![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I'm trying to get to sleep, but this issue is not letting me:
In my past few sessions I've had to deal with pairing the middle flop card a few times. I can't think of an exact example, so I'll create a hypothetical one. Say I'm holding 67 in the blind and the flop comes K72. In my first few sessions I've been check-folding against any action, and a few times I wound up laying down what would have turned into a winning set. Next session I decided to stick with these hands if I could make it to the turn for one bet, and it was indeed more profitable. However, I'm thinking that it was just short term luck and will not pay off in the long run. Here's why:
Odds of turning middle pair into a set is 2:45 on the turn and 2:44 on the river, which means that I need pot odds of at least 1:22 to stick with the hand. Even with implied odds after I make the set, pots usually don't get big enough to lay these odds. And not only that, but there's the chance that my made set has completed someone else's full house if they flopped top or bottom set. Then I'm just drawing dead except for my only out, which is quads, which is 1:44. Longshot city. So, by my math the only way to continue with middle pair is to either pray for a free turn card or wait for it to happen in an ENORMOUS pot (and would you stay with 67o in a capped preflop pot, even if everyone were in it?).
thanks for your comments, shooter
Your analysis only considers the possibility of turning a set. There are other ways to win with middle pair: you could bet out on the flop and everyone could fold; you could check the flop and raise the bettor on the flop; you could call the bettor on the flop and bet out on the turn; you could call the bettor on the flop and raise on the turn; and you could improve on the turn, not just to a set, but also to two pair, which gives you 3 additional outs.
Before trying these plays, though, you need to consider a number of factors: your table image, the style of play of the other players, the position of the bettor, the texture of the flop (K-7-2 is good for you), the action pre-flop, etc. I'll leave it for others to elaborate.
Good luck.
shooter,
With a screen name like shooter one would think you would be more aggressive ;-).
Anyway, think less about check-calling and think more about good situations to bet with middle pair. Per your example, if in the blinds in an unraised pot one should often be betting at a flop of K72 with a 67. This works best against about two to four opponents who normally come in for a raise with a good king. You will get it right then against average players more than your fair share. And if called in more than one place you can bet again if you make your five good outs, any baby card or a scary king. Against one caller, you can generally bet the turn no matter what comes.
I posted this without reading Andy's response yet and would not be surprised if he came up with the same basic idea.
Regards,
Rick
Here is where I save loads of bets. I just muck if there is action anything more is chasing and your "luck" may never catch up with your misses. You basically missed the flop. I just muck the rags and never look back.
So, Andy says that it depends on my table image and the situation, Rick says to bet out and be aggressive on the flop and the turn, and Rounder says to ditch the hand and forget it.
And I was worried about asking a question with an obvious answer! I've gotten three totally contrasting answers.
back to the drawing board. . .
shooter
That's why I always bring a die to the table. When I get in a pinch, I bring it out and roll for a solution. Raise? Fold? Even I go with decision number one. Odd is decision number two. More complex problems require each side to have its own choice. If things get really hairy, I bring out both dice and choose from 12 to 36 different actions that any of the experts claim to be correct for that given situation.
Now, some might say "hey, that doesn't work. Observant opponents will catch on to your die rolling tell."
To that I say most opponents aren't that observant anyway. And even if they are, I never say which side means what so they couldn't possibly know what I'm going to do.
I reccomend this technique for all those trying to bring their game to the next level.
Dan
Dan,
I like it. Do you think it will put my opponents on tilt?
Regards,
Rick
I don 't think Rick and I had totally different answers. I tried to point out some situations where you could win the pot even without help beyond the flop. Rick's response was quite similar.
Indeed, there are times when you should follow Rounder's advice and fold to any action, and times when you should be aggressive per Rick's advice. You need to consider many of the factors I listed in my earlier post. There are no "obvious" answers when you flop middle pair. Experience, knowledge of your opponents, flop texture, and pre-flop action need to be considered before a strategy decided upon.
Andy,
I thought we were pretty similar too. You went into more detail and I liked your post.
Regards,
Rick
:-)
General question.
Suppose you raise in middle position (first one in) with pocket Aces. Everyone else folds except for the BB who calls.
The flop comes innocuous. The BB checks. Do you think that it is ever correct to check (slow play) pocket Aces in this spot?
Suppose you KNOW that no matter what 2 cards the BB is holding, he will automatically bet the turn if you check.
I would contend that in this case, the right play might be to check the Aces and automatically raise the turn. You might not want to do this if the flop came with 2 connected cards or maybe even 2 suited cards, but I think that if it is completely uncoordinated (Q52 rainbow), this might be a perfect opportunity for this play.
Comments?
Yes, you can slowplay aces headsup on a rainbow flop, but only if you are not in a habit of automatically betting the flop as a preflop raiser.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Nore that if you limped in with aces and are against aggressive BB, the best play is check behind on flop, call the flop and raise the river. It's a small pot and losing it to a free card is not a big deal, but you can extract maximum from a weak hand.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
With most hands, two big cards, a draw or a pocket pair, you're going to bet the flop almost all of the time as soon as he checks. That may sound predictable, but it's the right thing to do. Therefore, if you check, even a weak player will often go on alert. Against most opponents, your checking the flop just makes their fold on the turn easier.
Of course, if you're sure he'll bet the turn if you check, by all means check. However, it's important that he also be willing to fold on the flop. If he isn't, checking the flop is usually a mistake.
After betting the flop, if I'm pretty sure my opponent hasn't improved by the turn and will almost certainly fold, my preference is the check there. This makes me look more conventionally weak and tends to induce a bluff or a call on the river with any pair.
I'll write this before reading Izmet's and Chris's response despite the risk of a "Fekali enema" if we disagree ;-).
Against one opponent, it is often correct to slowplay aces but a thinking opponent will often be suspicious if you check the flop unless he perceives you as a wimp of sorts who would check with overcards.
Now you wrote: "Suppose you KNOW that no matter what 2 cards the BB is holding, he will automatically bet the turn if you check. I would contend that in this case, the right play might be to check the Aces and automatically raise the turn."
I agree.
Then you wrote: "You might not want to do this if the flop came with 2 connected cards or maybe even 2 suited cards, but I think that if it is completely uncoordinated (Q52 rainbow), this might be a perfect opportunity for this play."
I think you got this backwards. With the suited or connected flop it is more likely he has a draw and you want to punish him now. With the rainbow, it is more likely he has nothing and you want to trap him.
Now I'll go check and see if I'm going to get that Fekali enema.
Regards,
Rick
Then you wrote: "You might not want to do this if the flop came with 2 connected cards or maybe even 2 suited cards, but I think that if it is completely uncoordinated (Q52 rainbow), this might be a perfect opportunity for this play."
Rick wrote: I think you got this backwards. With the suited or connected flop it is more likely he has a draw and you want to punish him now. With the rainbow, it is more likely he has nothing and you want to trap him.
Rick, maybe it's too early in the morning either in California or Germany (where I currently live), but it seems to me that we both said the same thing!
Puggy
Puggy,
I warn you that I just got up and haven't had more than half a cup of coffee yet -;) .
Now that I reread your post we did say the same thing. I was thinking of whether I would just call the turn bet or raise depending on how coordinated the turn looked. Against one opponent who would auto bet, I would just call again if it was somewhat uncoordinated (i.e., try to trap him). If the turn made the board a little bit scary (from my perspective), I would now raise just in case his hand is now coming within range of beating me.
Next time I'll finish my coffee first.
Regards,
Rick
I am in agreement with Chris Alger's analysis. The BB will expect you to bet, so why disappoint him. If you fall in the habit of checking with good hands, and betting out if the flop misses you in this situation, you will soon become easily "read" by observant opponents. What would you do if you had raised with AK, for example, and got a rag flop. If you have any hope of making someone with a small pair ever lay down, you had better be prepared to bet out to best leverage your position. Now on the other hand, if you develop some sort of random sequence where you check some good hands, and bet with others to become more unpredictable, that's another story. I still think you are better off in the long run betting your hand.
I find I can sometimes make the maximum by betting the flop, which my opponent expects me to do regardless of the flop, then checking behind him when he checks the turn. Lots of opponents will now bet the river and you can then either raise or call depending on the board; others will now call your bet with very little, figuring you for a steal with just two hight cards. You probably would have lost him on the turn but when you check they get suspicious.
Here's hand from a recent game. 5-10-20. Typical game. One or two tough players and,of course, some loosey goosey's as well. I've not been in many hands at all because I'm seeing no cards. I'm on the button and have pocket 7's. All pass to the weak player on my right who limps. I raise thinking it'll get me head's up with the limper. SB passes but BB calls and limper calls.
Flop 2 - 7 - 9 (rainbow). BB, who is a strong player checks as does weak limper. First, I hardly ever slowplay and choose to check. There's not a card in the deck that's really scary on the turn except maybe an 8. Any card J or higher could easily give someone a second best hand that they think makes'em best. Anyway I check and when I do the BB seems a little disappointed. (I think he was trying to check raise)
Turn card is a K (I don't remember if it put a flush draw out or not). BB bets, limper calls, I raise, BB reraises, limper says "I gotta a draw now" and calls, I cap it and BB and limper calls.
River is a 9. BB checks, limper checks, and I bet. BB shows a K7 hearts, says "that 9 saved you" and mucks, preflop limper mucks and I drag a pot big enough to put me on the right side of things. (I was stuck about 60 bucks from blinds and flop folding.)
Anyway the point of this is that I think that my river bet was a loser. The BB could easily have had a bigger full house (most likely K9 from all the action on the turn, although 97 is possible but I don't think he'd check two pair on the flop.)
Would anyone on this forum check it down on the river here? Or is a bet almost always correct? I'm not advocating weak play but it seems that my hand here isn't nearly as good as it seems.
