![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Hypothetical situation, although it happens all the time :
You are on the button with Ace-rag, let's say A7o for this example.
Everyone folds to you....the small blind and big blind are both average players.....you raise. The small blind folds and the big blind calls.
The flop comes with an A and a pair like :
A88
The big blind checks to you...what should you do?
I have decided in this situation to check, and to bet or just call on the turn....you are either beat with very few outs (if he has an 8 or a A with a better kicker)...or you are far ahead and want him to catch a pair on the turn....thus a bet just costs you money (either your hand is a loser or you will make him fold and possibly cost yourself future bets).
Let's say a K comes....and he bets...well, at this point, if he bets and you raise, and he only has a K, he is inclined to fold (of course, raise if you know its a opponent who will call you down with a K). so, a call on the turn is still the best solution. notice that a lot of players can lay down a K if you raise on the turn, due to your strong pre-flop raise and your tight image (or at least my tight image), but will not lay down an A (in which you are tied anyway) or an 8.
If he checks, a bet is now probably correct, as you don't want to give him any more free cards with a K or a hand like QJ.
On the river, if a blank falls, call or bet (if he checks)
Thoughts?
Basically agree. Against suspicious players you can sometimes bet the flop. On the other hand against tricky players and a few other types of players it may be better to check on fourth st. as well as the flop.
I don't like this strategy, tell me where I'm wrong please.
Our hero, the good doctor, goes for a steal with A7o. Let's assume a 10-20 game so on the steal he is betting 20 to win 15.
The flop comes A88 giving our doctor a huge lead over every hand that does not have an 8 or an ace with a better kicker. However, AJ, AQ, AK would most likely reraise the preflop bet so we're worried about a hand with an 8 and a A9 or AT.
There's $45.00 in the pot and our hero can probably win it with a very expected bet on the flop. A check here just looks like a trap anyway. So at this point risking 10 to win $45.00 is a helluva lot better bet than betting 20 to win 15 preflop.
Bet the flop, win it there. Why give a free card to T9, J9, a three flush, or a smaller pocket pair.
The answer Sammy, is related to the size of the pot. Try again.
I suppose what you are getting at is some sort of pot odds situation whereby you try and insure that your opponent does not have the correct odds to draw to beat you, if you are in fact behind.
So, with $45.00 in the pot if you bet and the opponent is on a flush or straight draw he is getting the right price to call, but if you bet the turn, if checked to, then he is not. But, you did say that against some opponents you would check the turn as well giving your opponent two chances to draw out. Are we now entering bluff inducing territory?
BTW Although Oz and El Supremo have a nice ring to it the title I think best befits your position here is Professor, and I mean that in a good way. So, in November when I come to Vegas I'll bring you a nice shiny red apple for your desk.
The pot is so small that you can afford to lose it to runner-runner draws by giving a free flop card. If the opponent is behind and catches something on the turn, he will make a huge FToP mistake by countinuing with his hand. However, if he was ahead on the flop, you are making an even bigger FToP mistake by betting (and getting raised) the flop. This is David's logic (I think).
It does not prove the play to be absolutely correct though. If he chooses to play this tricky when somewhat strong, what will he do next time when he does not have the ace? Will he still check the flop against a blind hand? If yes, he will leak EV.
If he played like that against me, checking his ace behind (and I have a nagging feeling he would rather bet out against the Fekali family members), he would get his ass raised every time when he bet. Of course, knowing that, he would then be forced to call without the ace almost every time. As he doesn't like crapshoots, I expect to get the upper hand here very often.
That said, I still prefer betting out, but only because of my style of play. I cannot afford to water down my stealing hands by checking when having the goods.
I hope David has something to add to this, as I do value his opinion (as I often stated). In no way should this post be understood as another S&M attack.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
of course, it all depends who your opponent is. if your opponent is a tough, aware opponent, then you should bet all the time...whether you have an A or KK or 22 (I would)...if it is an average/weak opponent, less aware opponent, then I think the check is better.
That's the thing. A check here looks so suspicious that I wonder if it's worth it. I'm sure I'd at least bet the flop here, although there's a chance I'd check the turn and hopefully pick off a bluff on the river.
Izmet:
You write:
"If [David S.] played like that against me, checking his ace behind [an A88 flop], he would get his ass raised [by me in the blind] every time when he bet. Of course, knowing that, he would then be forced to call without the ace almost every time. As he doesn't like crapshoots, I expect to get the upper hand here very often."
I disagree, although I think we might just differ over your premise: that A7 with an A88 flop head-up after one raise is merely "somewhat strong" against most hands.
But if you agree that A7 and an A88 flop is a pretty overdog against most callers in the blind of steal-raises, what if you're implying, generally, is that an effective counter to a player that slowplays such hands is to play fast when they show flop strength and the board is scary (i.e., when they bluff), which in turn forces him to surrender enough hands to give you a long-run advantage.
I think David makes a simpler and deadlier adjustment: he only bets big hands on the flop and bets them until you wake up. He might lose some bluffing opportunities on the flop (he'll have to wait for the turn, where he was perhaps doing a lot of his bluffing already), but he can afford to give those up if he knows he'll be raised, as you say, "every time" he's loaded. If only done on a tit-for-tat basis, this adjustment is going to cost you a lot more than the benefit of the bluff you picked off.
I'm thinking about this (warning, bragging ahead) because I recently was in an analogous situation, where I the flop was TT8 after I called a steal raise from the blind. I bet and 3-bet the flop because I thought it would look "funny." It did, and after a lot of bets my T8 was paid by king high. Needless to say, these aren't losses that one can hope to recoup through some sort of further adjustment.
When it's used flexibly and correctly, there just isn't any defense to slowplaying outside of the illusory margin of hope the underdog receives from the better hand.
They are the kind of thought provoking stuff that, when you think about them, even if you don't arrive at a final answer, spur you to understand the game more deeply.
Oops, I apologize for missing your post, Chris (special thanks to John who brought it to my attention via his praising subject line, we're not worthy), here's my late reply:
I am very aware of the pros in David's (and yours) thinking, I often rope-a-dope a lone opponent in these situations (non-vulnerable hand, smallish pot), especially when she (see Izmet taking a stroll thru PC land) shows some strength preflop.
However, there are very important issues to consider here. I have been taught very early that it is not that important how one plays a hand in certain situation but how well one balances one's plays. In other words, do not lose your awareness of the bigger picture.
In this sense, if one plans to steal on similar flops, one needs to bet out with the goods too.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Sammy:
I think you have an undue fear of free cards (I think a lot of players do).
Without a piece of this flop the blind is a huge underdog: 11-1 with a pocket pair, 14-1 at best with middle cards with backdoor draws. The blind can have a lot of hands that are virtually-dead 2% dogs here. With two bets in the pot you can give free cards all day. And if they're the sort who get itchy when they see a scary board and sense weakness, or pay off if they catch anything, letting them out on the flop is a leak.
Chris,
First of all, where the hell have you been!!?
Second, My point was, as you probably read, that if one is willing to put up $20.00 (assuming a steal raise at 10-20) to win $15.00, then for a mere $10.00 bet on the flop $45.00 is there for the taking when yoy are more than likely way ahead.
Furthermore, by betting the flop you give away no information because 90% of the time you would bet when checked to. The only time you wouldn't bet is when you're way ahead. Therefore, the only way the big blind is putting any more money in the pot is when he can beat a pair of aces. So what have you gained by letting him in?
Free cards are scary because SMZ, Brier, Hanson, Feeney, Landale, Lepore, Fekali, Jalib, Carson, Cooke, Caro, Badger, skp, scott, Rick, Rounder, Jones, Krieger, Warren, Brunson all seem to think that giving a free card to someone who is drawing to beat you is a bad thing.
Please don' take that away from me, it's the only thing they all seem to agree on. Sure hope this doesn't start another AQ like thread. :-)
Where have I been? In the archives mostly.
I'm not sure I get your point about the flop bet versus the steal-raise. When you have aces and your opponent is the blind defender with a paired flop, well that's a big improvement, you're way ahead, the pot is bigger and the risk is smaller to boot. But whether a flop bet is twice is good or a hundred times as good as the steal-raise has nothing to do with whether you should make it. The questions are (1) how often will my opponent fold to a bet on the flop (or call the flop but automatically fold without a miracle on the turn compared to his assuming that a flop check means has a reasonable chance), and, if often, (2) is giving him a chance to lose more money on the hand worth risking the pot and a few more bets?
It can be a tricky business reconciling the need to maximize earn and avoiding free cards. For one thing, "giving" away chances to win in a poker game is so antithetical to the gist of things that free card advice tends to have a certain dismissive don't-be-a-sucker-just-don't-it tone, suggesting that slowplaying is a kind of optional trick. And it's true that in limit hold ‘em slowplaying is often out of the question because the pot is so large relative to the bet and your opponents' chance of winning. They'll either gladly pay to draw anyway or the amount you must risk to keep them around is huge compared to the extra bets you'll win when they don't. (So the question goes: do you really want to risk the entire pot for a couple of measly bets?).
I think there are also some emotional wrinkles. Slowplaying is negatively associated with bewildered newcomers (but notice how often this gives them an advantage) and trap-happy types that play poker in order to be sneaky. There may also be a practical reason to avoid free cards more than hand-EV dictates: players don't tend to go on tilt by winning too many undersized pots but they do when their opponents suck out a lot. But the fact remains that saving the slowplay for the nuts is a huge leak. Keeping a rational opponent away from the free cards in this case means giving him money.
In this particular case, let's say that your tightish or solid opponent will fold without a piece of the flop if you bet. If you check, however, he'll helplessly give some weight to the chance the his pocket pair is the best hand, or some weight to the idea that if he pairs he'll win, and some weight to the chance of his KQ-KT already being the best hand, and also some weight to the chance that you'll give it up if he bets regardless of what he probably has because you missed too (and that you'll think he slowplayed the flop, etc.). I say "helplessly" because even if he considers that you might be trying to trap, these other notions will inevitably swirl about creating, for you, a certain healthy confusion. Let's further say that this translates into your winning an average of 2 more small bets ($20) on average when he loses but only lose the $45 pot plus three small bets about 15% of the time when you're already ahead. This gives slowplaying versus betting the flop an EV of $6 per hand, more than half a small bet.
