way or that way.
Post deleted at author's request.
"Forinstance, suppose the action comes down that JJ raises, AQ reraises, and JJ call preflop. Flop is A62. I suggest most, or at least a lot, of players will lead at that board with JJ, *and* call when raised, *and* call to the end. "
Fallacious, lie, incorrect! Most, being a majority, will fold.
Vince
Maybe they will in the part of California where Badger plays--I don't know, I've never played there. But everywhere else I've played this has not seemed to be true.
I am not so sure Vince. Many players will at least take a stab at the pot on the flop so you collect that additional money. I agree that most would not go on to the river in the face of continued betting. In fact by re-raising pre-flop, a play that I would NOT make with this hand under normal circumstances, you have made the pot bigger and it makes it harder for the guy with the pocket pair to get off the hand. Many players start looking for excuses to continue playing.
Jim,
The players that call the turn bet are either very good players or very bad. Typical players, the majority, will fold the turn. Typical and very good players will also sometimes fold the flop. You can never be sure what a very good player will do. Therefore, they come down on the side of reasons not to raise with the AQ.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
I will be in LA in June or July. If you are correct, and I am not saying you are not, and your 85% is right I will visit the first Church I pass and say a Novena (a lot of prayers to you non catholics) for JJ every hand. I've played in LA quite a few times but cannot remember the results of plays like this. We'll see.
Vince.
David Sklansky vs Steve Badger Daniel Negranu vs Gary Carson Phil Helmuth vs himself Doug Grant vs the world
I'm not sure which is more fun - playing poker or following internet poker forums.
(1) I avoided straights and flushes not because it hurts my case but because it makes the calculations too complicated. Remember that the bottom line had the jacks beating the AQ out of an average of only $35 the 60% of the time I said it won. If you throw in draws that $35 goes UP because of the extra bets that the jacks win when the draw misses. (The 40% win rate does NOT go up because I GAVE it to the AQ already in the initial calculation.) On the other hand the extra money won by the AQ making a straight or flush is not much since I already had the two jacks calling all bets unless two overcards showed.
(2)The simplistic strategy I postulated plays worse than any good player. It paid off too much. Specifically it always called all the way even when up against an ace. By folding some of the time, in this situation , the jacks do better.
One other point is that the 40% win rate for the AQ is a little too high as long as AQ doesn't chase to the river. (If it does, its average loss goes way up.) This answer is a slam dunk. I was generous to the ace queen in my original assumptions. It would be nice if someone else did this calculation in more detail.
Post deleted at author's request.
The fact is that simple, non expert strategies, are not as bad as they seem as long as they don't involve making bad folds. For example, suppose I was to play you a $5000 no limit holdem freezout where we both anted $100. I promise to move in every time before the flop. What would you estimate are my chances of winning this freezout? ( A much harder question is what hand would you need to call me with? The answer changes for different stack sizes.)
35%
JT or higher my stack 5000-4000
Qx or higher my stack 3000-3900
Kx or better my stack 2000-2900
KT or better my stack 1000-1900
Jx or better my stack 500-1000
Any connector(s) or better 200-500
My stack > 5000 Qx or better.
Vince.
If you're saying that we both have 5000 and then ante 100 then you move all in giving me 5100 to 4900 or 1.04 to 1 odds all I would need is a hand that beats a random hand over 50% of the time.
I did a little probing and came with these results:
1) Any Pair
2) Any Ace
3) Any King
4) Any Suited Queen
5) Any Queen with a Kicker of 5 or above
6) Any Suited Jack with a Kicker of 5 or above
7) Any Suited Ten with a Kicker of 7 or above
8) 89s , J8o
10) Any two cards 9 or above
CV
"all I would need is a hand that beats a random hand over 50% of the time". But couldn't you improve this strategy by waiting for a hand that wins, say, 60% of the time ? You wouldn't lost much in antes waiting and your extra chance of winning the big confrontation should outweigh the ante loss of previous hands ?
Andy.
Sure, we could just wait for premium cards and have a bigger overlay.
Think of it this way. Say its always a $50 game where we both ante $1. We both have $5000.00 and won't stop playing until one of us wins all the other persons money. Now coming in with any hand that wins more than 50% (actually it could be a little less than 50%)of the time is a must. Otherwise he'll be stealing from me when I have an advantage.