BTW, I respect the BB as a player but I'm not in "fear" of him. On the turn I know my hand is good because he knows I don't have trip kings so he'll give plenty of action thinking I'm on AA or AK or AQ. In fact that's what he put me on when he mucked at the river. Also, if I'd have bet the flop BB probably would've checkraised and forced the preflop limper to my immediate right out, and I wouldn't have got his action on the turn either. (I know preflop limper could've hit hit 10 or J or Q, whichever inside straight draw he was on to beat me but I'll take those odds every hand if possible.)
chris
Go ahead and bet on the end. This weak player wouldn't have checked anything that strong with all that action but probably has a calling hand(A-9 or KQ) BTW, where do you play 5-10-20.
R
3 handed Pot-Limit HE game with 1-2and live 4. You can bring it in for 20. I'm up about $800, player B is a maniac gambler who will play any two cards and bluff with any 2 cards(Up 150) and player C is decent player but his luck is running badly.(Stuck 900) Player B already stuck it to him when decent player had AQ and maniac had 7-3o and the flop came AQ7. Decent bet 60 and maniac called. The turn was a 7 and can you hear a rebuy. Anyway, the last hand of the night goes as follows. I'm in the small blind with 88. Maniac is in the BB with Q8h and decent player has AA. I bring it in for $20 and maniac calls. Player C (BTW. he is short stacked) raises to $60. I know he has a big hand but he only has $125-150 more and I'm trying to take maniac's stack.
The flop comes 7-3-2 with 2 hearts. I bet $70 and Player B calls. Decent player puts in the rest of his money and we both call. The turn is the 8s. I have top set and maniac has a pair and flush draw. I bet my remaining $400 and maniac calls. The river is the 6h and maniac takes the whole enchilada. Since this occurrence player C can not let it go and continues to go on about how lucky I was to catch the 8 in the 1st place. I keep telling him that he's an idiot and I wasn't after his lil' short stack and that I was a huge favorite to take down the side pot and I was actually very unlucky. I stuck in my stack with top set which at the time was the nuts...How much more can I ask for? I told him that it was not near as unlucky as the last time we played. I stuck my $500 in before the flop with AA against QQ. One player is all I had to beat and not 2. Obviously, a Queen came and I lost but I thought that was worse then his. I would have loved for 2 blanks to come and took the side pot and he could have the main but he still doesn't get it. Who got punked harder? Me with all my money in before the flop with AA against 1 opponent or him with 1/3 of his money in pre-flop with AA against 2 opponents? I'm no math genius but I think it's obvious. I have had 2 bad run-ins with Pot-Limit but I still enjoy it very much. I haven't committed my chips w/o the best of it yet so I'm not really upset other then losing money. I have replayed the 8's in my head and it's just a hand I couldn't win. Oh well, there will be more. My friend doesn't post on 2 plus 2 but I'm going to get him to read your responses.
Razor
You did. AA is a big fav against QQ - getting your money in pre flop was a good move he hit his 2 outer.
AA against 2 players with all the collective outs is much less of a fav.
I was playing in a Limit HE tournament a couple of weeks ago and had AA got in a raising war with KK - we raised out 2 wood be players and I commented after I won the hand I was glad the other players mucked when they did.
A local player said you want them in - I disagreeed - I said I wanted to win the pot heads up not take a chance against 2 more players with many collective outs that would beat me. Rather double up than lose a big one any day.
You got punked harder but at least the other guy had a real hand. Your call with the 8's is pretty nasty. Why not wait for a better spot against the maniac? Your 88's are jack shit against any higher pair and barely a favorite against two overcards. You also know you're gonna be paying a lot more after the flop when your friend moves in his stack or bets the maximum. Are you anticipating the maniac calling you down to the river with no draw and no pair? Cause just about any pair he could conceivably pick up has a good chance at being better than your 8's. Sounds like you can't get away from a hand and use implied odds as a bad reason to play. The maniac calls preflop with 73o and calls a max bet on the flop of AQ7 with 73o and you're rushing to get into a confrontation with him?
Poker Prodigy,
The guy with the aces could not hurt me at all! He only had 150 in front of him and already 60 in the pot. If the maniac catches any piece of the flop I will take down his stack if I A. Flop a set(7 1/2-1) or B. He flops a draw and doesn't improve. Any two overcards and he would have re-raised pre-flop!
I think 7 1/2 -1 is pretty good odds to risk 60 to win 800. Unless I'm not a math prodigy that would be better then 13-1 and that's not including him just picking up a draw and missing. I could be wrong but I don't think so in this case but you were right about one thing...I got punked
Later,
Razor
Here is a 5-10 hand I played recently: I was in the big blind holding Jh 8h, everyone folded to the small blind, he raised, I called. The flop came J x x, the small blind bet, what is my best move? Should I raise on the flop, then fold to a reraise? Should I call on the flop and look at the turn card before raising? If I do this, do I fold if the turn is an overcard and he bets into me? I know that I have not provided a lot of info here, but I had just sat down at the table and had no prior knowledge of the small blind's play.
Thanks, Brian Flanagan
Brian,
Your call of the big blind is correct getting 3.4 to 1 minus rake. In fact your call with almost anything here unless you know the small blind will only raise with the biggest pairs. Then you would still call most hands getting those odds head up where you cannot be squeezed if you flop something.
Now you have flopped top pair, no kicker. Not knowing the opponent, I would at least call him down. Head up there are just too many hands a random opponent can have and you should not get pushed off too easily.
But the better play may be to raise the flop when he bets. I'd like to know the opponent a bit more before making this play. Let's say he reraised. First, this doesn't mean overpair against anyone with any play to him. Plus you will now be getting 7 to 1 on your call and you would have five outs minus redraws. But the fact is he more likely has overcards or even only one overcard or an underpair so I still would want to call him down.
If he has one of the weaker hands (especially overcards), don't be surprised if he checks behind you on the turn. This may mean that the best play may be to call the flop and lead the turn. From there on it gets more complicated and maybe others will step in as I need to get ready for work soon.
Anyway, I wanted to write a brief response but I have rambled a bit and my coffee is finally made. The point is that you cannot get pushed off a hand too easily when you have position on a raiser and you know the raiser knows it will be heads up (unlike an UTG raise by a solid player where it would be correct to throw away a dominated king in the blind).
I'm sure others will weigh in and further confuse you :-).
Regards,
Rick
I think that any reasonable person would raise with one person to go when in the SB and a slightly better than average hand. Do you call? Debatable. Personally, I'm not too sure I would unless I had a better read on the player. Your hand, suited or not, is still pretty close to average. Let's face it, if you flop a four flush you're going to drop. So your hand is average, his hand stands a reasonable chance to being anywhere from slightly better to completely dominating over you. But then again, it might not be. So you flip a coin, it comes up heads, and you throw in your 5 bucks.
Now the flop comes. It doesn't smack you...but it's a nice tap on the shoulder. "psst," it whispers. "Bet me." Your only option is to raise. There's a good chance that even overcards will fold to your raise and there's a really good chance that whatever he has, you beat it right now, with or without your kicker. If nothing else, your raise, assuming it's not reraised, asserts your control when the turn comes.
If he reraises you, or if he calls your raise and an overcard comes on the turn which he bets, you might want to consider going into call mode through the river...or just flat out folding. I can't tell you which one is better. Like most decisions, the situation dictates the action.
Dan
Do you call? Debatable. Personally, I'm not too sure I would unless I had a better read on the player.
Calling an open raise from the SB while holding J8s in the BB is *debateable*? Anyone who folds here with J8s against an opponent that isn't a known rock (or known to be very passive in the small blind specifically) is a fish of the weak-tight variety.
Your hand, suited or not, is still pretty close to average.
Which means it's an easy call. When the small blind raises, you're getting 3:1 on your call, and you have position. As such you should call here with the majority of your hands, and J8s is in the top 1/3 or so.
Let's face it, if you flop a four flush you're going to drop.
Huh? Why in the world would you fold a four flush??? You should probably raise your four flush at some point, not fold it.
If he reraises you, or if he calls your raise and an overcard comes on the turn which he bets, you might want to consider going into call mode through the river...or just flat out folding.
You should almost never fold top pair in a heads up situation versus someone in steal position just because they three-bet the flop, unless that opponent is terribly predictable.
-Sean
i pretty much agree with rick.
"but rick didn't decide on any particular play," you protest.
exactly. don't fold. raise now or raise later or raise never. you have a lot of leeway heads up.
what i would do would be heavily intuition dependent, but right now i am feeling call the flop. bet the turn if checked to. raise the the turn if a blank falls. if a big card falls call him down.
one reason not to raise the flop is that almost any player will call one more small bet to see the turn card.
scott
"one reason not to raise the flop is that almost any player will call one more small bet to see the turn card. "
This might be a reason TO raise the flop if the player seems semi-weak tight. You can get an extra bet out of him here when he folds on the turn anyway.
Puggy
most playersm, who are holding little or nothing in the sb here, will bet the turn and fold to raise if they still have nothing. or call a flop raise then check fold the turn when they miss. you make one more sb with the best hand by raising later. if the guy is so weak tight my flop call causes him to check the turn, then yes, i raise the flop for value.
scott
mighty good point...
Brian,
I would definitely raise the flop. With top pair against one opponent, you are a clear favorite to have the best hand. Your poor kicker is not a major concern heads up against a possible steal attempt. If he has even one overcard, you want him to fold now rather than drawing out on you later in the hand. A reraise from your opponent would slow me down, but I would not release the hand, I would call him down all the way to the river.
His preflop raise was very likely an attempt to steal the blind, and his bet on the flop could very well be a bluff, semibluff, or a bet "to find out where he stands". It might be different if you knew what kind of player your opponent was, but don't let an unkown opponent outplay you when you are a clear favorite to have the best hand.
-Kevin
....., because of the dirty behavior of a Maniac
I was in a game 6-12 TH, by the time I reach the “river I was drawing for a “Strait” and the other opponent was drawing for a “Flash”.
The “river comes and neither of us make the hand.