The only problematic thing about this hand is that there's a reasonable chance you're not ahead. He can easily have an 8 or a better ace. He might even trap you for a bit more than if you played it straightforwardly because you'll give more weight to the chance that he's bluffing (depending on who he is). All this means is that not betting the flop doesn't give you the additional advantage of saving you bets when he's ahead. Call it a wash.
Took you a long time to get around to "even if it depends then it doesn't matter." :-)
I appreciate your insights though especially the paragraph about creating swirls of doubt in his mind. Perhaps it's still a flaw I have that I put myself in my opponents situation and think what I would do. The flaw is they generally don't think the way I do and I have to work on figuring out how they do think.
thanks for the input.
I might have been a little confusing in that last paragraph. By "a wash" I mean that in this case slowplaying doesn't give you an advantage when you're behind (whereas it might in other cases). But since the chance of you being way ahead is so great you should still check the flop.
Chris- I think a lot of this depends on the limit. In a lower limit game, then I think you can trick the bulk of your opponents by checking the flop. They'll assume you missed, then start firing bets on the turn and the river while you meekly call... but in a mid limit game I think most opponents are fairly aware of what's probably going on if their lone opponent checks an A high flop after trying to steal the blinds.
Or at least that's the case up at the Soaring Eagle in Mt. Pleasant, and certainly the case against (many) 10-20 at the Med Club in Denver (Yes, there are a ton of bad, bad players in that game, but surprisingly many of them have an idea of where they're at on the flop. You'll see some laydowns in that game that you wouldn't expect.)
Anyway, against fairly cognizant players I'll usually bet the flop, check the turn, then call or bet the river.
Well, both approaches are about fooling people because their aim is to get paid by the worst hand. I grant you, your way more assuredly deceives those opponents that will chase you for a bet and reevalute. My way, however, puts a much larger universe of opponents there on the turn capable of making a mistake.
One of the problems is that the blind checked, which a lot of the time means "take it and I don't care if you have a dog." And if you bet close to 100% of the A88 flops after stealing-and-missing, checking when you hit must be wrong.
But if you check down some dogs for fear of a check-raise by an ace (don't you?), they'll know there's a chance that you have nothing. When the pot is laying them 4-1 on the turn, they're silly to assume that a pair is worthless, or that they only have 4 outs to a gutshot instead of 10, or that the chance of buying the pot is zero. Checking the flop buys you a whole group of players on the turn with a dilemma that wouldn't be there if you had bet. It doesn't make any difference of a lot of them smell a rat, they'll all have to make a decision with limited information and it won't always be the right one. Of course, the other players, that minority who were willing to pay a bet to see the turn will now also be more alert, but a lot of them were only going to give you one small bet anyway because the chance of you having an ace is so great. I see it as a quality of deception vs. quantity of players thing.
I might have been a little confusing in that last paragraph. By "a wash" I mean that in this case slowplaying doesn't give you an advantage when you're behind (whereas it might in other cases). But since the chance of your opponent being way behind is very good you should still check the flop.
I might have been a little confusing in that last paragraph. By "a wash" I mean that in this case slowplaying doesn't give you an advantage when you're behind (whereas it might in other cases); slowplaying here doesn't add anything and probably subracts a little. But since the chance of your opponent being way behind is very good you should still check the flop.
.
yes, free cards are scary. yes, you should not give free cards away.
however, in this specific instance, what is the free card worth? the free card can only give someone a lower pair than your aces. so what are you worried about? if a K, Q, J, T, or 9 shows up, and your opponent pairs...he may call or bet into you now. which is what you want. but if he did not have one of these cards before hand, he will probably just muck his hand due to your pre-flop strength.
if you want me to do the math for you, just let me know.
Doc,
You have become a very dangerous thinker. If you keep posting soon the masses will cease muttering their dogmatic "bet, raise or fold" mantra. Not good.
Take care.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Correct read again. Your posts demonstrate intelligence and infectious enthusiam.
Good luck, and remind me not to call your raises.
HELLO TO EVERYONE FROM HOUSTON TEXAS. SOME FRIENDS AND I HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RAKE IN LOCAL GAMES. THEY SAY IT IS TO HIGH FOR PROFITABLE PLAY ON A ROUTINE BASIS. I AGREE THAT GAME RUNNERS DO EARN EXTREME PROFITS. A FOUR GAME A WEEK HOUSE WILL GROSS A SIX FIGURE INCOME A YEAR. MY FRIENDS ARE WINNERS AND THEY FOR THE MOST PART PLAY OUT OF STATE. THEY WILL NOT PLAY IN LOCAL GAMES EXCEPT ON RARE OCCASIONS. MY POSITION IS THAT AS LONG AS THE TOTAL MONEY ON THE TABLE BELONGING TO THE PLAYERS IS STABLE OR ENCREASING. THE GAME CAN BE PROFITABLE NO MATTER WHAT THE RAKE IS . HOWEVER WHEN THE POOL OF MONEY BEGINS TO DECREASE THE GAME CHANGES DRAMATICALLY. MY POSITION IS THESE GAMES ARE PROFITABLE. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
HI!! I'm kind of new to hold em, and I have a question regarding the "blinds". Does this mean that the two people who are "in the blinds" are actually blind? Thanks.
It's a good question, one seldomly asked. It's even more seldomly answered. I'll let others elaborate.
BTW there's a guy who plays on Planet Poker with the handle mrmiami. I'm pretty sure from the way he plays that he is blind.
The term "blind" does not refer to visual acuity. A blind is a forced bet made by a person before they receive their cards. Now once everyone receives their cards, the first person to the left of the big blind must either call the blind bet, raise the bet, or fold. They cannot check. This initiates the action and forces everyone to pay to see a flop.
In 7-stud there are players who will automatically check when they receive their last card; they "check blind" without even looking. (Why? because they play better when they don't know what they have...)
The "blinds" in Holdem must post their money BEFORE they get their cards; they are in affect betting "blind" without looking at their cards. This "blind" money takes the place of antes. Since the button and blinds move clockwise around the table and everyone takes their turn as the blinds.
- Louie
Louie maybe I am mistaken but I have always viewed blind money as something fundamentally different than antes. I see blind money as a forced bet which allows the player in the blind the following privileges:
1. Unless the pot is raised he can continue with the hand at no additional cost. Everyone else must pay money to continue with the hand.
2. By putting up the blind money, the player gets to see the next 8 hands at no initial cost.
3. When a pot gets raised, the player in the blind is typically getting much better pot odds to continue than anyone else.
Antes on the other hand are not bets. They are simply money that every player contributes to the pot on every single hand. A player who puts up an ante in 7 card stud does not have any privileges over any other player since they all put up antes on every hand.
I guess in a larger sense antes and blinds have the effect of creating initial action. But I view them as fundamentally different. Is this right?
You're right, they affect the action differently.
I meant they take the place of antes in the sense that there is an initial pot to contest. Without blinds nor antes, sensible players playing against other sensible players would either only ever start with the nuts (AAA in stud) or choose to play "go fish" instead.
- Louie
SammyB, Jim and Louie,
I can't believe such a simple question produced such an entertaining and informative thread. Kudos guys.
Rick
No they're sighted. But in Colorado the term "stealing" is taken quite literally so if you come here and play in my game and try to steal, remember that they'll throw you in jail.
I'm a beginning 7-stud and holdem player in Houston. Closest casino is 3 hrs. drive. Looking for games in the Houston area for practice. ???
e-mail me danpoling@hotmail.com
You are in the small blind. Everyone folds to the cutoff seat.
Q1. Cutoff is a typical player. What hands do you just call with? What hands do you raise with?
Q2. Cutoff is a loose player. What hands do you just call with? What hands do you raise with?
Thanks, Puggy
my thought is this...if you feel the bb will not raise and the button has folded or called,then go ahead and put in your half bet....the cut off either has a hand or simply stealing the button for position....your question is quite good but so very complicated that a direct answer would take some real debate...personnally if i`m holding premium cards I dont want to drive out the last few bettors by raising until I see the flop.if i got nothing i want to see the flop as cheaply as I can and hope to hit my hand..if its rags then I might continue to slowplay my premium pair..any scare cards and i`m raising or folding.. loose playrs(knowledgeable) play more small gap connectors and small pairs so put them on a random hand with slight positive expectation. typical player(knowledgeable) put him on anything but definitely give him the benefit of the doubt and use caution... lets see if this gets you and I a debate going and more clarification to your question...again good question made me think...
jg
Sorry guys, this question wasn't phrased correctly at all.
I meant to say that in all situations, the cutoff seat RAISES, then its up to you in the small blind!
Pugg
I have seen a amazing thing on hold'em 20-40 table . In the and , there is George which is a good player and there is Bozo ( not real name but I don't know his ) which is a begginner . There are other people in the hand . There are only George and Bozo when the river is turn and 500$ in the pot . The board is 5 Q K - 8 - K and no flush possibilies . Georges bet , Bozo calls , Georges shows AK and bozo throws his two cards , the dealer takes the board and Georges ' cards and start to mix the cards and someone ask to see Bozo's card which are face down on the table yet . Bozo says : " He has 3 kings and me 3 queens " . HUH ? . The dealer turns bozo's cards , QQ he has . He didn't realize his Full house . He losts the pot with a winning hand because he throws away face down his QQ . Is there someone who could tell a funniest story ?
Board is [AAT63] player A bets, player B accidentally drops his hand face up which is (66) and raises while they are still face up, I point out it was a silly raise (accompanied by condesending sarcasm), player A re-raises, player B calls, and player A has A9.
After exhaling my coffee through my nose, I have to admit that I'M the idiot since had B not exposed his hand A wouldn't have thought his 3 Aces beat B's apparent 3-6s and wouldn't have reraised.
------------
Someone else had a story where the lady in the BB called the pre-flop raise heads-up and called the player down including on the river. She had (42o) the board was K99-3-K. The raiser had (22). While dragging the pot she said "I knew he was bluffing".