CV
One other problem I'm finding is that if we wait around for hands with a big overlay like the Big Pocket pairs David will have most of the money before we get delt one of them. Even with AA he still has a 15% chance of sucking out with a random hand.
If we waited for AA we would be waiting on average 221 hands and David would have all the money.
If we waited for Pocket pairs 7 and above and only AKs and AQs our overlay would at least be 2 to 1 but again there are only 56 of these hands in a possible 1326 hands that could be delt. We would be waiting around 24 hands on average before we were delt these and David would have all the money.
CV
I answered this question (or one very much like it) precisely a while back on rec.gambling.poker. Perhaps someone can find it using DejaNews. If I remember correctly (and it is quite possible that I don't), you need to play hands that have a 52% to 57% chance of winning against a random hand (the variation is with respect to various stack sizes).
The correct threshold balances the following three factors: (1) the pot odds, including the antes, (2) the advantage for being able to selectively fold, and (3) the limit on how much patience you can have in your attempt to outplay your simpleminded opponent.
Why 52% and not 50%?
CV
The relative size of the ante determines how long you can wait for your threshhold hands (and where you place the threshhold).
In the example David proposed, I wonder how big an edge perfect play would provide against his simplistic strategy.
What implications does this have for heads-up No-Limit Tournament strategy? Does it make Chris Ferguson's play, and his play on the final hand, look even better?
If you want to maximize your chances of winning the freezout, you shoud wait for a hand that is a significant favorite at the start of the match. How much of a favorite you need to be depends slightly on your pot odds but much more importantly on how quickly your stack is dwindling. Paul may have answered a similar question but he did not answer this one. For instance suppose that this was a billion dollar freezout with that same $100 ante. Almost certainly you would ante off many thousands before it would be correct to call with anything below two aces. Isn't that obvious?
Ironically I posed this question because I wanted to make the point that the "move in" strategy wins more than might be expected. Vince's 35% is probably a good estimate. But if the opponent played the way Vince, Chris or even Paul suggested, it would win even more often.
O.K. I take it that we won't want to play anything less than a QQ (80% win) until we get to a certain stack size, then we have to start lowering our standards.
Tell me this David, before I start beating my head against the wall. What math courses teach this type of problem solving? The problem obviously isn't all that simple since nobody is touching it.
CV
David:
I said exactly what you said but in less words.
I said it was the relative size of the ante (to your stack, of course) that determines what your threshhold hand should be and how long you can wait.
I didn't bother to outline a $100 ante/$ 1 billion dollar stack scenario because that is obvious, and because my statement encompasses *all* ante/stack ratios anyway.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently.
I thought that by saying the following: the relative size of the ante (implied: relative to your stack) determines how long you can wait for your threshhold hands and where you place the threshhold (implied: the threshold is the cutoff point for the strength of the hand(s) you are willing to play), I had made myself clear.
Apparently not.
I didn't include you because you are only one letter.
When I first started on *anything* on the internet (not too long ago)I was a bit leary in general.
However, I enjoy this forum very much and the discussions and people on it, and I don't mind letting the regulars here know my name---Mark Stults. However, I may continue to post as "M", in part because, while I do not mind sharing my thoughts about poker with others in a serious vein, I am not too thrilled with the idea of some regulars I may play with gaining insight into my thinking unless they are willing to truly be a part of these discussions also. In other words, I don't like the idea of an opponent who is just an occasional lurker gaining insight into my poker thoughts. I have a hard enough time winning as it is, and at Foxwoods, I play against many of the same people all the time. So, for all the regulars here, I very much enjoy this forum and the discussions and ideas it generates, and I think it is quite valuable. If you read this you will know that "M" is Mark Stults--otherwise I am just "M".
See you at FW tonite. Bald fat Italian. Say Hello.
Vince
Hi Vince,
Will look for you. I have enjoyed your posts immensely and have been wondering who the heck you are anyway. If I am not mistaken there are lots of bald fat Italians at Foxwoods on weekends, so I'm not sure I will be able to find you based on this info. I will be wearing shorts and a polo shirt (not sure what color yet), and I will have a navy windbreaker on the back of my chair.
I looked for you last night at the Woods, and asked a number of fat, bald, possibly Italian men if their names were Vince, but nobody was you. I will be there again this afternoon and/or this evening. Shorts, polo shirt, navy windbreaker. Hope to see you.