The other guy, as soon as the “river” card hits the felt is calling his hand; saying loud Flash!! – me, being disappointed slam the cards on the table face down, believing that the guy is got his Flash. The dealer see the guy’s cards that are not “flash” and is saying that he cannot do this ( calling his hand ) but only because my cards are not both face up he get the POT money ( aprox $200 ). One of my cards was face down and the other was face UP. The King from my cards was face up but the other was face down.
The other guy had garbage ( 2 small red cards, a 3 & 6 red ). So, my hand would have been stronger, but the pot money goes to him, according to the dealer!
Believing of not, the guy accepts the money, and continue to stay there like a PIG!
I may have been wrong when I slam the cards on the table, but I’m convinced that you cannot call verbally your hand saying i.e. FLASH!, just to confuse the other player!
That’s dirty poker by my standards and it should not be allowed to happen.
I call the pit boss over, but he was saying that because my cards looks like I was throwing my hand away the rules give the other guy the money!
Nevertheless, the guy keep playing, a lose all his money by the end of the night. I make some money by the end, but I was frustrated by the fact that somebody is allowed to just b.s. call his hand in purpose to mess things up!
The entire incident has happened in Bay 101 Club.
Go Get’s all!
I fell for a similiar angle when I first started. It only cost me 30$.Look at the bright side you will never fall for that again,lesson learned.
If I was called over as floorman you would have got the pot if those facts were verified. This would be based on some latitude the Los Angeles rule book gives me and the desire to apply the principle of what is fair. I'll elaborate further late tonight if anyone is interested.
Regards,
Rick
Correct me if I'm wrong, but cards speak, right? And even if you "muck" your hand, if it hasn't been completely mucked (as in combined with the other cards) and can both be turned over you can get the pot regardless.
If it happened that one card was completely mucked, while the key card, the king, was still up...I have no idea. I'm not a rules expert.
Dan
If you slammed your cards down in front of you and not toward the dealer as in mucking, and you didn't say 'you win', why didn't the dealer tell you to turn both cards over? Your message said the floorman said it looked like you threw them away. If the cards were in front of you with one card up it looks like a bad call. Once when I had a winner I only showed the card that made a straight and the dealer said turn both over since each player had to have both cards turned over.
I don't understand why cardrooms continue to tolerate angle-shooting like this, but on the other hand as long as we remember that cards, and not players, speak, we won't have this problem.
Cards do speak but all cards must be turned face up
(because of the possible chance of ringer cards)
The question is, were both of your cards still in front of you? If one of your cards made it into (touched) the muck, you have a dead hand, and therefore cannot win the pot, even if the single card that was remaining made a winning hand. A dealer cannot read an incomplete hand, so ypu must have both cards to have a "complete hand". I guess the important thing here is never release your cards until you see that you are beaten (not TOLD that you are beaten) or you are pushed the pot.
If in fact both your cards were free of the muck, the floorman made a very bad mistake.
Mike
You shouldve gotten the pot. I had something similar to that happen to me. I had bottom pair by the river and it was checked around nobody bet and everyone had high cards i mucked my hand but before the dealer mixed it with the pile i realized my mistake and spoke up. The dealer turned over my cards and awarded my the pot. It shoud have been yours.
actually, you should have won the pot, because you should have held onto your winning hand, in fact, in this casem the dealer made a mistake by awarding you the pot. Just because a hand isn't mixed into the muck, doesn't mean it isn't dead. It only has to *touch* the muck to be considered dead
Is the dealer's hand part of the muck ? In other words can a player ask for his cards back while the dealer still has them cuffed, before he puts them in the muck? This happened to me once when a player dished a winning hand then asked for it back, the floorman gave it to him.
Mike,
In Los Angeles a hand can hit the muck and still be retrieved if it is in the best interest of the game.
I can provide some examples if you are interested but email me (to notify me of your post) as I am hardly able to keep up as I am pretty busy right now.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I work as a floorman at Hollywood Park
Was out of town on business yesterday, and dropped into their local casino. One game going: 5-10 Dealer's Choice. Couple of the players I recognized and vice-versa, but most of the crowd unknown to me, and I assume me to them as well.
Had played about 45 minutes, and had not yet picked up a hand worthy of putting money in voluntarily. Was down about $30 just from blinds. Game had got a little short-handed (7 players) so we had gone to 1 blind of $5. I pick up the red Q's in the blind. Four limpers, I decide to raise. Everyone of course calls.
Flop comes down Js-Jc-4h. I bet out and they all call. At this point, I strongly suspect someone has caught trip Jack's and is waiting to pop me on the turn. Much to my delight, the turn card is the Qc. Now I suppose I could have slowplayed it, but my thought was, "What could they have possibly called with after that flop?" I figured I would get paid off by anyone with a pocket pair, perhaps, and certainly anyone who had caught a Jack was going to raise. So I go ahead and bet, and they all folded.
Did I get too aggressive on the turn, or was betting out correct? Thoughts?
Dunc,
You should probably check. You have a very strong hand and chances are minimal that somebody will draw out on you, so you want to get as much money as possible into the pot. Betting in the hopes that someone will raise with 3 jacks, has the effect of driving out weak opponents who otherwise might put in some money. If you run into 3 jacks, you still may get to check-raise, depending whether this will get the most money in the pot.
If somebody has 3 jacks, they are going to bet. Heck, if it's checked around to the button, somebody in late position might even try to steal it with little or nothing in his hand.
If a bet comes from early position, right behind you, I would check-raise as this will get the most money in the pot. If a bet comes from late position with several players in between, I would smooth call so as not to drive anyone out.
If a raising war happens to develop on the turn, get in there and put in some raises with the other aggressors.
Even if nobody bets the turn, your check will encourage people to call you on the river, "on suspicion".
In any event, I would bet the river. Heck, you might even get raised (probably by 3 jacks or maybe a smaller full house), in which case take the gloves off and reraise.
So far I have neglected the remote possibility of being up against pocket jacks. If you are against this, you will start to figure it out around the 4th or 5th raise, at which point you have to step on the brakes.
-Kevin
I know my hand was super-strong; in fact, about the only was I could be beat is for someone with Jx to catch a 1-outer at the river. Anyone with AA, KK, or JJ would have in all probability raised pre-flop, right? My point was that I guess I gave these players too much credit, given the fact I didn't know many of them at all. My thought process was that anyone who had called that flop after a raise out of the blind was NOT likely to fold the turn. Now obviously they all can't have trip Jack's, but I did not expect the whole crew to fold to 1 more bet. I felt betting out was one way to get as much money as possible into the pot. Once I had played a couple of hours with these guys, I learned that they were horrible players who were calling with a hope and a prayer, and I should have slow-played my nut full. I went home with a couple hundred profit after 3 hours, so it wasn't like this one hand ruined my night or anything; it just bugged me a bit at the time.
No! Dunc, you weren't making one cent more on this hand.
I have to say that you played the hand correctly. Four callers smooth calling, you have to figure that one of them has the jack or at least a four because there is no flush or straight draw present. There's probably a small pocket pair or Ax present as well, I mean what else can they be calling with.
If you check, the only player who's going to bet is a jack, because what kind of queen would have called your flop bet without having raised pre-flop? Even QT isn't going to bet now, probably. So, you could go for the check-raise, but I prefer the bet because any jack will raise, allowing you to three-bet. If you are lucky enough for two jacks to be out then it's cash city, especially if one has a good kicker. Plus, you raised pre-flop which doesn't suggest that many jacks other than AJ or, very remotely, JJ. Anyone thinking might put you on overcards or overpair (which you had).
Since there wasn't any jacks out there, everyone believed you had the jack or overpair. Had you checked and then bet the river, you might have gotten one more call from someone suspicious, but you would have foresaked the possible raising war that would have happened on the turn. Such a raising war wouldn't happen on the river because the jack would have already sprung to life. So, I agree with the way you played it wholeheartedly.
Later, you say, it turns out that these players are terrible. So, the bet is still correct. If they are really that weak let 'em call, if they are strong they'll raise anyway.
Consider the requirements for slowplaying in TOP and I don't think they are present here. No one is going to improve, if they've got it, they've got it already. Keep betting because it's the only way to win a big pot which is the kind you want with your hand.
MDMAniac
I think your analysis of the hand was correct and I would have played it the same way. I would have been positive that atleast one J was out there (what else would they be calling with? a 4?) and would have had the same thought process as you. I would have bet out hoping to get raised, then depending on the player and the position either called or reraised. If i call I check raise on the river, it depepends on the other player and how aggressive he is if I think he would play back at me on the turn, I would absolutley reraise if I think a reraise will scare him then I'd just call but as far as the way you played the hand I see nothing wrong with it. Just my opinion, I'm certainly no expert.
x
I think the hand could have been played either way. By betting, you could get calls from players who maybe picked up a draw which they wouldn't have bet.. By checking, you allow players to catch a K or A on the river with which they might call you down. I don't see how anyone could strongly disagree with either strategy nor why you should be upset over your decision to bet.
Good luck.
If they all folded to your turn bet then they had nothing (not even a draw). So you would not have gotten anything out of them on the river either.
Betting here is the smart move. If someone has the jacks or a str8 draw they will probably pay you off here. Jacks might raise you and you can re-raise.
Maybe you could have gotten one bet out of a bluffer by checking the turn AND the river, but it's hardly worth it. I think you will make much more $$ in the long run the way you played it.
Sean
I rarely say anything while playing a hand (less than once per session), but this week-end the following situation arose early in the session. In two orbits I called once and have put no other voluntary money in the pot. Seems like a cozy game.
4 players called, I called on the button, SB folded and BB checked. Flop was T22. Everybody checked. Turn was 7, everybody checked. River was 5, everybody checked to me...
As I bet, I said "My hand is weak so a check-raise bluff will probably work."
What do you think?
- Louie
Sounds like A5 suited (maybe even 56 or 45), and you're trying to deter someone with a 7 from raising you, since you'll call anyway, but don't want to.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Why didn't you bet the flop... seems like a good place to try for a steal (and if you have ace high you might have the best hand on the flop)
Shawn
I think it works if you're not planning on calling every check raise and figure it will deter some of the possible check-raise bluffs. For that purpose, in fact, I think it would work very well.