- Louie
My favorite story is from Jan Fisher, Card Player Magazine, Aug. 4, 2000
"
Later, I went to the Colorado Belle and was playing $2-$5 hold'em. Again, I was telling the story when all of a sudden, everyone at the next table (also a $2-$5 hold'em game)began shouting, "A royal flush on the board." I stood up and looked. Sure enough, the dealer had put up a community royal. Two players still were in the hand. One man bet $5 and the other threw his hand into the muck and said, "I can't beat a royal flush!"
"
Recently at a 3-6 game, the final board was Q68Q6. At the showdown, both players checked, and one turned over his pocket fours. The other player mucked upon seeing the pocket pair, and a split turned into one guy dragging the pot by simply showing his hand and saying nothing! Know the rules...
GB
I was almost Bozo once.
I had been playing 3/6 for 7 or 8 hours, was tired, and had been getting sucked out on a LOT.
I had KK and the flop was Ks 4c 10d. Turn is 8d. I had been betting and raising as much as I could, but the guys at the table I was at had been playing any two suited to the river all day and had been hitting against me.
So in my mind I am screaming "NO FREAKING DIAMOND" and sure enough, a damned diamond hits the river. The 4 of diamonds. I immediately get pissed because those guys hit their baby flushes, so pissed in fact that I don't even notice I have the full house. What an IDIOT, I FINALLY have those suckout artists right where I want them and I don't even know it. One guy bets, the other guy calls and I make what I think is a crying call.
They both turn over little suited diamonds. I disgustedly throw my KK down on the felt face up. The dealer grabs it and notices my boat just as the he is mucking my hand. He immediately grabs them again and the floor is called.
One of the suckouts is arguing vehemently that I mucked my hand, the dealer explains that I did not muck it, he did. Floor awards me the pot.
Even though it only cost me $12, I still feel like a bozo over that one.
On the upside, the guy beefing about my being awarded the pot tilted and blew the rest of his chips.
Lesson learned.
In my constant attempt to plug leaks in my game, I have found a really large one (perhaps). I don't know how to play/protect my big blind. I often find myself calling a raise with the BB against 1 or 2 opponents and mucking my hand if I don't pair AND if there is no K or A.
I do this often. Can anyone give some tips/rules/strategies for playing and protecting the blinds? A link to a web page would be cool too.
TIA - Malik
what stakes?
6-12
10-20
20-40
it makes a huge difference!!
let us know; maybe someone can help.
it's a problem for everybody.
-Chris
I play mostly 6-12 and sometimes 15-30.
It doesn't matter what the limit is. Muck the blinds, muck the blinds, muck the blinds. Full games, short games, lose games, tight games. It doesn't matter. In the small blind, muck. In the big blind, if they raise, muck. From the small blind I see about 8% of the flops. From the big blind, I see about 13%, because sometimes they don't raise.
Sound wacky? It is. Doubtful anyone here would agree with this way of playing. It started as an experiment a few years back, and it worked, so I've stuck with it. Sounds like you are longing for a change. Give it a whirl. The fringe benefits are enormous. You'll get respect when you slam a pot from the button with one of those bets you saved in the blinds. That's all I do. I take the money that "should" go in from the blinds, and put it in when it "shouldn't" go in at other times. Keeps 'em guessing, bigtime. And at the end of the day, or week, or year, it feels like I was in the catbird seat on virtually every hand I played. That's because I was. It's a dandy view.
Tommy
While I don't agree with this approach totally, it sure is an interesting take on the subject and has a lot of intuitive appeal to it.
Well, you do often have to fold after the flop. But I wrote a kind of long winded essay on this in my book.
But to get you thinking about it, look for a thread in the archives. Just a sec, let me check on that... Ah, yes, it was started by Abdul Jalib on 8/19/98, and titled "Big Blind Defense on the Flop". Also, look for a post by Tom Weideman responding to "Boris" on 7/10/98 in a thread titled "Big Blind".
I meant to start a thread about this, and then the site was real slow (connection, network, whatever) for a while, and then I was away for awhile.
I won't quote the whole essay, but in "Inside the Poker Mind" you point out that it is a mistake to call a legitimate raise w/AQ, because you are likely beaten and/or dominated. I agree with you, and felt the same way before reading your essay. But, under normal game conditions, I find it hard to fold AQ and similar hands when my BB has been raised. I am already halfway in the pot, but it doesn't seem to be a matter of pot odds, like 55 or 98s would be. It just seems like too good a hand to throw away for one bet.
How do you play in this situation? Would you prefer smaller cards that are less likely to be dominated? I have won, and lost, some nice pots this way, and would like an expert opinion or two on the subject.
Thanks, B$
Can't fold AQ in the blind except for the tightest utg raises. This hand is borderline in the blind against a tigh early raise but nevertheless playable as you are a BIG favourite if that raise happens to be suboptimal.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I'm confused. In another thread I got mildly reprimanded for saying that AQ was generally my cutoff point for calling raises (or reraising) from the BB. Now, two posters seem to agree with me.
You know how we can make a poker analogy for most of life's events? I like to make music analogies for most of poker's events. I think of AQ the same way as diminished chords. Handy, but sometimes hard to figure out when to properly apply.
Tommy
Izmet's talking about a very tight early raise, not just any raise. Not that I'd likely actually throw the AQ away there, but yeah it's probably close.
Question. Forget the AQ for a sec and let's say you've got AJ or KJ or KQ in the big blind. Are you more likely to muck these hands from the BB in multiway pots or heads up pots?
For instance, if a solid player open-raises from an early seat and everyone folds, I tend to me MORE likely to throw away these hands from the BB than if the hand is multiway. My buddy says this thinking is exactly backwards. What say you?
Tommy
Good question. First, I should say that I tend to play all those hands in either case. But that may be a bit liberal against solid early raisers. Ideally, I probably should find more times to muck them. Anyway, I lean toward your buddy's thinking. If I have a preference, it's probably to play them head up rather than very multiway. They're not very good multiway hands.
You know, as I think about it, what I personally would need to fold those hands, (with the possible exceptoin of the KJ) for one raise in the BB is a player who is *very tight with his raises, *and who plays very well postflop. What you more often see when someone is *super tight is that he'll be somewhat weak-tight postflop. I don't mind playing those hands against that guy because I feel I'll know where I'm at.
I said, "What you more often see when someone is *super tight is that he'll be somewhat weak-tight postflop. I don't mind playing those hands against that guy because I feel I'll know where I'm at."
I should have added that if the guy is *so tight that you can count on his early raise to mean only, say, AA, KK, QQ, or AK, then those hands (AJ, KJ...) probably have to just be folded, even if he is so predictable and weak-tight that, overall, you'd really like to play a lot of hands against him.
The earlier thread had to do with raises generally. This one is about early raises. It's a huge distinction.
I think using AQo as a cutoff for defending against early raises is fine when it comes to defending with big unsuited cards. But this is an area where suited makes a big difference. If you flop a flush draw, you'll have the odds to continue (barring something like an AAK flop) and your positional disadvantage is almost nil. As long as he raises with more than just pairs I like the middle suited connectors here.
4-8 holdem; very little pre-flop raising, avg. five/six seeing flop...
utg. limps, three call, button raises ( AA, KK, QQ, JJ or AK ). wk/tight - if the flop hits him hard he'll let you know it; no slowplaying for him. the four limpers are apt to have anything ( but not complete trash ).
you call with a small pair ( 2's - 6's ) from the SB. all of sudden the BB three-bets ( he doesn't like having his blind raised but he has never been one to throw $$ around - best guess, 98s at worst. maybe a big hand, but his face says not.) all the limpers call as does the button; at least we can rule out AA -- he didn't cap it and with AA he would have.
now, here's the deal:
-seven way action for three bets. -BB will bet if he flops a hand or big draw; not much ck/rsg in this game. -button will bet top pair or an over-pair if it's checked to him but won't bet with less. he'll raise ( if there's a bet ) with top-two or a set but not with less. -the limpers prob. won't bet without something serious. -if you hit your hand it's going to be a helluva pot; if you miss the flop you should get to see the turn for one bet, or ( possibly though not likely ) for free. AM I THE ONLY ONE OUT THERE WHO WOULD LOVE TO PLAY THIS EXACT SITUATION OUT FOR MY NEXT HUNDRED SMALL BLINDS... or am I just a "big pot" junkie?
by rough est. this sit. should earn you in the area of 30-35 small bets when you win it ( 15% of the time ??? ) and cost around 4.5/5 SB when you miss [ or OUCH!, get a big hand cracked ].
sounds pretty good to me.
comments, PLEASE!!!
-Chris
Sounds like a really loose table. All the 1 bet callers, called 2 more bets?
I somewhat like your hand, but with this kind of table, even if you hit your set, every possible draw in the world is going to call you to the river. Too many drawers/callers is not good for a made hand. Besides, there should be a few other pocket pairs higher than yours. Don't discredit the set over set posibility (and it will probably hit on the turn or river) 
Your made hand (flopped small set) will get beat more often than normal at this table, which negates the positive 30-35 small bets you estimated winning.
Only 1/2 of the hold'em seats have names-sb,bb,utg,cutoff,button. I think we should name them all. Here are my suggestions: SB (small blind) BB (big blind) UTG (under-the-gun) SG (shotgun - you bet these hands much like UTG) MM (middleman - 1st of the middle positions) V (the vise - caught halfway between the BB and the button) TS (trap seat - easy to be trapped into thinking you have some position here; also to be trapped in the betting) SS (steal seat - the last seat where you will tend to be given full value for opening raise, thus a good stealing position) Cutoff Button
Comments?
I do think we need a convention for naming the seats for the purposes of posting. Chris Alger and others have a suggestion. See Chris's post under the "$15-$30 Huck Seed Problem" in the Medium Stakes Hold-Em forum. Maybe we can get Mason or David to offer an opinion.
Jim Brier authored an excellent quiz regarding Limit Hold'em. It contains questions regarding pre-flop, flop, turn, and river play. Each question has a point value and there is a solutions manual. Every answer has a detailed explanation as to why it's the right choice. I found it to be an excellent resource as a beginning player. I think it would be really helpful if David and Mason could take a look at it and maybe post it on the site for others to use so Jim doesn't have to keep on emailing it to people. Obviously people will disagree on some of the answers but we can then discuss the situations on the board. Thanks.