Mark
Actually, as I noted before, my memory isn't always that good. And I couldn't find my original post to rec.gambling.poker. So I worked it out again ... it turns out that I had solved this type of problem, but (possibly) for different stakes.
In a $5000 freezeout, is the total amount at stake $5000, or does each player put up $5000?
If the former, then with best play, you have a 57.25% chance of winning the freezeout. (I'm pretty sure that this is the problem I solved previously.) On the first hand, you need to play hands that have at least a 55.35% chance of winning against a random hand, that is, Q9o or better, which amounts to 30.02% of the hands you might be dealt. (Can you see why you need to play some hands that give you less than a 57.25% chance of winning?)
The more uneven the stack sizes, the more hands you need to play. If you or your opponent is at $1200 or less, you need to play more than half of the hands you might be dealt.
If each player puts up $5000, then with best play, you have a 61.05% chance of winning the freezeout. On the first hand, you need to play hands that have at least a 60.20% chance of winning, that is, QJs or better, which amounts to 14.18% of the hands you might be dealt.
If you have $1100 or less, or if your opponent has $1200 or less, you need to play more than half of the hands you might be dealt.
"Paul was right AS USUAL". My goodness Paul, this forum has no place for arrogance. I am shocked. Actually it is not surprising that your answer, that I knew intuitively could not be correct, was wrong merely because you didn't know that A $5000 freezeout means there is $10,000 on the table. In any case my original point was that this move in strategy, dumb as it is, wins an awful lot. 39% according to you, and I am sure you are right. That's much higher than most people would think. Shows why no limit holdem tournaments can be made into mockeries. (Suppose the guy who moved in, did it only with an ace king queen jack or pair. What would be his chances now. Can you tackle this Paul?)
This argument over aq calling an early posisition bet is interesting, but there is simply one answer here. Run your sims do your math, whatever, you will find that the only way to play is to re-raise it, for several reasons.
Obviously if the opponent is very tight and only raises the top 4 then you fold, but with todays structure, you must re-raise. This also balances your big 4 re-raises, and gives you a much better chance at winning when the flop comes rags. Pre-flop is about setting up the rest of the hand, and when you simply call someones raise, then you are letting them take initial control which you won't be able to get back when 1 or 2 more callers come in or you don't hit the flop(which is most of the time)
When you just call and the raiser bets the flop when nothing flops, who is going to take the pot? As Jim Brier states, he's going to fold, and rightly so since he can't turn the momentum around.
If the raiser bets into you on the flop after you have reraised pre-flop you have more reason to fold it if you missed... but you have given yourself a much better chance to win it by getting the blinds out etc., and showing strength.If you get checked to, then obviously a bet might take it.
In 5 draw, using a game theory approach, many hands like ace high four flushes are used as raising hands to balance with the more legit raising hands . This is another simple reason to re-raise in this situation, and also sometimes raise (when first in with handssuch as 88 which has been talked about recently.
You can't simply judge how jj is going to do against aq literally since, aggression with posistion makes a huge difference, as Bager points out.
A tougher question in my mind is how do you play certain hands when someone has raised and there are 1 or two callers. acomwelc
I don't know if any of you have read Roy Cooke's article in the latest edition of Cardplayer (6/9/00-"After-the-flop-price; Roy sucks out again') but he must be referring to the hand I played against him and posted on this forum a few weeks ago. Yes, I am the "solid but unimaginative player" he is referring to in this article. However, there some discrepancies between his account and what I posted.
First of all, I never criticized Roy's play on this hand or stated that he played badly despite what he says in his article. In fact, when I posted this I stated that I would have played his hand the same way except I would not have capped in pre-flop with pocket Queens. Here is what actually happened after I bet the river and Roy raised:
Jim Brier said, as he made the final call: "Well, this is going to hurt." That was it! A short time later after the hand was over, a friend of mine named Lance came over and asked me how I was doing. I said: " I just lost a thousand dollar pot to Roy on a two outer". That was all!
Now I would like to ask you guys on the forum two questions:
1) Was there any criticism of Roy's play in my remarks?
2) Was I "whining" as Roy contends in his article?
The other issue is that apparently I copied the hand down incorrectly because I thought Roy had the Queen of Spades but he says in his article he had the Queen of Clubs. Now of course this gives him many more outs to beat my Aces. I did not "whine about losing to a two outer ignoring the value of the flush draw". I simply did not see the Queen of Clubs in Roy's hand. What I don't understand is why Roy did not point this out at the time since he obviously heard my remarks to Lance.