Louie is a 60-120+ caliber pro (I'm not sure what level he plays, but he talks that good a game), therefore his tell is in the opposite direction from normal. Let's see, normally someone would say that with a weak hand trying to appear strong by trying to appear weak, so Louie must have a strong hand, perhaps 55 for fives full of deuces or even 22 for quad deuces. Cha-ching?
-Abdul
I'm not a top caliber pro but I made a comment tonight during a hand and I don't do it much at all either. I had pocket 4's and there was a raise and 2 calls to me. I called and 2 others did too. The flop came 4-4-A...Hallelujah Jesus! I couldn't check quick enough and it was 30 to me in a heartbeat. I just called. On the turn the obvious ace bet out and I called...Everybody dropped. The last card was a Q and it looked as though he liked it so I said...I know that card helped you but if you bet I'm gonna raise you! He did bet and I did raise and took down a nice one. He later whispered that my saying that made him think I had nothing and it gained me $60. Not a fortune but 2 big bets nonetheless.
Razor
I think everone with less than pair of sevens will fold and I think that you either were being honest or had 2,2.
Vince.
I think if you were on a flat-out steal, it would be risky to say anything. They've seen you soup for two rounds, they've checked three consecutive rounds, what is to be gained by saying something now unless you've got big'uns? Nobody else has a T or a 2, so you're hoping someone caught a 5 or will call with no pair.
i would have checkraised bluffed you and won the pot.(dont let me down im sticking my neck out against the heavy opposite opinion.)
This reminds me of the "poisoned chalice" scene from the movie "The Princess Bride". As you will recall, Barzini (Wallace Shawn) poisons one of two chalices of wine and then offers one to Robert (Cary Elwes). Robert distracts Barzini and rearranges the chalices. Barzini then tries to divine which of the chalices is poisoned (did he switch the chalices or leave them in the same position hoping that I would think he switched them? etc.). Turns out Robert had developed an immunity to the poison over time by taking small amounts of it.
THEREFORE, I can safely say that you have a big hand. I would not take the bait. You should never try to use reverse reverse psychology on a Sicilian.
You have a monster.
If you were using reverse reverse reverse psychology, as I think Vincent Lepore suggested, you are up on a level where I don't think your opponents can catch on.
I'm sorry -- Ray Zee was the one who suggested you were using reverse reverse reverse psychology and that he would raise you.
Actually, Robert poisoned BOTH chalices. It was his proposition bet, but the prop was that he would poison one chalice, and Barzini, with his greater intellect, should be able to determine which chalice was poisoned. As you indicated, Robert had developed an immunity to the poison, so he merely poisoned both chalices, and therefore didn't care which one Barzini picked to drink.
This is related to Mike Caro's advice. He has suggested that a good way to food an opponent is to suggest 2 possibilities. Often, when you do this, the opponent is working so hard on figuring out which one is true, that he forgets to consider any third or fourth possibilities (the truth).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Nice! I couldn't remember how he got the poison into both chalices, so skipped that. Very good analogy to Caro's table talk. appreciate your appreciation of my allusion. I have added a new layer of admiration for you.
"that a good way to food an opponent "
Fossilman,
Could the above be considered a "foodean slip"?
Vince.
BTW - You seem to have confused me with a good analogy made complex by to many possibilities. I like the "Barzini" reference even though I haven't seen the movie. The point here is that most players will base there call on hand strength alone in this situation. Pot odds are certainly not there. Maybe that is the key. Maybe Louie, Brilliant as he is, is saying "Please Call, I have a monster, knowing that almost all players will fold.
BTW I checked, and it's "Vizzini", not Barzini. It's a crime to never have seen the movie.
"Barzini" is the name of a Mafia Boss in the "God Father". I thought it was odd.
Vince
I love both movies! Interesting amalgam -- maybe there should be a combination of the two. "The Princess Don"? "The Mafia Bride"?
I like what Gregg said that you probably had something like A5 or K5. No I don't think you had quads. You can loose the pot to somebody who is rather unknown to you.
Scott and Greg are on the right track, although I'm a little surprised Greg didn't follow through with the correct conclusion.
In the movie the Sicilian switched cups unbeknownst to hero, and as he began to "drink" he gauged hero's reaction which was passive. Sicilan then figured Hero figured HE had the OK cup meaning the Sicilian must have had the OK cup and he proceeded to actually drink. HaHaDOH! Hero was calm since it didn't matter one iota what the Sicilian did since both cups were poisoned and he had the immunity.
Hero didn't actually SAY only one cup was poisoned but let it be "obviously" infered. So, as Greg pointed out he had already fooled the Sicilian into the either or guessing game. The Sicilian wasted time playing a game he couldn't win rather than figuring if he should actually play at all.
Back to the hand. Its REALLY obvious that nobody, including me, has very much if anything. By suggesting that a bluff-raise will probably work I get them thinking whether a bluff-raise will probably work or not (no duh); which has the unsaid but "obvious" inference that I have a hand "strong" enough that they need to bluff to win (such as a stiff 5). They thus don't bother thinking a CALL will work...
... which of course it would since I obviously had nothing. It was a waste of time since the bluff was a done deal anyway.
- Louie
Like my Grand-Master's Bridge, President of the US, and NFL Quarter-Back careers, I kabitz better than I play.
.
Since its "obvious" nobody has much especially ME, having checked twice in last position; this is a prime check-raise bluff situation and thus Ray's response. This has nothing to do with the comment, however; which was the focus of the post.
- Louie
Playing in a mostly loose 4-8 Hold'em game in the BB. Two positions from my left a moderateley tight player who is down to about $25 in front of him open raised the pot and two of the loose guys cold called. I had the 74 of clubs and had been givin up on a lot of my BB's lateley so I decided to make one of those periodic loose calls for the session. Is this too loose? I usually make 1-3 of these calls per session (usually 6-8hrs) because I play so damn tight that even the idiots start to notice. Anyways I took down a big pot because I flopped top and bottom pair and the opener had pocket tens. Well I got chewed out and started to wonder if my call was a little too loose or way too loose. Anyways what do you guys think? Goat.
Some times you have to do what you have to do.
A few loose calls a session keeps the yahoos guessing and that is good.
If you're not calling with 74s in BB for one bet, sharks will soon be swarming your hometown to play you when the word gets out.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
a routine call for me. especially in a tight game.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Goat,
I'll put in my two cents without looking at the answers posted so far (although I'm sure Rounder said you were way too loose).
I would need only one more caller to call it about a break even call in the blind with a small, suited, double gapper. Remember, you call closes the raising. Next, you are calling with a hand that will not get you into much trouble (as opposed to a hand such as KT off suit which will often be up against a better king raising UTG).
So if this was a leak it was a pretty small one. You could probably plug it with some chewing gum.
Regards,
Rick
A good "loose"call. There's already $30 in the pot and you can close the betting for $4. I'll take my chances with those odds with 7-4s.
I'd like to call in this spot more times than not. However I think I would have mucked it here. The two loose cold callers might have your 7 in their hand or even a 4 which reduces you chances of winning with a small pair. Also the original raiser is short on chips. But how short. He's got enough to charge you if you flop a draw but does not have enough to pay you off if you make it. You are not getting implied odds from this guy and he would be the most likely to give you good action if you flop something if he really does have something.
What makes you think the cold caller have a 7 or 4 in their hand? Of course it's possible but why more than any other card? I think it's an easy call because you're closing the betting and can get away from it real cheap.
"What makes you think the cold caller have a 7 or 4 in their hand? Of course it's possible but why more than any other card?"
I don't actually think they have a 7 or a 4 but it is the possibility that they will play more card combination which might actually have these cards that I consider a slight minus. For example:
loose players: 57s, 67s, 78s, 79s, 7Ts, 7Ks, 78o
maybe a little tighter players: 67s, 78s, 79s
tight players: none of the above
I remember that when I played the lower limit most loose players didn't really mind calling with all these hands. For me all this means is when I make a pair I have more things to worry about. Maybe something like calling a early raiser with KT or QJ. I would like to have the added equity of knowing that chances are if I make a pair of 4's or 7's that nobody will have me outkicked and maybe I can win with just a small pair or as an example:
Flop is K 7 2 (offsuit). I check. Raiser bets and both callers call. Pot = 11.5. I'm getting 11.5 to 1 and odds are 8.4 to 1 to spike 2 pair. These callers are loose so I guess the question is do they have my 7. If they do I'm a cooked goose.
P.S just a small minus to me when considering whether to call or not.
Hi there!
I'm GoldFish, have been playing poker for a few months, read HFAP, Krieger, and Lee Jones, and enjoy this forum even more than those books.
Check-calling is often quoted as the typical example of weak-tight play. There are no doubt exceptions where check-calling is fine, and I wondered if the following situation would fall into that category.
I'll explain the reasons for check-calling all the way till the end, and hope to be severely criticized for my inadequate thoughts.
I'm on the button with KJo.
3 limp in, and I just call. Reason: although this hand probably does not play well in a large pot, raising here would not get anyone out, and the hand is way too weak for raising. The blinds call, leaving 6 in the hand (confirming the loose-passiveness of the game).
Flop comes K 9 4 rainbow.
BB bets, 2 fold, I just call. Reason: Although the flop is one of the better ones for my KJo, I cannot be very sure the bettor does not have a better kicker, or 2 pair, or trips. Moreover, since there are not many overcards that could hurt me, I did not feel I had to chase out drawing hands. SB folds. 3 of us are left.
Turn is a 7. BB bets again. 3rd player folds, and I, again, just call. Reason: I thought this was a typical situation where my raise would only be called by a hand that would beat me. Apart from that, I don't see any hand I would like to chase out. In other words, either I am beaten already or I would chase out a weaker hand. And folding with top pair, no way!
River is another blank. BB bets again, and I just call. Reason, basically the same as before.
BB turns over KTo.