Jeff Gagliardi
I got the quiz from Jim also...and I second Jeff's statements. The quiz was very well written and answered. It's a great help for those who are ok players...as well as a great refresher course for those that think they are good players. Even if you think you are a very good player and don't need the quiz, I think it is useful just to be able to go through it and think out how to play certain hands and why.
Mason Malmuth had an article in a recent issue of Card Player, if I'm not mistaken. In it he describes the different earnings expectations of players of varying ability at different limits.
In it he said that, in a 3-6 game a good player can make $4 per hour and an excellent player can make $12. However, I have read that only 5% of all low limit players are consistent winners.
What exactly is a 'consistent winner'? Is someone who wins 3 out of 4 sessions and averages 1/2 BB per hour at this level a consistent winner, and therefore in the top 5th percentile among these players? Or, by consistent winner, do you mean that they earn much more than this?
I started out playing low limit and have had no difficulty moving into mid limit. However, when I played low limit I averaged a bit lower than 1BB per hour. I will also note that I believe that I was one of VERY VERY few people who actually won in that game PERIOD. I can think of only a couple of other people in that game whose winnings exceeded losses. I think I was one of the top 2 people that played at that table.
Any comments or feedback?
-SmoothB-
A consistent winner is a player who wins consistently. PERIOD.
SmoothB,
Winning 75% of your sessions doesn't always means you will earn more than someone who wins only 60% of his sessions so focusing on winning sessions can be counterproductive. Here is an example.
Where I play, they have both 15/30 and 20/40 holdem. If I change tables within a limit, I'm still on one session. If I change tables to the other limit, I'm starting a new session. Since the limits are close, I move back and forth in an effort to stay in the best game (along with using the change list within my limit). Now if I focus on session wins, I might leave a good 15/30 game early and switch to the 20/40 limit in order to "book a win". Now at the 20/40 I may end up in a bad game where I can't change tables (maybe there is only one game at the other limit or it is a forced move). Now I run a little bad in the 20/40 and I am stuck. A seat opens in a very good 15/30 (which will have more long run profit potential) but I pass since I'm stuck and hate putting red ink in my logbook. So I play more time in the bad game and less in the good because I am focusing on winning sessions.
A more common manifestation of the above problem is staying up all night to play in a bad or average game because you are stuck. On the other hand, you go home quiet a bit earlier than usual because you are ahead (yet the game is very good).
The first paragraph is just my twist on what Caro, Sklansky, Mason, and Feeney among others have focused on. Switch fairly often to play in good games and don't be afraid to get up a loser if the game is bad. Then find a better game if you have time or go home early. Your percentage of winning sessions will go down but your overall expectation should go up.
Regards,
Rick
It all depends on how high the rake is, how fast the game plays, and how bad the players are. There are 3-6 games in some places that aren't super-loose, there are slow dealers/players, and many low-limit games have excessive rakes. If one or more of those describes your game, it's likely that Mason's figures would be too high, and that few players would beat the game at all. The reason only 5% of low-limit players are consistent winners is that almost everyone who wins in 3-6 will play higher quickly. Very few decent players will stay in 3-6 grinding out a few bucks per hour.
The game was 3-6 dealers choice (1/2 holdem, 1/2 omaha and other games)
rake was * 10% up to $4 * <--- Note - this is high
I made about $4 an hour in this game, and now I have been making slightly over 1BB per hour playing mid limit (10-20 up to 40-80) over the last 900 hours
I do not believe that ANYONE made 1BB per hour in that game. I don't think anyone made more at that table than I did.
I don't doubt the values in Mason's tables - but I think they only apply to Vegas style rake games.
As for 'consistent wins' - I am not sure I know what people mean by consistent. It does NOT mean that someone wins 100% of the time - I assure you that even Doyle Brunson could not win at that table every time he played there.
I also know that consistent does not mean winning 2 really hot sessions, and then not winning again for a month, but still managing to be ahead a tiny amount for the month.
Since my sessions were all of about the same duration (8-12 hours) I consider them equivalent. I won slightly more than 2/3 sessions. 3 of those losing sessions were in close succession - every hand that night ended in showdown and I won no more than 2 hands on each of those evenings. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't in very many pots - I just had the misfortune of having some very nice hands get snapped off at the river, draws never got there, etc.
I know that even Doyle Brunson couldn't have booked a win if he were in my shoes on those nights.
Anyway, I still considered myself a consistent winner even though I only won 2/3 sessions. Is that appropriate?
-SmoothB-
I think if you win 2/3 of your sessions you would definitley be a consistent winner. Of course if your losing sessions were a lot bigger than your winning sessions then this would change things. However, assuming that the size of your winning sessions are roughly equal to the size of your losing sessions, then I would say that 2/3 is very good.
Ok thanks for the clarification. My wins were actually bigger than my losses, as it happens. If it weren't for 3 BRUTAL sessions in close succession, I am sure that my hourly rate would have been about 1BB per hour and my win rate more like 75%. As it is I won 2/3 BB per hour with 2/3 winning sessions.
SmoothB
When they say 'consistent', I think they mean someone who has managed to beat the game over at least 500 hrs.
As most of you know I moved mid year from Phoenix to Chicago - the players are a lot different in the two locations - Phoenix is a lot more like LA but not as many maniacs and in Chicago there are more tighter passive games which I like but the opportunity for profit is not as great.
I went over my stats just yesterday and found my hourly rate has come down to just about 1/2 my phoenix rate and I am playing on average higher limits since I moved - I play various limits so I prefer to keep my rate in $$ trems rather than bb per hour.
So your point about MM discussing Vegas is probably a valid one. I am sure they vary in different parts of the country.
Does this mean that only 5% of all low limit players make ANY money in the long run? That is remarkable, but I believe it must be true, at least in the high rake games I've seen.
-SmoothB-
From my experience I doubt that even 5% of low limit players are winners. This is just my opinion so I could be wrong, but almost every single player in so.Cal low limit games play terrible and just push their money back and forth. Of course to beat the games the players have to beat the drop and since almost all the players play really bad, I don't think that more then 2 or 3 percent have a significant enough edge to beat the drop.
I'm hoping to get some insight on how the Hold'em games are generally at the Orleans Hotel. I have only played at the Mirage and Bellagio before on my visits to Vegas. I play small stake games.
How are the games and the quality of players?
Thanks for any information.
Rich
For those interested Bob Ciaffone has written a pretty good article on image in the new issue of Card Player.
Taking a poll. I know this has been talked about before, but what's the consensus on what sort of odds you need preflop to call with any two suited in the big blind or (assuming less than a 5% chance of being raised) the button? If you have a rule against 23s assume 53s or 92s or something similar.
Also, assume you make a flush on the last card. You only opponent, whom you also put on a flush, bets into you. He plays pretty much any two suited and won't 3-bet without the nuts. How big does your flush have to be to raise (assuming no straight flush possibility)?
The "odds" before the flop are only relevent when I have a small or medium pair. Suitedness is utterly irrelevant, since I only play pairs, AK, AQ, and maybe AJ or KQ from the BB when facing a raise. And I almost never call. Pump or dump.
Example: Small blind, I've got Q-10, suited or not. Five players limp. I still muck. (I only play four-chip eight-chip games.) Example: Big blind, I've got K-J, suited or not, one player raises and three people call. I fold.
Doubtful this helps in your search for a "consensus." lol
As a newbie here, I can't help but wonder if anyone else plays the blinds this way. My image is NOT a tight one, since I play all sorts of wacky hands when I have the chance to stab at a pot as the opener. But I fold my blinds almost every time. Basically, If I'm not leading at a pot, I don't play. Anyone else do that?
Tommy
Is there every any scuffling over who gets to sit on your right? And how do you ever get a "whacky" hand without a card below a jack unless you're paired? I can't imagine your image being affected one way or the other if you play QTs and a lot worse in the sb after a bunch of limpers.
Hi Chris,
Sorry. I sent a wrong signal.
1) Yes, there is some scuffling. When a seat comes open, the person to my right often changes seats. That's because I ALWAYS raise before the flop if I'm in (except for an occasionally limp on the button or from the big blind).
The seat changing works out perfectly for me, since generally the ones with the wherewithal to move from my right to my left are players who don't see lots of flops. When selecting seats, I give no heed to who is on my right. All I care about are the two players on my left, since I gain one position on every hand that they fold, and I can more easily rob their blinds.
2) I did not understand your question: "How do you ever get a 'wacky' hand without a card below a jack unless you are paired."
By wacky hand, I meant hands like K-4 and Q-8. When I play those hands, I am always first to open, and I always raise. Granted, it doesn't happen very often, but when it does, I almost always end up taking the pot before the flop or playing heads up against the big blind. For instance, if I've folded the last 40 hands, and I'm in the cutoff seat, and I see that the button is going to muck, and the small blind is ultra tight, and the big blind will check and fold if they miss the flop, I'll raise with almost anything.
3) You can't imagine that folding q-10 in the small blind with five limpers does not affect my image? Let's say you are playing against a guy who folds his small blind nine out of ten times for three years, raise or no raise. What would your image be of that player? Wouldn't you put him on a good hand when he finally plays?
Here's another example of a play I often make that I've only seen one other player do. Raise before the flop, get reraised, and fold, before the flop. I do that about once every eight hours.
I've been wondering lately if my view of limit hold'em is drastically different from the views of other professionals. I've heard many good things about 2+2, and after one week I find them justified. I vowed to never discuss "my way" here. But it looks like I don't play against any of the regulars here, so what the heck. There is much to be learned in this forum, and I'm listening!
Tommy
you play different than me for sure. id love to sit on your right if the games are the least bit tight. also it cant be right to fold when reraised before the flop every 8 hours unless you are playing real trash against people that only reraise with big pairs. also it cant be right to raise all the time when you come in.
Thanks for replying, Ray. Believe me, I'm as mystified as you are. I've been playing this way for three years now, 40 hours per week, and if I told you my stats, there is no way you or anyone else would believe me.