Now all that being said, I think Roy writes great columns, is a great player, and I did not criticize his play on this hand. On the other hand, I am not an automaton and losing a thousand dollar pot in a situation where I was a heavy favorite merits some emotion I would think.
P.S.: I would like to post this on rgp since Roy does not read 2+2 forums but he does post on rgp occasionally. However, my browser will not handle rgp posting very well so could someone relay this post over to rgp? Thanks!
Jim,
I tried posting using Forte Free Agent. I got an error message I've never seen. I'll try again tomorrow unless someone else beats me too it.
BTW, I don't think you were whining.
Regards,
Rick
First, understand that Roy has been known to print completely erroneous information in his Card Player articles. While he is a great player, his writing doesn't always match up to his playing and he doesn't always bother to verify facts before printing. As such, I would take everything he writes with a grain of salt.
The most infamous example of Roy's shoddy journalism occurred about 6 months ago, when in a Card Player article he touted that "live public poker would be coming to Philadelphia in 2000." As someone who would find poker in Philadelphia quite convenient, I was pleased to read this information, and quite surprised since this was the first I'd heard of legal public poker in Phila.. I spent several hours trying to find out more specifics, only to find out that poker wasn't coming to Phila., and assumed that he'd just meant Philadelphia, MS, and irresponsibly didn't bother to specify "MS." TWO MONTHS later, Roy posted a retraction to RGP, claiming that he did mean Phila, PA, but his information was in error. You see, one of his friends had told him that poker was coming to Philadelphia, and the friend had heard from his wife that the PA legislature had legalized poker in Phila. In other words, Roy printed a completely unsubstantiated rumor that he heard from "a friend of a friend" in Card Player, without even attempting to verify the information. Given his track record, it doesn't surprise me in the least that he'd alter facts or exaggerate in order to boost his reputation or make himself look better.
Second, if he thinks you're "solid but unimaginative," then what the hell was he doing sticking around with QQ in the first place? Hindsight being 20-20 and all that, but he can't have his cake and eat it too. "Solid but unimaginative" is the right way to go against someone who gets married to an overpair.
-Sean
Whiner, er.. I mean Jim (Jest),
Each of us human creaturs have a tendency to see things through our own personalized looking glass. What may be construed as whining by one may be considered undirected frustration by another. Roy Cooke, yes I have played with the man, is no less human than you or me. Well, maybe me. I would rate him at the top of that god awful magazine's best writers. Let me digress here fo a minute. In the 5/26/00 issue of Card Player. Cooke and that real whiner, if you are to believe Sklansky, McEvoy were part of what I consider a mortal sin for a supposedly informative magazine. I picked up the rag, excuse me, mag to read Badger's article. I'll get to that later. When I was done with Badger's artivcle I decided to give McEvoy a chance and see what he had to offer. His article , "Nothing new under the sun?" More appropriately titled, IMO, Nothing new from McEvoy" was a complete waste of time. The theme of the article was that if you think you saw it all then think again. He ends the article by describing a hand from a tournament that saw set over set over set. He happened to be the bottom set so I guess that was made it unique. Now I may have let it go at that but I remebered seeing "Set over set over set" somewhere else in the mag. Sure enough, it was the title of the article just before McEvoy's! Written by none other than Roy Cooke. In that article he mentions two incidents of this "McEvoy" so called new under the sun phenomena. One involving a little old lady and one involving himself. He even mentions asking a friend if he had played the hand correctly. Some could construe that as whining. I wonder what he really said. My point here is that Card Player puts out two articles. One by McEvoy espousing the new under the sun phenomena that Cooke shows is just not that unique. And they put Cooke's article first. I will admit that Cook's article was good and relevant to thinking about poker but the editors at CP need to get together and review material before it gets put out. Since this is so long I will write my opinion about Badger artice "Rebounding" in another thread. If anyone is interested in reading my opinion that is.
Whiner sometimes, Vince.
Consider yourself posted :)
The boat gang says hi, we're all pulling for you.
Were you whining? Maybe. "It depends" on your tone of voice.
The thing that bothers me is that you haven't talked to Roy about the hand. Maybe he is hard to approach, but since the hand was so well discussed