Although one might argue, given this result, that one could have put more bets in the pot, I would guess that on average (with BB having different hands) you would lose money by being more aggressive here.
GoldFish
Since everyone limped in, I would assume that he is betting top pair with a weak kicker to find out where he stands. I think you should have raised him on the flop to represent two pair. Since two pair will usually check-raise or reraise from early position and trips will call a raise so he does not lose you.
KJo is a pretty weak holding for a multi-handed pot and I might even consider folding this preflop.
However, once the flop comes, you could consider raising - by just check-calling you risk calling all the way to the river and losing to AK or KQ. However, if you raised on the flop, you might scare AK or AQ into checking the turn - saving you money when you're going to lose. Also, you would be re-raised by K9 or K4 and you could fold, also saving you money if you lose.
With this hand and this flop, there are many ways to lose, and the best play is the one that minimizes your loss - and raising actually does this better than check-calling.
~DjTj
I see your point, thanks. But if the BB is an aggressive player, I suppose you would not try to raise/fold on the flop, as you won't stop him from betting anyway. Agree?
If you raise after the flop his actions should give you a very good indication of what he has. If he reraises you, you have to figure that his kicker is better than yours. So, then you fold and save money. If he does not reraise you ( especially if you know that he is aggressive ) then you can put him on a weaker kicker which allows you to be more aggressive.
If your on the button you weren't checking and calling when the BB bet out...You were just calling. I probably would have popped the flop to get him to check on the turn or find out a little more but you didn't describe the BB.
You played it right in most cases. There is nothing to draw to, your hand is very likely to be best, and you can chase out players you don't want to chase by raising. You also can't chase out better hands. With more players in, you'd want to chase out more players.
Read the "Playing in extremely tight games" section of HPFAP. Then ask yourself if somewhat frequent check and call players are weak-tight.
GoldFish--
I think that your preflop call might be a little shaky, but I would probably do the same given the situation.
I would raise on the flop because you're on the button. No, you aren't going to get a better hand to fold, but you aren't going to get any information either. If you are reraised, you can probably drop because he ain't going to reraise with KT or worse, unless you know him to be capable of something like that. Plus, what does he have that's better? Maybe two pair, but any big king he probably would've raised with. If you raise, you find out. You don't have to worry about losing worse hands becuase they will call one more bet because they have better odds Keep in mind with a lot of people calling, there are second pair/singleton aces out there. Nothing wrong with charging them a little more.
On the turn he'll check, I would bet. If check-raised I'd consider how tricky he is. I'm assuming this is low-limit so I would probably fold, since most players ain't tricky enough to check-raise the turn with a worse hand then you have. If they all call, you should feel good.
Make your river decision like you normally would. Your way of playing isn't terrible, but you probably cost yourself a couple of bets. Plus, it never hurts to have an aggressive image.
MDMAniac
In a 15/30, 2/3 chip blind game.
I'm in the SB with QQ. UTG, a local pro/host raises and folded to me. I reraise, BB drops, and UTG reraises, I just call heads up.
UTG and I have juked each other before with bluff inducing etc, and playing at multi levels of thinking. He is tough, aggressive, will bluff, and keep the pressure on.
Anyway, The flop comes Axx rainbow.
I check call - I don't like betting into this player since he is unlikely to give up information by calling or raising predictably. He is likely to raise with most hands. Many times I will lead bet against most players. Others, I might check raise and lead on the turn.
The turn is a Ten I check call again. Since i check-called the flop, check calling the the turn is very reasonable to me since this maximizes bluff inducement and minimizes loss to a better hand.
The river is a Jo. I Bet out! He looks at me and flashes KK and folds! I managed to make the under pair good after bets on every round! This is a very rare betting sequence for me and only attempted against the pro. I probably would have called an aggressive river bet and he is the type to keep the pressure on and of course capable of tough folds.
I'm just wondering if the more "straight forward" sequence of check-raising the flop and leading on the turn with plans to fold against a turn raise, may have been a little better/safer.
Anyway, The multi level thinking led me to some quick and dirty bayesian analysis with a hint of game theory bluffing on the river. I believe I had pot odds to bluff a weak but better hand out.
I hate playing against tough players. You have tough decisions and you either look like a hero or a total idiot. If he had AK, I would look like an idiot or a total fish.
Any comments on any level would be great. In this situation I played his hand more than I played mine.
hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
Albert,
It's late and I'm thinking only on level 1.9 right now but I like the bet on the river. You have to call his bet given the fact that you have played so passively (which was not wrong) and the only hands he could have that he would raise with would beat you so you could fold to a raise.
But the hand he had was a real possibility considering his cap pre flop and the fact that one ace, one jack and two queens are already out. So kings is the most likely pair. Many of these players will lay down kings to a surprise bet. He probably figured that if you were betting now it was because you feared he would check behind with a weaker hand than two pair. Good play.
Regards,
Rick
I'm not sure about this one Rick.
The pro sounds like an aggressive player who would play AK the same way that he would play the kings.
After the flop, I count 12 ways he could have AK, 3 ways for AA, and 6 ways for KK. And even if you're "lucky" and he does have kings, you can't be sure to get him to lay them down.
Yes, there are 9.5:1 odds to call the flop bet, but against an aggressive player, you are most certainly going to have to pay 5 more small bets (to win about 14 total).
Maybe I'm thinking fuzzily on this one, but I think you should just lay the Qs down on the flop.
Puggy
Puggy,
There is a small chance that I was winning all along and that he would call with a worse hand. or fold a slightly better hand. One of those "two way river bets"
There is no way I can lay down QQ on the flop with this player. If I check he will bet any pair and if I bet he will many times raise with under pairs to maintain the lead and positional advantage.
I must admit the J was a scary card for me on the river. Luckily it was for him too. It is not inconceivable that he would play A9s the same way.
Basically I mimicked a slow play here or two pair/set on the river.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
You say he is a tough pro but I've got to wonder about that since he showed his KK. Unless he wants to increase your perception of his ability to fold.
20-40, I am on the button with As-9s. Loose player limps from middle position, another loose player limps behind him and I limp as well. Small blind, who is also loose, calls and big blind, unknown player, doesn't raise. Five of us take the flop.
Flop comes A-Q-3 rainbow with no spades. Small blind bets, big blind folds, both limpers call and I call. Turn is a red 7. All check to me. I bet. Small blind raises. Both limpers cold call! I call.
River is 2s. Small blind bets, both limpers fold and I call. Small blind has pocket 9s and I win with my Ace.
All comments appreciated. I can foresee criticism for not raising pre-flop and/or on the flop.
Some comments on my thinking: Small blind is wild and his bet on the flop is by no means certainly because he has an Ace. Neither limper raised, so I felt they might had either just a Queen or an inside straight draw with K-J or K-T or J-T.
On the turn, when they all checked, this confirmed to me that probably no one but I had an Ace; when SB raised, I still was not sure he had me beat; since no one raised his flop bet, he might be pushing a smaller Ace or had some other hand I could outdraw. I also felt the limpers could have picked up a flush draw or even had 5-4 for a belly buster draw. (They are very loose, and one was, by his own admission, on a major tilt). So once they contributed an extra 4 big bets, I felt the pot odds justified my overcalling.
On the river, I called for the size of the pot.
Unusual, I think to call a bet on all 4 streets, including one raise, not improve from the flop, and win against that many opponents.
Can't criticize you for not raising preflop or on the flop with this hand specially if you don't think it will thin the field. On the turn I like your chances and the wheel seems a distant possibilty. Pre flop no raise I like A9 as most loose players are incapable of just calling with AT and up.
I must say you won this hand cuz you had the best hand not cuz you out played anyone.
Thanks to all who responded to my Pre-Flop Play Questionnaire, whether by posting to r.g.p., the 2+2 forum, or by personal email to me.
There were around twenty responses, and I have collated the results below. These were the criteria for the answers:
> I have put together a little questionnaire on pre-flop play below, on some > of the close calls come up quite regularly. > > Please assume that you have just 'sat down' in a $10-$20 holdem game > *online*. You therefore have no read on the players, none of whose names > you recognise. Therefore, the decisions must be made purely on the merits of > the cards.
There are a couple of points to be made before I list the answers:
[1] Some people gave more than one answer to certain questions. I had to discount these, unless a preference for one of the answers was given
[2] Some people responded to people who answered the questionnaire, in order to discuss just one or two of the original respondent's answers. Where possible, I have included these single answers in the final figures.
[3] The answers of 'Maniac', on the 2+2 forum, were ignored as he elected to raise at every opportunity, and I considered that he was not taking the questionnaire seriously :-)
OK then, the survey said....
> (1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
CALL [88%].....fold [12%]
> (2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
CALL [61%].....raise [31%].....fold [8%]
> (3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far.
RAISE [54%]....fold [38%].....call [8%]
A classic case of 'Pump It or Dump It'!
> (4) AJs under the gun.
RAISE [47%] CALL [47%].....fold [6%]
The first tie, and Eric on 2+2 is hereby named and shamed as tighter than a nun's **** !
> (5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it > three bets
CALL [44%].....fold [38%]....raise [18%]
This question caused perhaps the most interest and discussion with advocates of all three options. It is a *very* tough decision, but I must say that, on balance, I would be inclined to lay it down. Not only are you out of position, but it might be capped pre-flop if you just call, and there is a real chance that one of the raisers holds an overpair, in which case you're in BIG trouble. If there is no overpair out, then there's probably THREE overcards which beat you, so I think that almost *all* of your equity here is in hitting a set, and I don't think that the pot is laying you the necessary odds for that.
> (6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it > three bets.
RAISE [53%].....call [47%]
A photo finish here. I must say I like the call. If you hit your hand you can get the extra bet in on the flop or the turn with position, so you may as well wait until you hit rather than gamble here.
> (7) A9o on the button. One limper so far
FOLD [41%].....raise [33%].....call [26%]
The closest of all here, with all three options getting at least a quarter of the vote. I like the raise here, but it is close. I don't like the fold one bit though.