It could be an odd case of finding a peculiar quirk that happens to work in the 20-40 and 40-80 games I play in, but would be disasterous anywhere else. I don't know. Obviously, this style puts me in many unusual situations on the later streets. That is, they are unusual situations to my opponents, but not to me, because I've had lots of practice in those "impossible" situations. Perhaps some of my profit comes from those later-street ramifications.
I say this next thing with the highest respect for you and your work. Perhaps some things that "can't be right," can be right.
Tommy
Tommy:
No, you didn't send the wrong signal, I need to check my sarcasm. Sorry. And welcome!
Chris
I think "pump or dump" is a very strange theory. For instance if you are in the big blind with K-Js and four other caller. You are now getting 9.5 to 1 to call. I would call with these odds. It would be great to sit to your right.
"For instance, if you are in the big blind with K-J suited, and four other callers, you are now getting 9.5 to one to call."
Those odds feel far to short to me to justify playing when virutally the only way to win is to make a hand that will win at the showdown. And between here and there, more bets have to go into the pot, out of position. I'd rather save those bets for situations where I have a good chance of winning without a showdown, namely, hands with few players when I am last to act. Is that really so crazy?
Tommy
Besides making a winning flush is about 25/1 not good eneough for me.
Tommy you sound like me - get ready for a bashing - these stepford guys have been brain washed - but you gotta love them.
Dang, Rounder, I had a good read on you after reading ONE of your posts a week ago. I'll make you a deal. I'll take your blinds, and you take mine. Then we'll take turns pounding the stepfords with our saved bets. lol
Seriously though, I don't mind the bashing. I get the feeling you folks have covered some topics over and over already. But hey, I just got here!
Tommy
stick around tommy and get a feel for everybody before you form opinions about anyone in particluar from a small sampling of their posts. we got rid of most of the obnoxious people that had hidden agendas posting. so whats left are people that want to genuinely help those that ask. although you dont usually get the answers to your questions that you may be looking for. you may think you have a good read on rounder but he changes a little at a time along the way. i think we have him finally trained( he is going to slam me for this) to see poker as the majority of champs do, we have at this site. if you had an all around poker tournament leaving out the worlds top players the posters at 2+2 would definitely in my opinion be the favorites all the way through. good luck.
Hey Ray bring on the "worlds top" I've played most of them and I ain't scared.
:-)
Thanks Ray. I'll monitor Rounder's changes as they evolve, but I still say my initial read was right, mainly because he told me so!
I'm not adverse to "seeing poker as the majority of champs do." I do dozens of things straight from the book: never tilting, bankroll nurturing, game selection, playing hours, maintaining the zen state, etc.
But when it comes to actually playing the cards, I'm admittedly off the beaten path on just a few specific things. Are you going to train me or shall I pee in the corner with Rounder? :-)
Tommy
i cant help with any of that zen stuff. try john feeney or ed i. i think that they may be from part of that mold somewhere way back when. you dont need my training as the rest of the group will whip you into shape in no time.
I think you are getting 25:1 with implied odds. Remember there are four other players in this hand so when you do get the flush I think you are going to make more than 25 small bets profit. Plus there are times when you will flop JJx, or KJx and will win with these.
Is there a mathematical way to factor in those times when you flop a flush draw and miss, or flop top pair and get beat?
Also, that the winning hands will win less than they would in last seat. Stuff like that.
My gut tells me that when everything is weighed in, thinking in terms of pot-odds-before-the-flop is a meaningless exercise, for any hand.
Tommy
You got that right - you can figure on projected pot size but making bad decisions just cuz the pot is big is a loser IMHO.
Some of the stepfords keep pumping the pot then say hell it is so big I have to do it some more. Seems counter productive to me.
Rounder,
I have an idea what you mean by "stepfords," but only from context. Care to elaborate on meaning and history, just to appease a word junkie?
Tommy
Its based on the movie 'stepford wives'. All the wives in stepford were gradually being replaced by aliens or robots and they were all had the same characteristics.
You're in the big blind and there's an early raise and everyone folds to you. You just sat down and never saw him before. Do you just drop everything below AQ or can you profitably play some other hands? If you play some other hands, what do you like: AJo, KQo or 76s?
In this situation I like the AJ. What's this some kind of test???
I think 76s has to be better. If your opponent has bigger cards, AJo is much worse than 76s. If your opponent has a pair, AJ is only a bit better, expecially since your position gives your opponent so much more flexibility.
With 76s, you'll hit the flop more often, know where you stand when you do, and your opponent will be the one making the mistakes, such as giving you a free card on the flop when he's ahead, betting your hand when he's behind and raising and paying off when your big draw comes in.
Chris,
I'll post mine without reading the other answers.
With suited garbage (e.g. 92) in the big blind, I want about eleven to one. But 53 suited has straight value also so I would be happy with seven or maybe nine to one. And Kx suited has just enough high card strength and rarely gets beat by flush over flush that I would only need about nine to one (I rate the 53 suited higher because the king has so little value in a raised pot).
Now even in an eleven-handed game, I wouldn't play 92 suited on the button even if I was getting ten to one. The chances of flush over flush increase and your two pair value goes way down with that many opponents. But I may be guilty of fuzzy thinking here. If so, I hope I will be corrected.
I could play getting worse odds if the opponents were meek post flop but paid off on the river. I might need more against opponents who are aggressive post flop but can lay down a hand on the river.
If I put a river opponent on a flush I would want at least a queen high to raise but the situation would really dictate my move.
Regards,
Rick
If I think I can win about 27 small bets if I make a hand, I will call one raise with 92s out of the bb. It makes a difference where the raise is coming from. The earlier the better i.e, I would rather call UTg's raise as opposed to a button raise. This is because:
(a) it can't be 3 bet
(b) I am looking to hit the flop hard and want to be in a position to either checkraise and catch several players in for 2 bets or be in a position to close the betting on the flop with a call.
I am not in the hand with the rags you described I just don't call raises with hands like that.
If I were in the unraised hand and hit the flush under these circumstances I would probably raise the weak player if my flush was 9 high or better.
This subject was just what the doctor order for my game. I guess I'm in a rut where I'm not getting playable cards. To overcome my dry run of cards I've been streching position to the max. In the SB 92s has been looking really good. In the BB 34s to one raise looks good. Small pairs in early position. How dangerous is this type play? During one recent session I went over 3 hours without playing a single hand. Finally received KK in mid position. My table image so so tight the pot was very small. That followed more hours of Q8s and J9S in early position which I folded.
How do you pro's handle this type situation? Do you start playing any two suited cards in unraised pots? How far do you if any stretch starting hands just to get in the game? Or as some posters lead me to beleive, do you really just keep folding?
Thanks!
My favorite written material on this subject is a short section in Larry Phillip's book, Zen and the Art of Poker.
His words hit home because I used to do it all the time. Still do now and then, but not nearly as often. After folding and folding and folding, it's like a little switch goes off in my mind that says, "Okay, since I've been such a good boy for so long, I have now EARNED the right to play a marginal hand."
Other writers have talked about letting the cards dictate short-range image, and then adjust to how you are being perceived at that time. So after many many folds, I might take a stab at a pot with a questionable hand if the situation is just right, after the cards forced an ultra-tight image on me. I think this is a good play, but not to be overused. And it's not the same thing as playing a marginal hand out of frustration, or from having "earned the right" after many preflop folds.
That said, the hands you mentioned are best folded all the time, no matter what, because you are out of position from the blinds. I'd rather three-bet with 3-4 from the button than call one bet with it from the BB.
Tommy
Look, you are gonna have times when the cards just freeze up on you - wait it out - be patient we are all playing with the same 52 cards (although I sometimes think some don't quite have a full deck to play with
:-)
Your cards will come. If you HAVE to loosen up do it on the button where your position will make up for the lack of quality in your hands.
I have a question for Tommy about his very-rarely-call-a-raise-in-the-blinds strategy espoused below in the "any two suited" thread.
You said that you'd rather save that bet for some time when you are in late position. If I understood things right you take that "saved" bet from the blinds and use it later. Since you saved a bet earlier you feel that you can use it to play a marginal hand in stealing position such as KXo. Do I have that right?
Do you keep a mental ledger of "saved bets in the blinds" which you use later on?
My real question is whether or not the steal plays with marginal hands is really related to your blind play or did they both just come up in the same thread? If you have success stealing with the hands you do then they should be played regardless of what you did earlier in the blinds. Or is it that your refusal to defend the blinds earns you a tight enough image that you don't get called when you raise pre-flop as much as you would have otherwise?
By not calling in the blinds but raising with weak hands in late position you are risking the same amount of money but with a better edge, an edge you wouldn't have if you didn't establish yourself as a tight player with your play in the blinds?
I may have this totally wrong, I'm just a little confused.
"I may have this totally wrong, I'm just a little confused."
You have it EXACTLY right.
1) Yes, the steal plays ARE directly related to the blind play.
2)No, I do not keep a mental ledger of saved bets in the blinds to be used later.
3)Yes, the refusal to defend the blinds earns respect for the occasional steals.
The tricky thing about late position steals is that lots of times we see a flop anyway. But I've always got position, and I've always got at least some sort of hand, and I'm almost always in against one or two of the blinds.
So the play of the hand on the flop and after is part of the whole package. Typically there are only two critical spots in the play; when they check the flop, and if I bet the flop, when they check the turn.
Lately I've been using this general guideline. (This assumes I flop no pair and no draw.) If an ace or a king flops, I bet after they check. If no one check-raises, I try to determine if their mindset is, "I must improve to play on." If I think it is, then I bet again if they check the turn, and if I was right, I take the pot there. If anyone calls the turn, I almost never bluff on the river.
If no ace or king flops, I very often check the flop if I get a feeling that a bet would not win the pot right there, especially if two other players are in. Likewise, if I bet the flop and get called, it's time to "feel the table" and figure out how well they like their hand. I'll often check the turn if they check.
Some of this is crazy, I know. But by being in these kind of spots so frequently, and by checking more often than I "should," it gives strong credence to those times that I DO bet.
Also, many times the checking reverts to a common free-card situation, where I would not have called if they bet out, and then I hit what I need after checking. The end result of all this is that the opponents are often nervous because they have no idea if I'll bet or check, and their discomfort makes them easy to read.
Against players in the blinds who will bet out on the flop if they have any piece, and who will check raise me just as a test, I don't get out of line. If I raise preflop, I've got a legit hand.
I like the phrase "optimum frequency." In these situations, it comes in layers. Preflop, on the flop, on the turn. Ultimately, it is the long range ramifications of these decisions that make the most difference, not what happens on any specific hand. (This assumes many familiar faces, which is the case where I play.)
Tommy
Thanks Tommy. Very interesting thoughts. We don't see too many discussions here about how player image might turn -EV to +EV in some situations.
What I wonder though is why people don't simply read you as really tight on the blinds and reletively loose in stealing position? What makes people keep the tight image of you in late position? Is this just a natural tendency of most players? Once they made a "read" on you then tend not to adjust with more information? Or is it that the blind tightness, occuring nearly every round reinforces the image so much that they forgot that last steal attempt with K4o?
The answer is that because I am almost always last to act, I do not have to show losing hands. They are already mucked in mid battle, or as last to show, not revealed on the river.
And most of the hands I win are won on the flop or turn, again, not shown.
You know how we sometimes torture ourselves by counting the dealers since our last won pot? Well, sometimes I keep track of how many dealers since I had to show a hand. It's a big part of my game.
But you're right, many players do know what I'm doing, and adjust appropriately. But many don't. I try to only go after that second group.
Tommy
Tommy,
Do you play a lot of big bet (pot limit and no limit)? I look for players who try to defend their blinds in big bet games. I think defending or over-playing the blinds is common mistake in big bet, but I've seen very few players with your philosophy in limit games. Are there limits where you find this play less effective?
PM
I play no pot-limit, but lots of no-limit. Everything is this discussion about defending blinds has been in the limit context, with 20-40 and 40-80 in mind.
The whole idea of "defending blinds" in no limit is utterly and completely different than in limit, since in order to defend, one must call bets that are typically 5 to 20 times the size of the blind, rendering the initial blind essentially irrelevant.
The 6-12 and 9-18 games around here use a blind structure of one-chip three-chips. Those games are typically more multiway, but my blind play does not vary significantly from what's been described so far.
I "should" play more pots from the blinds in those games. But then, when I'm in the smaller games, it means I'm on the list for a bigger game, and my mindset is like that of an athlete doing stretches. I fold some playable hands, just to practice folding.
Tommy
I wonder if anyone has seen this before - I started with 33 and, without making a set, wound up winning with it on power. Just a post for fun here, although I'm sure I'll get advice whether I ask for it or not.
Full 9-handed 3-6 no-fold-em hold'em game at Casino Arizona. Usually about 6 people see each flop, with very little raising. Very passive game. I am on the button with 33. Four limp before me, I limp, both blinds call. We are 7-handed. The flop comes 444. Everyone checks (I told you the game was passive), and I don't like my hand very much. A flop bet rarely gets anyone out, and I have 6 people, each of whom is presumably drawing to 2 overcards to beat me. I also check.
The Turn comes: 444 2
Everyone checked to me again. At this point the thought gradually seeped into my head: "I have the boss hand here!" My 33 is the current best hand. Now I bet, and I had only one caller - she muttered something about "keeping me honest." The River card was a 9, and when I bet, she folded.
Just posted for your amusement.
Dick
Well, you didn't ask for play analysis but what the hell...you played well if you are correct that you would get a plethora of callers to a flop bet. The river bet is a little more dicey..I would make it if I thought my opponent would call with Ace high.
I have seen some funnier things happen:
Once on Paradise, the board had 5 different ranks, I bluffed and lost when my lone opponent called with 8 high! I am still scratching my head on that one. I figure that this fella must have hit the wrong button.
And once in live play, I was on the button with 87 or something but picked up a draw. There was a bet on the flop which I called along with one another player. No bets on turn and river. I miss and muck immediately on the river before my opponents showed. I then see them chop the pot with 7 high.
There's no end to some of my boneheaded moves but I am sure you got other things to laugh about so I'll leave it at that.
I recently saw a fun 20-40 hand.
No pre-flop raise, 5 players see flop which comes 4 6 9 rainbow. UTG bets out, fold, fold, raise, button re-raise. UTG calls and first-raiser calls. T comes on the turn, UTG checks, next player checks, button bets, UTG folds, second player calls. Ace comes on river, both players check.
The first player (who put in the first pre-flop raise) refuses to open his hand, saying it can't be good. The second player also refuses. Finally dealer tells first player to turn over, revealing 75, for a busted open-end straight draw. Button (who three bet!) mucks -- turns out button had 53, also a busted open-ender!
Boy was button's read on his opponent wrong!
Happy quads to you, NW Card Hack
My favorite story like this is once in a live game bluffing with an unmatched T6 and getting called by T7!
Reminds me of the time I had 33 in mid position, 4-8 game at Bellagio about a month ago.
UTG raises, second re-raises, fold, I fold.
Of course, flop comes 33X.
I have been playing more short handed lately. Can anyone give me any feedback on the following?
Let's say the game is 5 handed. Everyone is else is playing nearly every hand and they won't fold for a raise if they hold any face card.
Opponents have very loose preflop raising requirements. One guy was on a heater and actually raised with 72 offsuit on the button. Every hand is raised preflop.
1) What should someone limp in with or raise with from various positions?
2) What should someone defend their blind with?
3) In general, how should one play postflop if most players will not fold a hand containing any pair and will chase any reasonable draws?
Games like this are normally very easy to beat - out of all the times I've played short handed I think I've only gotten stuck twice and I usually come away a big winner.
When the game gets like this, I normally don't have to adjust my play very much and I can still come away winner because my opponents are playing too loosely. I loosened up my play to some extent, raising before the flop with any hand I would normally limp in with, including some that I would normally not play at all (like KJ offsuit UTG). I will also raise even after a limper with Ax and medium pocket pairs if I think I can knock out everyone after me.
One problem is that recently I found myself in this situation: a couple of players were playing hyper aggressively, checkraising with second pair on the turn, slowplaying big hands occasionally, and sometimes ramming both big hands and mediocre hands. It was impossible to put anyone on a hand - they played almost every hand and would change up their play. If someone had a big hand, they might check and call till the river on one hand, and then ram it the next. And they would do the same with mediocre hands.
Maybe I finally met my match for once. I got stuck about 50 BB in a 12 hour session, about half of which was played 5 handed.
The problem is that I was playing tighter than anyone else - I actually folded a few hands pre flop. So when I did come in for a raise I would get little action. I tried to change up my play, raising with ace-rag and pocket sevens types of hands and that helped a bit. I ran into a few problems -
1) I wasn't getting enough playable hands to make up for all the blinds I was paying
2) I wasn't getting action on my big hands
3) No one would fold any pair so semibluffs weren't working, and I wasn't getting great odds to draw anyway
4) I wasn't connecting with the flop often enough - IE AJ type hands would not flop a pair, etc.
Every time I would get a hand like AJ I would bet the flop if checked to no matter what came. But even if the flop came rags, someone would seem to flop a pair or a draw or better. Then on the turn I would be faced with another decision if I didn't improve - bet again knowing that a pair won't fold? Check and call, knowing that I might be folding the best hand to a semibluff?
I will post a couple of hands that I am sure I played badly under this thread.
-SmoothB-
1) Playing shorthanded, loose aggressive player to my left (I know bad idea - I moved shortly thereafter.)
1 limper, I had 99 in the cutoff, I raised, LA called, one blind folded. We saw the flop 4 handed.
Flop came A 8 4 with 2 spades. Checked to me, I bet, LA called, everyone else folded.
Turn was an offsuit T. I check, he checked along.
River was T of spades putting 2 spades on the board. I checked, he bet, I folded. I put him on a flush draw on the flop after he just called me. He often won't ram draws short handed.
After he folded he told me that he only had an eight. Since I checked the turn and river he said he thought I had a pocket pair like 7's and that his 8 was good.
He might have been lying - when I fold he often claims that he had a weaker hand than he really did to get me to call in future hands.
Here is another hand with the same guy.
2) I am in the BB with AsQc. Flop came Td 5d 2c. I checked, it got checked around.
Turn was Ad putting 3 diamonds on board. Here is my first mistake - I checked - he bet, folded around to me. I looked at him closely and noticed that he had pulled his shirt up to cover his mouth, and I could see him grinning nervously under there. He is a tricky loose aggressive player but he has a lot of tells - but he is also capable of acting. I just called.
The river brought another diamond putting 2 on the board. I checked, he bet without hesitation, and I folded.
On the turn I put him on a pretty big diamond, say the king. I knew that he did not have a flush because he would have bet the flop. On the river I don't think there was any way I could call.
Should I have checkraised the turn? Thing is if he did have any diamond in his hand he would not fold.
3) I had A7 of clubs UTG. I limped in, LA limped, another bad player limped. We took the flop 5 handed.
Flop came Tc 5c 2h. I bet, LA called, bad player raised, folded to me, I called, LA called.
Turn was 2s. Pair on board.
I checked, LA checked, bad player bet, I thoght for a minute and folded. I knew that that bad player respected/feared me a little and I knew he would not raise me without a very big hand, so I put him on a set. I folded. LA called.
River was 2c putting 3 2's on board and making my flush. Now I'm glad I folded.
LA checked, bad player bet, LA thought for a minute and made a crying call.
LA had J4 of clubs, bad player had pocket queens.
It turs out I saved myself 2 BB, but did I make a good laydown? It turns out I had more outs than I thought. Any club except the 2 or Q, any ace. I think the decision was very close since there were 6.5 BB in the pot at the time that the bad player bet, and I wasn't sure if LA would call. Since the board was paired I needed somewhat better than 5:1 odds for my flush.
Let's say I had called. Now let's say that a differnet club came on the river. There would still be a pair of 2s on board - lets also assume that this club wouldn't put 2 pair on board.
Would it normally be correct to bet my flush into this paired board after this bad player had showed so much aggression from the flop on? Normally I won't do this - am I missing bets?
4) Here is another hand - I'm not sure if I played it a bit weakly.