> (8) 22 on the button. One limper so far
FOLD [64%].....call [29%]....raise [7%]
I must say I like the call here. If you limp the flop is likely four-handed, which I think gives the implied odds to shoot for the set. You have position, and it is hardly inconceivable that the deuces will hold up!
> (9) QJs under the gun
FOLD [47%].....call [29%]....raise [24%]
Another question with genuine three-way action. I must admit this answer surprised me - OK, it's out of position, but QJs iks a hand that can win a lot of ways and I think that throwing it away is wasteful. having said that, I don't like the raise either - that's just asking to end up heads-up in the pot with a three-bettor holding JJ, QQ, KK, AA, AK or AQ, none of which is a remotely pleasant proposition.
Nope, for me this is an easy call - but only 29% agree with me....!
> (10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always > raise?
RAISE [79%].....limp [21%]
Funnily enough, I've just had precisely this situation on Paradise Poker. I would have considered limping, but I was stuck and wanted to make this hand a winner, so I popped it.
Middle position with KK (heh heh) made it three-bets, I capped it and two others came along for the ride. Flop came A-7-4 offsuit :-), and I checked it around; there was a bet, a raise, I happily made it three bets and all four came along for the turn! [why, I don't know!] Turn was a rag, I bet and got two callers, and the river was another 4. I bet my Aces Full, got one caller and dragged a nice pot :-)
Anyway, back to the quiz; I hope you enjoyed it and hope that it might be of some value to you in actual play. We got such luminaries as Mason Malmuth responding so the answers should be of some use.
Mark
Mark A,
Good job doing all this work and presenting the results. I see a lot of material for threads but I may have to hold off starting any involved ones for a few days as I'm sort of buried in home improvement hell.
Regards,.
Rick
"> (4) AJs under the gun.
RAISE [47%] CALL [47%].....fold [6%]
The first tie, and Eric on 2+2 is hereby named and shamed as tighter than a nun's **** ! "
Whoo-hoo!
In a more serious vein, if I knew the game better I might well have played it. However, I am not a person who gives a whole lot of extra value to suitedness. I see it as adding a seat or two in terms of position. I don't normally play AJo in the first three seats after the BB, so I won't tend to play AJs under the gun against a table of complete unknowns. Marginal hands should not be played up front.
And, yes, most people who don't play aginst me very often do tend to see me as tighter than a witch's **** B>}
Thanks for the moment of fame, Eric
Oops. I forgot which simile was being used, and mixed two together. That's what comes from making sure your kids don't hurt themselves or each other.
Eric
6-12 game. Fluctuating between a somewhat normal game and a crazy game. UTG limps, two callers in between, I'm one off button with black queens and raise. Button and sb muck, BB calls as does everyone else.
Flop comes Ad Kd 10c. Everyone checks to me and I check along.
Turn is another Ac. BB checks, UTG limper bets and callers in between. If either caller had an Ace they'd raise here. If UTG had an A or a K he would've bet flop (crazy gambling oriental). I'm worried about BB more than anyone but I gotta find out, I raise, BB drops and UTG and inbetweens call. River is an offsuit baby. Everyone checks to me and, like a wimp, I check.
UTG flips Q10, turn callers muck and I show QQ and drag a pot. I think the turn callers were looking for one card straights or had j10 or maybe were on a flush draw.
Now after the hand's over, BB is muttering that he threw away a king. And this brings me to my question. In these games, bets do not cause anyone with any kind of hand to drop but raises do. Has anyone here played a hand similiarly to this? If you saw this play would you classify me as a maniac?
I don't make these plays all the time. (it was putting it out there to get cut off) I am a fairly tight player preflop and on the flop but I do fire some chips on hands I choose to play (when I think I have a reasonable chance of either having the best hand or causing lesser hands to fold). I was representing AK or AQ. This game was the kind where a KQ would checkraise the flop, all kind of weird plays. Difficult to put anyone on a hand but selective pressure could move these loosies off a hand occassionally. Anyway, what do y'all think?
chris
6-12 game. Fluctuating between a somewhat normal game and a crazy game. UTG limps, two callers in between, I'm one off button with black queens and raise.
Well played keeping in mind that you may have to dump hand on flop.
Flop comes Ad Kd 10c. Everyone checks to me and I check along.
???????? Why check here? With this flop you're almost positive you are beat. Bet it. If you get check-raised great; now you know you are beat and you can lay the hand down. Okay, you could make a very weak point about your broadway straight draw but the reality is this... you raised with a good hand preflop in a multiway pot. The flop is a nightmare for your hand (especially in a game where the players play any ace and most kings), and if you continue with the hand when you are beat you could easily make your straight and still be beat. Let's also remember that almost all 6-12 and below players play any two suited cards, so if the J of diamonds falls to make your straight you are most likely beat, and if any other diamond falls along with any J you are likely beat. (That's *if* someone doesn't already have a full house or make one with your J.) Your set is probably no good if you hit it unless the board pairs in which case you could still be beat.
Turn is another Ac. BB checks, UTG limper bets and callers in between. If either caller had an Ace they'd raise here. If UTG had an A or a K he would've bet flop (crazy gambling oriental). I'm worried about BB more than anyone but I gotta find out, I raise, BB drops and UTG and inbetweens call. River is an offsuit baby. Everyone checks to me and, like a wimp, I check.
Huh?! You couldn't get me to call here (let alone *raise* with someone else's money :))) Okay you may have a point about UTG betting the flop with an A or K but many stereotypical gambling asians also love to check raise. What are you putting the two middle cold callers on? Flush draws (*both of them*) on a board where even an idiot knows that they could be drawing dead.
Then you call yourself a wimp for checking the river?! (I would be thrilled to just get a chance to show down this hand without having to put any more money in the pot.)
Bottom line: You got very lucky to have won this one and in general will get tortured if you proceed with hands like this one on this kind of board. Look for an excuse to get away from underpairs in a multiway pot; not for excuses to continue with *usually* second (or even third or fourth) best hands.
Regards- Lone Star
Thanks for the skewering. I don't see any value to betting the flop. Automatic flop bets mean nothing. So why bet the flop and get someone married to the hand.
Hold'em is a game of position; taking advantage of position does not simply mean bet at any opportunity. I admit if the inbetweeners had dropped when UTG bet the turn, my turn play is more easily justified. On the other hand, if BB had come out betting the turn I would've dropped. Or if one of the inbetweeners had raised when UTG bet, I would've dropped.
As it was I knew I had the UTG bettor beat and I felt pretty strongly that I had the callers in between us beat. So the only person I was worried about was in the BB. Now I don't know if he really had a king but what's more important is that I know he's not a caller; he's a semistrong player that plays his hand, he doesn't huff and puff and call people down; consequently, I felt that raising was the best play for two reasons: 1) It would get the BB out (remember at this point he only has one small bet in because he was the BB) 2) Give me the chance for a free showdown (not a small consideration given the 3 tier betting structure) Also if anyone bet into me on the river I don't even have to think about calling.
I appreciate your comments Lone Star but I think auto betting the flop, when you have an underpair, overpair, top set or nothing is a mistake. Sometimes you can check the flop to take a free card. Sometimes you can check the flop to get more action later. But one thing not betting the pot does is grow the pot, which keeps people in. The more people in the pot, the stronger your hand has to be to take down the money. Sometimes, especially with weak players, the time to get aggressive is on the turn. With a checked around flop (especially when you're perceived as a strong player) people get frisky with draws and second pairs and so on and you can isolate them with your overpair to middle pair or your top pair/good kicker. On the other hand if you auto bet the flop draws know you have some kind of hand and will check and call. As a result you can't isolate them.
It seems, to me, that hold'em is a game where manipulating your opponents into exposing themselves when they're weak and pouncing on them to extract the maximum amount of money. If you always play the same way; i.e. bet, bet, bet at every opportunity your opponents are more likely to play closer to correct, in other words they're more likely to check and call. But if you can get them to bet into you when you're strong so you can raise them, or check to you when you're weak so you can take a card then you've gained a tremendous advantage.
In any case, I was wondering if anyone has begun to take of advantage of these kind of turn plays. I guess it should be said that if I'd have AK or trip kings I probably would've played the hand the same way. On the other hand if I had trip 10's or trip A's I would've bet on the flop. I guess what's weird about lone star's post is that she suggests betting the flop from weakness but I checked the flop from strength. In other words, if my hand is good giving the other players a free card isn't likely to hurt me and if I bet all kind of bad things can happen.
chris
chris,
Another thing your flop check does is mimic a slow play. They expect a pre-flop raiser to bet this type of flop and when you don't they are usually concerned that you really have a big hand (despite the fact that you generally should not slowplay given a jack or a queen makes a straight).
If your read was this good on the callers of UTG's turn bet then the raise was defensible. In addition to the BB, I do think the UTG "crazy gambling oriental" could also have a king and even such a player will often lay it down when the board pairs the ace since he may believe he is drawing dead.
I have made plays similar to this when I flop bad but my check can look scary to my opponents because of my pre flop raise. An example would be an UTG raise with QQ or JJ and the flop is AKx. If I had several mediocre callers who "realize things" at a certain level then my check is very intimidating. They will often check behind on the flop. When I come out betting on fourth street they tend to put me on AK or a big set. Now if I am raised I know I am up against a hand and can play accordingly.
Regards,
Rick
In Response To: Re: Unusual 6-12 hand
>i>Thanks for the skewering. I don't see any value to betting the flop. Automatic flop bets mean nothing. So why bet the flop and get someone married to the hand.
Sorry if that's the way you took it. I was merely pointing out that the way you played this hand will cost you big time in the long run. I actually agree with you on the flop bet. My initial reaction was check it through on the flop and fold on the turn to even one bet. The consistency of this flop and the number of people in it make it such a slim possibility of winning that I don't think it's worth even one bet. *However*, you seem to be married to the Q's until someone PROVES to you that you are beat. If that is your mindset then bet the flop, let someone raise you, then get away from the hand for one small bet. With your play of raising the turn it costs you 4 small bets to find out that you are beat (in the about 95 times out of a 100 that you are beat).
Hold'em is a game of position; taking advantage of position does not simply mean bet at any opportunity.
I agree. Again, my initial thought is to get away from it without putting in another dollar. *If* you are determined to know that you are beat before laying it down, bet the flop.
As it was I knew I had the UTG bettor beat and I felt pretty strongly that I had the callers in between us beat.
And you knew that you had them beat again how? Could it not be that they were trying to check-raise the flop with a very strong hand expecting you to bet it, or perhaps that they flopped a huge hand and are themselves waiting to raise on the turn when the bet size is doubled? I don't understand how you *know* that you have 4 people beat.
I felt that raising was the best play for two reasons: 1) It would get the BB out (remember at this point he only has one small bet in because he was the BB) 2) Give me the chance for a free showdown (not a small consideration given the 3 tier betting structure) Also if anyone bet into me on the river I don't even have to think about calling.
1)Actually the BB has two small bets in after calling your preflop raise. 2) I think your chances for a free showdown most of the time are slim. I don't like the play of being willing to put in two big bets on the turn only to lay it down to one big bet on the river, but then again, I don't like the turn play at all.
I appreciate your comments Lone Star but I think auto betting the flop, when you have an underpair, overpair, top set or nothing is a mistake. Sometimes you can check the flop to take a free card.
True. And you could make a good argument for checking it through on the flop to catch your free card if your idea was to continue with the hand if and only if the turn card was a J (and tread cautiously if it is the J of diamonds). (Okay, you could argue that you could continue if a Q hits hoping the board pairs.) It's the turn play of raising once your hand looks hopeless that I don't like.
Sometimes you can check the flop to get more action later. But one thing not betting the pot does is grow the pot, which keeps people in.
Again, I agree. Let me reiterate. Your holding of QQ looked great before the flop; now it is a *really*, *really*, weak holding on this flop in a multiway pot. You don't want more action later. You want to get the heck away from it before it costs you more money!
Not betting "grows the pot". Eh???? I have no idea what growing a pot means. (Something like growing my plants?)
What it sounds like to me is that you are trying to make the result of this hand justify the way that you played it. Simple truth: You got lucky and won a pot that you won't win the vast majority of the time. If you do persist in going forward with hands like this the average 10-20 or 20-40 pro will torture you with them. Fortunately, most 6-12 players only notice their own holding and don't pay much attention to how you or anyone else plays so it won't hurt you too much at this point.
In any case, I was wondering if anyone has begun to take of advantage of these kind of turn plays. I guess it should be said that if I'd have AK or trip kings I probably would've played the hand the same way.
Confucius say Mistake to let opponent suck out on you for free when holding top two on very scary board...
Confucscious say anyone with a draw will call one bet on flop. This wasn't a 10-20 or 20-40 game; if it was it would never have been checked around on the flop. I can't say that I had a tell on the UTG player, just that he bet a lot and would've bet the flop if he had a K or an A b/c it would've given him a gut shot to broadway also. I think that the A on the turn strengthens my hand in this case.
The percentage play is definately to drop on the turn, and that's what I would do the vast majority of the time. Other situations you bet the J high flop with your queens and an ace turns and you drop there. I felt comfortable with the play, and I only have to be right one out of 6 times to make it a good move money wise. Table image wise, the only reason I can profitably make plays like this one is by successfully making plays like this one. Did you follow that? It's probably a thin wire to walk but when I have a conviction I act on it. Sometimes I lose a couple bets, other times I gain a couple bets. Maybe I should've lost the pot. I don't want to see a queen as it kills my hand.
growing the pot. enlarging the pot. making the pot bigger. I find it hard to believe that you couldn't figure out what i meant by growing the pot. I don't want the pot any bigger right now, so that gut shots are getting closer to correct odds to chase. I think its called manipulating pot odds. I still don't get the point of "charging" players when you have a vulnerable hand and you know that they'll call anyway. I also don't get betting when you know a player could checkraise with a flush draw or an ace. Maybe you could ask Abdul what he thinks. thanks
chris
You're right about getting married to queens or any hand. Although I think most players play AA worse than any other hand, there are times that an underpair is very possibly the best hand. When you hold KK and the flop is AAQ is much better than when you hold AA and the flop is JJT.
Abdul's opinion concurs with mine. Check flop, fold turn (unless turn is J) against multiple opponents.
Incidentally, the only reason my response was as harsh as it was (and I apologize for that) is that I think you are a good player (based on your posts and the amount of thought that you put into the hand) that has the potential to be a great player. One of the traps for otherwise good players is going too far with a hand after the flop because it was a good hand pre-flop.
Best of luck to you.
Regards/LoneStar
Much appreciation, Lonestar. No need to back off from your assessment of the situation. It was a risky move on my part. Or maybe just plain stupid. I can go too far with hands occassionally but there's always some kind of justification. That's probably what happened here. A creative thinker can justify any play in his own mind. I have to admit that I played this hand wrong; especially, considering the inbetween callers. In retrospect, I either got lucky or god himself was whispering in my ear. In either case, if that exact situation were to come up again I'd lay down on the turn facing a bet.
Thanks for your insights.
chris
Salinas,
Check the flop? I've never seen you check a hand @ Richard and Terrea's in H-Town. Actually, As long as you know your players which you usually do then I think your play was fine, but against unknown I bet flop and fold the turn as Lonestar said. I'm still working for those guys... Are you still in Wyoming or was that a nasty rumor...I'm posting under Razor now in cognito...Hey, it's something different and Chris was already taken.
RS
P.S. You still owe me for radio time(C.D. usage)
??????????
This LoneStar is from Texas, not living in Wyoming, in fact, has never been to Wyoming.
Sorry.
Regards
I had an interesting hand last night that I would like to hear opinions on. The game is 15-30 HM, Bellagio, fairly typical weeknight game with two weak players (one really weak) and the rest of the table fairly solid.
I'm in the SB with K9 offsuit, three limpers back to me, I call the one chip, the BB checks. The flop is K-9-2 rainbow. I bet, BB raises, fish cold calls two, decent player cold calls two, I make it three bets, they all call. (Four handed to the turn). Turn is the 7 of spades putting two spades on the board. I bet and get raised by the BB, the other two cold call two again, I just call (thinking I must be against a set as there is no real draw on the flop and now only the second to a possible back-door flush draw). The river is an offsuit 5. What's your play?
I elected to check, feeling that I was beat on the turn. All of my opponents check behind and the hand is good. I saw one of the cold callers cards (KJ) but can't figure what the others had, namely the BB. He is a solid pro that would have raised with AK preflop and also likely would have raised with KQ.
Did I play the hand right? Opinions appreciated.
Regards- Lone Star
I say the BB is on K2 or 92. Since he is in the blind and could have anything in an unraised preflop pot I have to put him of 2 pair but he may have had a weak K too and made a move at the pot.
I think you played the hand ok.
Couldn't BB have K7 or K2 or 92 of spades?
chris
I was going to call out KJ as a decent players hand but you beat me to it. (by the way was he the one who had it or was it the weak player). Also which one of the flop cards was a spade? I think BB most likely hand is 92. On the end I think it's best to check although if you can safely lay it down if raised then maybe it's best to bet.
A weaker two pair or trying to muscle with spade draw are more likely candidates than a set that he slowplayed on the flop (foregoing the last raise). With K2, waiting for a safe card and raising your flop bet looks better to him than trying to get them out on the flop. When you consider the chance of him having K7, you're more than even money to take this pot.
Whatever hand he had, it was clearly vulnerable. This is what I tend to think when someone good stops raising on the flop and raises out on the turn. In all liklihood they raised the flop and the turn, in part, trying to get the pot heads up, not necessarily trying to go for full value raises.
If he was indeed vulnerable, then you can pretty much rule out a set, as that kind of flop was exactly the kind that makes a set really strong. I agree with some of the other posters, but I wouldn't rule out a pair with an ace kicker either. Or any other king for that matter.
Hindsight says bet the river, but then we all know how good hindsight is.
- Andrew
"... we all know how good hindsight is". Nonsense. There are plenty of people who cannot predict the past. These are called "Recall Selective" or "Reality Challenged" people. I call them "Prefer 'should' over 'is'", "I cannot stand being wrong", "I cannot dare to adapt", "Feelings outweigh Facts" people, or "Socialists".
You can bluff these guys 10 times in a row but they still "know" you have something the 11th time you bet. or you can show them 20 solid hands but they still "know" you are bluffing. They can make 10 guesses to your Astrological Sign and then say "I knew it".
- Louie
It takes a special kind of decent player to call cold in small pots with a no-over-card gut-shot. They surely have pairs. 5 of you have at least a pair of Kings, meaning at least ONE of you does NOT have a King. The only hand at least as good as a pair of Kings that does not HAVE a king is 92; and the only player that can have that is the BB.
So if they are reasonable you have the best hand if the BB has a 92 and the two solid players each have a K not good enough to raise pre-flop but good enough (K2s) to call cold the blinds who by the turn obviously each can beat a pair of Kings. That's obviously not a common situation.
On the other hand the only hands that CAN beat you are 3 sets of 222s, one set of 999s, and one set of KKKs and the owner of the big sets chose not to raise pre-flop. Perhaps the BB has a set of 222s, chose not to slow play, and the callers have KJ and K2s. That's also obviously not a common situation.
If your choices are reasonably-very-slim or an-opponent-is-out-to-lunch ... Out-to-lunch is MUCH more likely. If so, there are now LOTS of combinations where you still have the best hand (vrs only 2 reasonable opponents) and could 3-bet with fained confidence.
On the other hand ... if you DO have the best hand expect the river to get checked. You could therefore very REASONABLY call the turn raise and bet the river unless its a 2 or 7 or A; figuring all other cards make a straight possible and you won't get raised by the set.