Full table, AQ of spades in the SB. Not raised preflop, I don't raise. We take the flop 5 handed.
flop comes 952 with 2 spades. I bet, all fold to the button who raises. I call.
This player really fears me - he later claimed that he had never beaten me in a hand until this hand!
Turn was an offsuit queen giving me top pair, nut kicker, and nut flush draw. We were heads up. He had raised me automatically on the flop so I got the feeling he had a big hand. I checked, he bet without hesitation, I called.
River was a blank. I checked and called. He had flopped a set of fives.
Should I have lost more money on this hand?
5) Another hand. I had Ac Qs in mid position. I limped, LA player on my left raised, we saw the flop 5 handed.
Flop was Q 9 4, all clubs. I had top pair, nut kicker, and nut flush draw. I bet, LA raised, all folded. I just called.
Turn was a blank. I checked and called.
River was K of spades. Clubs never got there. Check and call. He had Jx of clubs for a flush.
Should I have lost more bets here too? This guy has a lot of tells and I could just tell that he had AQ beaten.
The thing is, I know that it seems that I played a lot of these hands weakly. I know that most forum posters would recommend to ram these hands. But it turns out that, even if I didn't play them well, I minimized my losses on them.
Like I've said, I have a tight image, so I normally don't get raised by these players unless they have big hands.
Comments?
-SmoothB-
Here is another hand that I played pretty weakly. This was a bad session for me and I think part of the problem was that I was playing sub-optimally. A few bad suckouts early on, followed by playing stuck in a fast and loose short handed game was the recipe for disaster.
I had AKo in late position. 4 limpers, I raise, cutoff and button fold, we take the flop 6 handed.
Flop comes A T 4 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet, one caller, mid position player checkraises. I call, early position caller calls. Down to 3.
This player knows me well and he knows my tight reputation. The other player didn't know me.
I normally don't get raised or checkraised by less than big hands. IE if someone raises me or bets into me on a later street after i've bet and they've called, they almost always have top pair beaten.
On the turn, the flop checkraiser checked. Now I was left with a decision. There were no draws on the board that he could have checkraise-semibluffed with, and the turn was a blank. Was I going to fall for another checkraise? I decided to bet out again. This time they both just called.
River was another blank, both checked to me, I just checked and turned over AK and took the pot. The flop checkraiser mumbled 'damn kicker' and mucked his hand.
Did I play this too weakly? I like the turn bet because if he raised again I might fold. But should I have bet the river?
I think I was playing pretty weak tight this session.
I am aware of the fact that most people percieve me to to be a little too rock like, so I do change up my play quite a bit. For example, here is a hand to consider:
I raised preflop with 98 of spades on the button. 6 people saw the flop.
Q 65 rainbow with one spade. BB bet, 3 callers, I raised with my gutshot hoping for the free card. I also nearly had enough callers to make this a value bet anyway with my gutshot and backdoor flush draws.
Turn was another queen, same three callers called, and I called. Pot now had around 13BB in it (thanks to me) so I had approximately the odds to call. Plus, I wanted to throw this hand in face up to show what I was raising with.
River was a blank, bet, 1 caller, I threw my hand in face up and said 'You got me, I missed my gutshot'. the table laughed and a very stuck player took down a nice pot with trip queens.
I will often raise good with good draws on the flop if
1) the pot was raised preflop 2) There are at least 2 others in the pot (so it is really a value bet anyway) 3) I think the raise won't knock out anyone 4) I think my tight image might earn me a free card on the turn with this play
Any comments?
-SmoothB-
The AK hand. I don't really like the way you played the flop, but, as always, it depends. I think you can slow down on an individual hand if you've been ramming it previously. Short handed, the others can get a better read on you, so you need to throw them a few more curveballs than normal. Usually, though, in a full game, you'd want to play this hand strongly, probably three betting the flop, and for sure firing on the turn (if not checkraising). Big hands against you can and will happen, but their likelyhood decreases greatly shorthanded. Your top pair/top kicker is almost nut like and should be played as such.
What limit are you playing? What where are you playing? LV, LA? etc... what was the environment like?
Comments about the plays, I think you played them all fine. The times you lost, since you were raised I don't think it would be correct to ram and jam even though you had top pair/top kicker/top flush draw, etc... since ramming and jamming will lose the advantage of getting people to fold and there's no way the re-raiser will fold what is most likely a better hand than yours.
Smooth B, too many hands to comment on...I might suggest that you post them under different threads so that people can respond to the ones they want to respond to.
Overall, I am sure that I would have lost a lot more bets on almost all of the hands you have set out above. Particularly, the shothanded hands...It is tough to get the monster flops (i.e. top pair-top kicker and nut flush draw) that you got in some of your hands. You need to play them harder particularly so in shorthanded games (unless you are up against a maniac who will take your checks to mean weakness and will burn a lot of chips with incessant bluffing).
If you like shorthanded poker, there's lots of it on Planet Poker. I have not played shorthanded there yet (no experience) but have watched some. Some of the players are very very good while others are very very bad. I may start playing short if I run lucky for a while and build a bit of a bankroll at Planet.
The SH games sure look challenging and appear to be a lot more fun. At least, you don't have to sit there for what seems like hours to get a playable hand as you do in ring games.
1) River was T of spades putting 2 spades on the board. I checked, he bet, I folded. I put him on a flush draw on the flop after he just called me. He often won't ram draws short handed.
This is a complicated situation where you put yourself in a situation of having to read your opponent too well. By checking the turn, you invite a steal bet on the river by an aggressive opponent. Read “Inducing Bluffs” Theory of Poker. Typically, most aggressive players with a flush draw will try to leverage the Ace on the flop (with a raise) to make you fold under-pairs (like Queens). When you show weakness on the turn you have basically announced to your opponent that you don’t hold an Ace. With a ten or a flush draw he would most likely bet to win the pot. You induce a bluff on the river by checking the turn and then you don’t collect on your play by paying him off. When I read the post I thought that an 8 was a possibility and that you should call.
2) Should I have check-raised the turn? Thing is if he did have any diamond in his hand he would not fold.
Fundamentally, you may want to adjust your thinking on matters such as this. If you check-raised the turn (and could see his cards) you actually wouldn’t care much if he called. He’s making an error when he calls so you make money, if he folds, you still make money. Evaluating the play in retrospect is not a valid way of calculating your expectation. A raise is a much better play. The reason is: Assuming he does have a flush draw (and nothing else) and will bet the turn and river you make two bets when he misses the flush. Many opponents will give up on a bluff here, so you may only win one bet. If he makes his flush, you lose one bet. If you check-raise, and he calls (he will call with a decent flush draw) you win two bets when he fails to complete his flush and you lose two bets if the forth flush card comes. Forgetting for the sake of this argument that you have effectively stopped a bluff on 5th street, don’t forget that he is ~3.9 :1 to make his flush. When I’m a 4:1 favorite and someone lets me make an even money bet, I WANT TO BET A LOT!
3) Flop came Tc 5c 2h. I bet, LA called, bad player raised, folded to me, I called, LA called.
On this night, from the hands you’ve detailed, it looks like you may have a little of what I call , “one raise poker syndrome”. On each of the hands you talked about, your aggression stopped after the first raise! I give you credit for making some good reads, but you are making the game very difficult on yourself if you don’t take control of the betting in more of these situations. I would have a strong desire to make my Ace a good over-card. When you hold the nut draw you have an advantage over other players because "you know where the nuts are" (Doyle Brunson). In a short-handed game, you seem to be giving too much credit to the strength of your opponents’ hands. It is tough to flop a big hand short-handed. I recommend reading Sklansky’s articles on Baye’s theorem so that you have a better feel for the likelihood of hands occurring.
4) flop comes 952 with 2 spades. I bet, all fold to the button who raises. I call.
Against the type of opponent you’re describing I usually would have bet the turn here. It gives you freedom to get away from your hand on the river against a straight-forward opponent who has flopped a set, and you may have just out-drawn an over-pair to the 9. Could you absolutely rule out a hand like 6-7 spades?
When playing short-handed, it is important to “turn up the volume”. Bet’s and raises don’t signify “hand strength” as much as they do in full handed game. Your fluctuations will be larger, and generally you will find yourself playing more hands for more bets. If you are constantly relying on your ability to read every hand *just right* by calling, it will make things difficult. In addition, you must put theory and position to work for you to make “the other guy” make the tough decisions.
Good luck
I have been thinking about preflop raising in loose games.
In some of these games, depending on the lineup, my preflop raises will often thin the field, but often times they won't.
In the first example, when my raised do thin the field, I tend to raise with big pocket pairs, AK and sometimes AQ offsuit. I do not raise with suited hands and I even limp with AK suited a lot of the time from early position. And ALWAYS just limp with AQ suited.
In later position, with several limpers and no raise, I raise with AK suited, AQ suited, AJ suited, KQ suited, and sometimes KJ suited or QJ suited. Of course I also raise with the big pocket pairs. The only offsuit hand I'll raise with is AK offsuit.
From the blind, in a full loose game, I will only raise with AA, KK, AK suited. Sometimes with QQ. I will always call a raise with them but I will seldom reraise unless I think I can thin the field.
I strongly believe that many players loose far too much money by playing too loosely in the blinds. In fact, it has come to the point where the only hands I'll play in the first 3 positons are AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ, KQ suited, and pocket pairs down to 8's. I won't play KQ offsuit in early position. I will only raise with AA, KK, QQ, and AK offsuit.
If I'm playing with strangers, I will adhere to this. WHen I play with people who know me, I will occasionally mix my play up a little bit so they will remember in the future. It's funny but if 1 out of 1000 of your preflop raises is with 98 suited, people will still think it's more like 10%.
Comments?
-SmoothB-
Smoothster, where do you play? I'm not trying to be funny with this, so please don't take it the wrong way. It's just that I've noticed that the games in LV, Reno and the Bay Area (the three regions that I play) have completely different characters, and that my strategies need to change when i'm playing in different areas. As an example, I can sometimes three bet a raise with KQ suited in many Bay area games because I'm sure to get the volume that I need to play it. I usually just call in the same spot in reno, but I may muck it in vegas. all of this is, of course, dependant on the current game conditions. I was just wondering on your venue because you sound like your strategies fare well in your games, but I was wondering how they hold up in games of different textures.