- Louie
I know a lot of solid players who don't raise with AK and know few who raise with KQ from the blind. He could have AK and raised the flop to get others out and raised the turn to try to get you to check the river. He could have K2 or 92 in the BB(Who Knows) One of the others obviously has QJ or Q-10 and was going for the gutshot on you. Now I'll read the responses and see what the smart players think.
Later,
Razor
I agree with this. Obviously, Lonestar knows the player better than any of us, but it seems to me that many top flight players would choose not to raise out of the BB with Big Slick/Big Chick. BB's play on the flop, turn, and river is consistent with AK (perhaps even KQ) and also with any 2 pair hand. However, his check on the river is inconsistent with K7,K5,K2 or frankly any 2 pair hand given the texture of the flop and final board.
Oh... I forgot to add that in my view, you played the hand well. It's pretty tough to 3 bet the bb on the turn because as you say, he quite easily could have a set with all the strength that he has repeatedly shown. However, in my short Vegas experience, I have found that many top flight players will just smoothcall on the flop when the bet comes from their immediate right in an unraised flop. If this guy falls in that category, a 3 bet from you may have been called for on the turn.
About a month ago there was a thread regarding balancing your hands. I have tried to incorporate this into my own play and wanted to get some feedback regarding my giudelines. When up front the first three positions to the left of the big blind i raise or three bet with all pairs fromm 77and up. I don't cap with my big pairs as then i would lose cover for my 77-TT. I also three bet with AK and AKs. I feel this gives me a wide range of hands and much harder to read,i also throw some of the suited connectors into the mix. Of course after the flop i pound these hands pretty hard since i have represented a big hand and continue to pound unless i feel i am beat. For early position, are these realistic guidelines? Any comments appreciated. Ice
I would rather be playing these hands later in the game like button and one or 2 off. I just hate being out of position with a weak holding.
Rounder
I can't disagree with you,however (here it comes), in the games i play in you have to do something to vary your play or you make it to easy for your opponents to steal from you when rags flop and you came in raising in early position. If you only come in raising with big pairs or big cards i believe the better players will run all over you. AS a matter of fact thats exactly what happened to me and why i have expanded my raising hands. In addition, if i come in raising and big cards flop i can steal the pot,if small cards come nobody is going to put me on a 7 (i raised with a pair of 77's) and i might get lucky and hit a straight. Playing tight aggressive is definitely the way to go but you have to figure out some way to balance otherwise your just target practice IMO. Ice
That is fine MY point was when I do this I do it IN position - you stater you do it early and that is something I just hate doing - playing weak hands out of position. I vary my play just fine but I do it in position. Otherwise we agree - prettymuch.
Rounder;
If you play various stuff in only late position players are going to observe this and adjust accordingly. I pretty much expect any player on the button to do what he wants (call, raise, fold, play junk) because EVERYBODY knows what a comfortable seat the button is.
e.g. If a button player takes a big pot with 87o I'm not going to go 'Wow, this guy is loose'.
I didn't say the button I said late - but if you want to play weak hands early be my guest - nothing worse than playing junk and being out of position.
That's too many pairs to raise with early. Instead of knocking out hands like AJ and KQ, they'll just isolate you. And if they know enough to reraise you, they'll also play hard when any big cards flop.
If you fear or respect the opponents (you're playing in a "bad" game) you should ..err.. could follow Caro's tight early position advise rather than the early position 2+2 advise which is "averaged" for "fair-to-good" games. This makes JJ a MARGINAL hand UTG in a full solid game.
Your selection seems too loose to me, but could perhaps be justified if you are really going to outplay the opponents later; meaning you interpret their actions accurately meaning your raise causes them to play predictably also meaning they fear you and you don't fear them. This is consistent with the type of game where you can confidently "pound until obviously beat".
- Louie
Balancing hands is a great idea as long as you are against players who are fairly observant. In many games, especially at the lower limits, this won't be the case and you won't gain anything from the balancing.
I'm also not too keen on balancing with mid-range pairs up front since their main value is from flopping a set. I much prefer to work in a hand like 76s, (as we explain in HPFAP), since it will have shock value as well. The problem with raising with a pair of eights, for example, is that some of your opponents will think that you have played correctly. On the other hand, if you take a 76s and raise up front, and get lucky and win in a showdown, it will not only have that balancing effect but your opponents will remember it for a long time. (By the way, if I am able to win the pot with a hand like this without a showdown I never show it since I want to be able to make the play again.)
The other day this week-end I haven't played here in 3 months and I haven't voluntarily put any money in for the first 3 rounds (uncharacteristic for me). I call in SB with 98s, BB checks, and 5 of us take the unraised flop. Flop is Q83. I have already decided to check since the last two players seem aggressive, we check to the "punk" (who I've never seen before) on the button who bets. I raise, every body folds.
As the punk folds he says "This guy never raises without a solid hand". What have we learned about the punk? What are we going to do about it?
- Louie
Louie,
We have learned that the punk will give you credit for a big hand when you raise, so he is a good target for a bluff raise. Of course, you have to pick the right situation(s) to do this.
We have also learned (if we didn't know already) that he didn't have a big hand in that spot, so he will bluff or semibluff when checked to on the end. He is a good target for a check-raise, either for value if heads up against him, or use the check-raise positionally to knock out other players by making it two bets to them.
We have also learned that he talks too much and gives away his thought process. So we will listen for future clues to how he thinks and plays.
-Kevin
Maybe he was setting you up. I've written here before, I like to look stupid at first and leave as soon as the players figure out who is playing who.
My reaction is different. I think has absolutely nothing, would love to be able to call Louie with any pair, and is setting up a reason in his own mind to call in the future.
One hand does not a session make.
The session is made up of a series of hands and moves to set up other hands. I can't comment on the punk until I know a bit more. He may just be a fair player who observed a tightish player making a strong move.
I'd have to see more of him to make a decision until then I have to put him on being a fair player.
What have we learned about the punk?
That he's dangerous. Not only is he capable of bet-folding, something which really poor players to seldom, but he is capable of throwing out tangential remarks which may or may not be intended to throw you off of your game.
Keep an eye on him, be willing to check-call more against him with mediocre hands, and let him do himself in with over-aggression.
- Andrew
As you have played very few hands in the session and have never met the player:
a) He has had you under some sort of covert surveillance and has rightly or wrongly formed an opinion. b) He is not good at expressing himself and is voicing the opinion that a seemingly tight pre-flop player (an impression that you may have created) will only raise top pair good kicker etc. post flop. c) He is making a statement that cannot be substantiated by the evidence available. He may be doing this deliberately or he may be prone to giving his opinions on any matter to anyone who cares to listen.
If a) or b) and you are happy with the impression you have created, you do not need to do anything, if not, you could show your 98s. He may have folded something like Q5s.
If c) and he is making an unsubstantiated statement deliberately - you have to ask why? The main reason I can think of is that he wishes to be known as a player who only bets a reasonable hand and will fold that hand in the face of opposition rather than a player who was trying to steal an apparently unwanted pot. He may believe that this impression will allow him to successfully bluff in hands like the one under discussion and also encourage other players to occasionally bluff against his strong hands. You could move seats to his right hand side. This would allow more opportunities to check raise and if he raises, you will be able to assess the rest of the table before acting.
When I'm checkraised in this sequence the first possible hand that comes to mind for the Sb to have is top pair/weak kicker, the second hand that comes to mind is middle pair/good kicker or middle pair/some kind of secondary draw like a three flush.
Why the button would bet with less than middle pair here I don't know. But if he is prone to open himself up to these kind of plays with no hand he doesn't seem to be a strong or even competent player. I'd play him as the aggressive until someone raises him type of player, the kind that bets overcards just because he's got overcards, the kind that doesn't pay attention to the texture of the board before attempting a semibluff, that kind of no brain/short memory player.
chris
My take was in line's with Dave's option C: he implied he bet a reasonable hand and would have called the raise except the tight-wad raised him. No, he was stealing and plans to steal in the future. It also means he doesn't call raises without a reasonable hand; this encourages me to bluff-raise or semi-bluff raise liberally, since if it doesn't work emmediately I don't need to continue on the turn since he's a favorite to call then also.
So I plan to check raise or raise HIM often.
Chris said: "Why the button would bet with less than middle pair here I don't know. But if he is prone to open himself up to these kind of plays with no hand he doesn't seem to be a strong or even competent player. ... that kind of no brain/short memory player."
Huh? Competent players don't flat out steal unwanted uncoordinated pots? The only reason NOT to steal is so the opponents don't EXPECT you to steal and start regularly check-raising you. What do you mean "no brain/short memory player"? Competent players don't flat out steal unwanted uncoordinated ..err..mmm.. what was that?
- Louie
Isn't it a general rule that one should play tighter in an unraised pot? As a wider variety of hands could possibly be out. There are 5 players in the hand.
Yes, Louie I think it's pretty stupid to bet on the button with absolutely no hand against 5 players. Players that often bet in that position and fold to a raise or a check raise are simply giving their money away. It's likely enough that someone is going to checkraise here. If it's likely that someone is going to checkraise, how much of a possibility is it that everyone will fold.
I understand what you're saying, Louie. And against 2 or 3 players a bet will win it occassionally. But against this many players I don't think it's a good bet very often.
chris
"Isn't it a general rule that one should play tighter in an unraised pot? As a wider variety of hands could possibly be out."
Making a variety of hands "wider" means adding weak ones. These weak ones make good hands less often. I agree that a K6532 board is "safer" for AK if four players called cold than if they called a single bet, and I would be more likely to bet for value. But in general I'm more aggressive when there has been no raise: I'm more likely to bet KT again on the turn with board QT84 if there was no raise pre flop. You can certainly peg a players exact hand much more often in a raised pot but that hand is more likely to beat YOURs than some cheese hand.
So "no", you need to keep higher standards (selective "tight") in a raised pot, and "no", I think you can (overall) bet less hands safely (aggressive "tight") in a raised pot.
You don't need to know WHICH weak hand will call in order to bet for va