Excellent point about the raise with "98s" - you don't need to do it often to make them THINK you do it often.
BTW, I like your E/P calling requirements but unless the game features alot of pre- flop raising you might be giving up quite a bit by mucking "group 3" suited's... QJ, JT, and to a lesser extent AT and KJ.
I believe ( from reading many of your posts ) you possess the talent to know when you have flopped just enough to "have 2nd place locked up" and that you can therefor avoid the traps these hands often lead to.
Then again, I don't recall you asking my advice; nor do I think your system is bad IMHO it may just not be optimal.
Keep us posted, ( no pun intended )
Chris
Thanks for the nice response. I would also like to think that I can figure out when I have 'second place locked up', but there is no one that can avoid this situation 100% of the time.
After thinking about it I can admit that I will call one raise in the blind with hands like QJ suited and the like. I'll often do it with AT suited too. But only if several people are in, and I also play VERY cautiously if I get top pair type flops.
-SmoothB-
Personally i have been trying to cut down on my pre- flop raising a little in my loose games because it has not been doing very well for me.
A freind of mine has suggested raising with big suited cards in late pos. after a few callers because if you do not like the flop they usually check to you and you can take the free card.
I think i will try this for a little while and see how it works out. I think i will only do it with AK AQ AJ and A10 suited. I would hate to make a flush and still lose.
These are low limit games where they do tend to check to the pre flop raisers.
I just wanted to add a note.
In general, if you have, say, a king high flush, don't be too worried about ace high flushes beating you.
I can honestly say that I have NEVER had a king or queen high flush beaten by a bigger flush in holdem if we are using both cards to make the flush.
I play tight so I hardly ever loose because my hand is dominated like this.
I can remember a couple of circumstances where I had KQ suited and was drawing to a flush, missed, and found out that AT suited was drawing too. But in general, if someone is drawing to a bigger flush, it is much less likely to get there anyway - more cards are out and you have fewer outs.
If I am in late position with a king high flush, and someone bets from early position, I will gladly raise. After all, assuming they DO have a flush, what is more likely - that they are betting the one flush better than you or the several that are worse?
If you get 3 bet you can go into check and call mode.
-SmoothB-
I would tend to agree with your preflop hand selections. Just make sure your play isn't too predictable for your more astute opponents. Occasionally you have to raise with a non-raising hand to confuse your opponents. Raising with the 98s UTG or pocket Fives will keep them honest and they will stop automatically raising when babies come on the flop.
Bruce
I have read in 2+2 books about factoring in the size of the pot and the number of callers when deciding whether to call with 2nd pair.
For example, lets say you are in the cutoff seat with AJ suited. You limp after several other limpers (maybe it is wiser to raise here) and the button raises. Everyone calls.
The flop comes K J 2 rainbow, none of your suit. Bet from early position, 2 other callers. What do you do? The preflop raiser remains to act after you.
From what I have read it seems like the best choice is to call. I have come to believe that this is probably not a good idea and I will generall fold here. With the preflop raiser left to act behind me, I have to worry about AK, AA, KK, JJ, etc and a subsequent raise.
Therefore I fold.
I look at these examples more as if they were from Omaha. With more people in, you have to assume that second pair has LESS value than it would if fewer people were in. Sure I might be folding the best hand for a bet from QT - ie betting their open ender. But with this hand I have few if any outs if I am not in first place right now, and there are too many people drawing against me if I am in first place.
S&M seem to indicate that this may not be the correct play, however.
Here is a less clear example -
Let's say you limp in on the button with 76 of spades after 5 limpers, and then the BB raises. All call. 7 people see a flop of:
T 6 3 with one spade. The pot is huge. BB, the pre flop raiser, checks, and UTG bets. All call. What is the correct choice here? You have a valid concern that the BB might checkraise. You have second pair/no kicker, with backdoor flush and straight draws.
Here I think the correct play is also to fold. You can't count on a seven being good because you have to worry that it might make 98 or 45 a straight. The pot is definitely large enough for these hands to call one bet with their gutshot draws.
You may also be drawing dead if you take one off to try to make 2 pair or trips. What would UTG bet here? There are no draws (except gutshots) - what could a solid UTG player have?
If UTG is solid my best guess would be TT or 66 for a set. JT suited is also a possibility if the game were loose and UTG anticipated many callers.
In this case I would also fold, although, again, it seems that the conventional wisdom indicates otherwise.
I have experimented with my play, and I find that the following recipe has always yielded the best results:
1) In general, avoid playing most hands in early position PERIOD!
2) Play a lot looser in late position if many people limp in - ie hands like JT suited, AT suited, medium pocket pairs, etc. Raise with the better ones - big suited connectors, big pocket pairs, etc. Try to tie people to a big pot when you flop something big.
3) Cut hands loose immediately if you don't get a big flop! Throw away second pair. Even if the pot is large.
Rather than chase when I flop second pair, I prefer to do the following:
Draw to gutshots (and better draws, of course) if lots of people are in and there isn't much action (assuming they are gutshots to the nuts and there is no 2 flush on board.) Actually, when I am on the button, if I flop a gutshot to the nuts and a lot of people are in I always raise. My tight image makes most people fear that I have flopped a set when rags flop. All of these people will call that extra bet, and I will usually get checked to on the turn unless the high card on board pairs.
This move also helps me get paid off handsomely when I do flop top set when rags flop. IE if the flop is 9 5 2 rainbow and I raise on the button, do I have a set or a gutshot draw? I could have 87 suited just as easily as 99 or 55 in my hand.
-SmoothB-
Let me give an example of a hand that I got trapped in because the pot was big, and why I try to discipline myself to cut these hands loose despite pot odds.
It was a pretty loose game. I had 87 of clubs in the BB.
Lots of limpers, maniac raised in late position ( I was keeping him on my right like I should.) I called the one bet from the BB because there were so many people in this pot. Someone limp reraised and I called the third bet.
The flop came JhTc9c. I flopped the bottom end of a straight with an open ended straight flush draw to boot! What could be better? I bet out, preflop limp raiser raised, 3 callers, maniac 3 bet, i capped it. All called.
Turn was a offsuit 7. Now I wasn't feeling very good about this hand. I started worrying about KQ being out there, and any 8 gave someone the same straight I had. Ouch - bad card! I also realized that even if I had the best hand on the flop, there were very few cards that would not ruin my hand. Any Q made any K a straight - any K made a Q a straight. Any 8 or 7 could give someone else a bigger straight or the same straight.
For all I knew, someone might have had a bigger club draw. And if someone had a set, which the action might indicate, any board pair would give someone a full house.
I realized that I more than likely needed 2 different non club low cards to make my hand hold up, assuming KQ wasnt already out there. My dream flop now looked like the most expenisve miracle flop I had ever seen.
I checked, bet, maniac raised, I called both bets *sigh!* and other guy called.
River was an offsuit 8 completely counterfeiting my straight! There was now a straight to the J on the board and no flush. Checked to the maniac who bet, we all made crying calls, playing the board, unable to fold, hoping to get our money back.
Maniac turned over KQ *OF CLUBS* and took down a massive pot. I was drawing completely dead the whole time. No wait - I had one out - the 6 of clubs. The J of clubs would, of course, give the other guy the bigger straight flush.
-SmoothB-
You just can not fold big hands in limit HE without loosing a fair amont of money first.
I was just involved in my 2nd set over set over set sitation in 1 mounth. I have a small pocket pair in late pos. and 7 callers to me, i call flop bottom set, betting gets capped with no flush or str8 draw possible.
I bet the turn and it is raised and reraised by solid players by the time it gets back to me ,i fold.
Some times you just have to loose money befor you know you are beat.
Set over set is one thing and a good player SHOULD lose money when they flop a set, different story to flopping the ignorant end of a straight good players usually know when they are beaten with this weak hand.
Of course it is easy to get tangled up in a hand and lose sight of the fact that you have no chance what so ever. I used to do it with regularity until about 2 years ago.
SB I routinely muck hands when I flop bottom end of the straight and paints make up the top end. 9TJ flop is death to a 87 hand - any real multi way action and I'm outta there.
I know what you mean. I would have mucked this hand on the turn after all that action, but I had the flush draw to go with it. I was hoping that my flush might be good if it hit. And I had the 2 outter for the straight flush draw. (I didn't know at the time that the J of clubs would give someone a bigger SF.)
-SmoothB-
When you talk about A-J offsuit, I refer you to the part that says "A-J offsuit is junk in a multiway pot with loose players". This hand should often be folded against several players. For EXACTLY reasons like the one you mention. It is a very difficult hand to play precisely.
The second example of your 6-7. If you you call 2 bets before the flop you will be faced with many flops like this. I would raise, and folding would be my least favorite play.
Also, You may need to adjust your mindset when playing Hold'em. Many of your thoughts are those of an Omaha player. You are against monster draws less frequently in Hold'em and you can't always be concerned with them.
I'm not sure what you mean about often folding AJ preflop vs. "several" players. If you limp with AJ in a loose game, you're almost always going to have a least 2 opponents (the blinds) and usually at least 3, so are you suggesting that one should normally fold AJ unless a raise can get it down to 2?
I think folding AJ in late position after 4 or 5 loose limpers, none of whom are likely to have a better hand, has to be a mistake.
Dropping AT, KT and KJ to a big field makes sense, but a preference for ordinarily folding AJ in a loose game strikes me as way too tight.
I think you misunderstood me. I will gladly play AJ offsuit in an unraised pot after several loose limpers. I was referring to playing AJo UTG. I won't play it here in any game. Well, I suppose I would play it in a near ideal game.
And my original post actually refers to AJ suited, if it makes any difference. I might be more inclined to play this hand UTG in a loose game, especially if it wasn't very aggressive.
-SmoothB-
I was paraphrasing hpfap. In a structured game A-J loses a lot of value (hands with implied odds gain the value). I consider several players to be more than 6. Playing a spread limit game, the hand can be played versus more players because of the increased leverage that the flop bet has.
The reason that I compare holdem in multiway pots to Omaha is that, with more cards out in players hands, the best hand at showdown becomes closer to the nuts.